>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I don't think this is true.
Up until 1/1/2009 Vatican City automatically adopted Italian laws. As of that date, they must now pass a review process before they are accepted. Back in 1929 when the Lateran Treaty was signed, Italy, and thus VC, had an age of consent of 12 but it has since been raised to 14. This took place while VC was still automatically accepting Italian law, so it should be 14 now.
A lot of people seem to believe that it's still 12, but it seems otherwise.
It's 13 in Spain and, leaving Europe, Yemen was 15 until 1999 when they lowered it to 9. Africa has some countries with pretty low ones, too. Of course it probably doesn't matter; If they don't prosecute rape, I doubt they prosecute statutory rape.

Correct
"The Vatican does not have its own separate criminal code. Instead, in matters of criminal law, as per Article 3 of the "Law of the Source of Law" (one of the six fundamental laws adopted upon ratification of the Lateran Treaty in 1929) the Vatican State generally uses current Italian national law, as well as regional and municipal laws for Rome, as long as they do not conflict with ecclesiastical law or laws specifically promulgated by Pope for the Vatican.[39] As a result, the age of consent is the same as that of Italy. Before January 1, 2009, the adoption by the Vatican of changes made by Italy in its laws was automatic. Effective January 1, 2009, the Vatican adoption of changes in Italian law is no longer automatic but comes into effect only after a review.[40] However, as Italy adopted its present age of consent before January 1, 2009, this change in Vatican policy does not affect the age of consent in Vatican City, which remains the same as that of Italy. The claim is sometimes found that "In the Vatican State, there is an equal age of consent set at 12 years of age",[41] but this is not correct. The misunderstanding derives from the fact that Vatican Law follows Italian law. In 1929, when the Lateran Treaty was signed, the age of consent in Italy was 12,[42] and so the same was true then in Vatican City. However, since that time the Italian law has been changed, and so the laws of Vatican City (in accordance with the policy that was in place until January 1, 2009) changed automatically with them. Since there has been no change in the Italian age of consent since January 1, 2009, the two remain identical with no further review by the Vatican."


Still though, 14. Wow.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I don't think this is true.
Up until 1/1/2009 Vatican City automatically adopted Italian laws. As of that date, they must now pass a review process before they are accepted. Back in 1929 when the Lateran Treaty was signed, Italy, and thus VC, had an age of consent of 12 but it has since been raised to 14. This took place while VC was still automatically accepting Italian law, so it should be 14 now.
A lot of people seem to believe that it's still 12, but it seems otherwise.
It's 13 in Spain and, leaving Europe, Yemen was 15 until 1999 when they lowered it to 9. Africa has some countries with pretty low ones, too. Of course it probably doesn't matter; If they don't prosecute rape, I doubt they prosecute statutory rape.


Correct

"The Vatican does not have its own separate criminal code. Instead, in matters of criminal law, as per Article 3 of the "Law of the Source of Law" (one of the six fundamental laws adopted upon ratification of the Lateran Treaty in 1929) the Vatican State generally uses current Italian national law, as well as regional and municipal laws for Rome, as long as they do not conflict with ecclesiastical law or laws specifically promulgated by Pope for the Vatican.[39] As a result, the age of consent is the same as that of Italy. Before January 1, 2009, the adoption by the Vatican of changes made by Italy in its laws was automatic. Effective January 1, 2009, the Vatican adoption of changes in Italian law is no longer automatic but comes into effect only after a review.[40] However, as Italy adopted its present age of consent before January 1, 2009, this change in Vatican policy does not affect the age of consent in Vatican City, which remains the same as that of Italy. The claim is sometimes found that "In the Vatican State, there is an equal age of consent set at 12 years of age",[41] but this is not correct. The misunderstanding derives from the fact that Vatican Law follows Italian law. In 1929, when the Lateran Treaty was signed, the age of consent in Italy was 12,[42] and so the same was true then in Vatican City. However, since that time the Italian law has been changed, and so the laws of Vatican City (in accordance with the policy that was in place until January 1, 2009) changed automatically with them. Since there has been no change in the Italian age of consent since January 1, 2009, the two remain identical with no further review by the Vatican."

I don't think this is true.

Up until 1/1/2009 Vatican City automatically adopted Italian laws. As of that date, they must now pass a review process before they are accepted. Back in 1929 when the Lateran Treaty was signed, Italy, and thus VC, had an age of consent of 12 but it has since been raised to 14. This took place while VC was still automatically accepting Italian law, so it should be 14 now.

A lot of people seem to believe that it's still 12, but it seems otherwise.

It's 13 in Spain and, leaving Europe, Yemen was 15 until 1999 when they lowered it to 9. Africa has some countries with pretty low ones, too. Of course it probably doesn't matter; If they don't prosecute rape, I doubt they prosecute statutory rape.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephen fry, vatican city, highest, crime, rate, lowest, age, consent' to 'stephen fry, vatican city, highest crime rate, lowest age of consent' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Yogi:
My theory about the High crime rate is that there's a lot of tourists there and others come to Vatican City to steal from the tourists. Pickpockets and such.

Bingo


Go forth and let it be known...I AM the rightest commenter on the sift!

>> ^Yogi:

My theory about the High crime rate is that there's a lot of tourists there and others come to Vatican City to steal from the tourists. Pickpockets and such.


Bingo

My theory about the High crime rate is that there's a lot of tourists there and others come to Vatican City to steal from the tourists. Pickpockets and such.

Your video, QI: Vatican City Has the Lowest Age of Consent, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^kymbos:

Amazing - no one knows what to say to any of that...


One of those fact stranger than fiction moments

BOOSH! ... you just got rembar'ed


>> ^rembar:

There are a few good comments here with a bunch of crap floating around them. Having just watched the video and browsed the article, I am going to boot this the fuck out of Science for shittiness.
As no-really pointed out, looking at the scientific output for nations where Islam is the state religion does not say much about the scientific output of Muslims in general. If we looked at the output for nations where some form of Christianity is the state religion, what do you think you'd see?
England + Costa Rica + Liechtenstein + Malta + Monaco + Vatican City + Cyprus + Greece + Finland + Denmark + Iceland + Norway + Tuvalu = England + meh.
England is the only real heavy hitter in there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Christian_countries
At very best, a reasonable argument could be made that there is a correlation between low scientific output of nations with state religions, but I'll eat a dick or two if you can dig through the confounding factors to make a solid case for that.
Point being, this video sucks, the article linked sucked too, and don't make broad generalizations about Islam and science without being able to back it up with scientific proof.
Fuck this, I'm out.
nochannel
religion
islam

There are a few good comments here with a bunch of crap floating around them. Having just watched the video and browsed the article, I am going to boot this the fuck out of Science for shittiness.

As no-really pointed out, looking at the scientific output for nations where Islam is the state religion does not say much about the scientific output of Muslims in general. If we looked at the output for nations where some form of Christianity is the state religion, what do you think you'd see?

England + Costa Rica + Liechtenstein + Malta + Monaco + Vatican City + Cyprus + Greece + Finland + Denmark + Iceland + Norway + Tuvalu = England + meh.

England is the only real heavy hitter in there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Christian_countries

At very best, a reasonable argument could be made that there is a correlation between low scientific output of nations with state religions, but I'll eat a dick or two if you can dig through the confounding factors to make a solid case for that.

Point being, this video sucks, the article linked sucked too, and don't make broad generalizations about Islam and science without being able to back it up with scientific proof.

Fuck this, I'm out.

*nochannel
*religion
*islam

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Man, I hope the pope is arrested.
That would make my day.

I think I'd be happy for a week on that one fact. Or if we went to war with Vatican city.

The offensive line for the Vatican City Holy Sees is absolutely horrendous this year. First of all, the new quarterback has been in for a few years, yet he can't maneuver well outside of the pocket. He just stands there and waits to be sacked. Secondly, the guards can't take down a linebacker who's probably 5'5" and barely 100 pounds? That's just poor defensive skills. I don't know who to start blaming for this, but heads are gonna roll if this team can't get itself together before the playoffs.

Oh that I can agree with. The bureaucracy of a government is immense and stupefying. And politicians see themselves as gods among men, who don't really have time for the "rabble" until election time, where babies are kissed and interns are hidden. I would like to see some other form of leadership, but anything over a certain size just can't be organized of individual autonomous parts and the solution we've used so far is representational democracy. I don't like it as such, as people should be able to "reason" any laws a regulations by themselves, but people are vastly different in what they see as "proper", so we make real written laws to be able to "live with our neighbors" and have a common codex to adhere to.

I think there is a distinction to be made between the law and government.

While we're speaking of government/religion, I find it hilarious that most conservative republicans and libertarians too, for that matter, adhere to the constitution as if its a holy text. The founding fathers were not Jesuses, they were only smart people. And we've evolved since then, which is why the constitution also must be able to change and not be the end-all solution.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
You and the other Stalinists can love the State, I'll take the road of loving my personal freedoms.

Government is a religion. It's not supernatural in its origins, but it's a set of rituals and beliefs that are archaic and primitive just as any theistic religion. The followers are patrons of the dogma, and they believe they're a democratic voice in the shaping of the system. But their vote is no more a persuasive element of change in the religion of government as the prayer is to the institution of Christianity.

In the U.S. I'd like to see anyone without money or clout receive an audience with their representative as they couldn't with their Cardinals in Vatican City. It's an unshakable, unmovable entity where the commoner has no voice outside of his belief in his prayer... or vote.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
You sir, have found my button and pressed it!
I think you're extrapolating a bit too much though. Government has no supernatural element, no arbitrary laws. Laws have been decided on by people who were elected by us; if we want to change those, we have to elect other people.

Alcohol may be a mind altering drug, but it is not inherently dangerous if you "lose control"; a car is. We do also have a sort of alcohol "license" though, in that you have to be 18 (or what ever limit has been imposed) - that in itself also limits kids' freedom.

Learn to stop worrying and love the state.

You and the other Stalinists can love the State, I'll take the road of loving my personal freedoms.

Government is a religion. It's not supernatural in its origins, but it's a set of rituals and beliefs that are archaic and primitive just as any theistic religion. The followers are patrons of the dogma, and they believe they're a democratic voice in the shaping of the system. But their vote is no more a persuasive element of change in the religion of government as the prayer is to the institution of Christianity.

In the U.S. I'd like to see anyone without money or clout receive an audience with their representative as they couldn't with their Cardinals in Vatican City. It's an unshakable, unmovable entity where the commoner has no voice outside of his belief in his prayer... or vote.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
You sir, have found my button and pressed it!
I think you're extrapolating a bit too much though. Government has no supernatural element, no arbitrary laws. Laws have been decided on by people who were elected by us; if we want to change those, we have to elect other people.

Alcohol may be a mind altering drug, but it is not inherently dangerous if you "lose control"; a car is. We do also have a sort of alcohol "license" though, in that you have to be 18 (or what ever limit has been imposed) - that in itself also limits kids' freedom.

Learn to stop worrying and love the state.