I personally don't see how having children matters in this. It's not like parents can always tell when a child stops being innocent, or whether innocence is some kind of transcendental essence, embodied in childhood.

if a person violates the innocence of a young child, they are shunned and shown deep hatred for their actions, to the point of being beaten to death. — Shawn

I don't think the kinds of people who beat pedophiles, say, are necessarily considering notions of innocence. I have worked with numerous prisoners and gang members and this does not really come up. They beat pedophiles, but also gays and trans people, because it is a subculture expectation that certain folk have it coming. Kids can't defend themselves and most people have an innate wish to protect the weak (the vulnerable and the trusting) from the strong predator. The same code holds for those who prey on older people. They get bashed in jail too. A more complex understanding of innocence itself is probably not part of the framing.

In the field of law there's a dictum or principle that one must be assumed innocent until proven guilty. — Shawn

In that instance, 'innocence' simply means that the accused has not committed the particular crime of which he stands accused. It does not mean a general innocence, as of a newborn babe.

In the instance where one refers to the innocence of a child, that is a relative term. It means that the child is ignorant enough of right and wrong not to be held fully responsible for his actions. In this usage, the term is flexible both as to the age of the child and as to what kinds of action is considered beyond his capacity to appreciate the gravity of performing them.

In the far narrower context of

violates the innocence of a young child, — Shawn

, it usually refers to activities of a sexual nature, to which the child is physically and/or emotionally too immature to consent.

I think that by having children one is not only implicitly; but, explicitly responsible for maintaining the innocence of the child. — Shawn

So long as the child is a minor, the parent is required to protect it both from premature sexual contacts and from criminal involvement. However, the degree of childhood innocence in all areas of human experience steadily diminishes from age 0 to adulthood. Some adults continue long after the age of majority to maintain a degree of childlike innocence; some people carry vestiges of it through life.

So, how do parents view this topic? — Shawn

As a challenge. By the time a child acquires language, her innocence has already begun to erode. Typically, a child begins to lie - verbally, deliberately - around the age of four. Before that, there are moments of guile, subterfuge, duplicity, but they are usually opportunistic crimes, not premeditated ones.
By age six, children are quite aware that adults also lie, and they've begun to understand which lies are motivated by kindness and which are self-serving; which are defensive and which aggressive; which have the best chance of being forgiven and which are most likely to be punished.

By age six, the child has been disillusioned of many fictions adults had invented to shelter and preserve her in innocence. She will have seen at least one adult naked, become aware that Santa Claus is a story, realized that parents are fallible, self-contradictory, sometimes unfair and not always reliable. She has learned that promises are provisional and rules are elastic.
When he enters the school system, the child is no longer wrapped in a cocoon of innocence - nor should he be. He must learn to navigate a society in which deceit and chicanery play prominent roles.
It is the parents' assigned task to prepare them as well as possible.

I personally don't see how having children matters in this. — Tom Storm

Then quite possibly I assumed that those with the highest degree of innocence, or the understanding thereof, would lead to some better understanding of the issue.

It's not like parents can always tell when a child stops being innocent, or whether innocence is some kind of transcendental essence, embodied in childhood. — Tom Storm

Again, I assumed that parents know or are responsible for maintaining the state of childhood called 'innocence'.

Kids can't defend themselves and most people have an innate wish to protect the weak (the vulnerable and the trusting) from the strong predator. — Tom Storm

Strange how gang members or criminals in the US have a thing for such people preying on the weak.

A more complex understanding of innocence itself is probably not part of the framing. — Tom Storm

Possibly then that I got it mixed up. Thanks for the input!

When he enters the school system, the child is no longer wrapped in a cocoon of innocence - nor should he be. He must learn to navigate a society in which deceit and chicanery play prominent roles.
It is the parents' assigned task to prepare them as well as possible. — Vera Mont

I've always been a proponent of homeschooling, which is something popular in the US. There are different theories of how schooling should work. I'll leave the topic of schooling the young at that.

Strange how gang members or criminals in the US have a thing for such people preying on the weak. — Shawn

Criminal codes like these are multicultural and well understood. They are only strange the way much human behavior is strange.

Again, I assumed that parents know or are responsible for maintaining the state of childhood called 'innocence'. — Shawn

I never saw it this way. My daughter is now 28.

But sure, you protect, where you can, children from safety hazards and from exposure to ideas/images that may harm them. But this is massively inexact and some exposure is unavoidable in the modern world. The key is to not overthink it and be one of those fabled 'helicopter' parents. The real job here is to help them make sense of things, not censor them.

When I think back to my own childhood, I consider innocence to be combination of ignorance, inexperience, naivety and inchoateness. I do not associate it with 'purity' as I tend to think of this word (when applied to humans) as having a Christian association - as in purity culture. As a secularist, I see no use for such a frame.

I do not associate it with 'purity' as I tend to think of this word (when applied to humans) as having a Christian association - as in purity culture. As a secularist, I see no use for such a frame. — Tom Storm

Yes, well... The Christian and philosophical concept of 'purity' seems to be at play in this topic, as you say. I also think that from the philosophical concept of purity, per Locke's tabula rasa, there's quite a lot of concern to create a world where innocence can flourish without impediment. Regarding censorship and exposure, the US once banned Brave New World by Huxley. There's also the point to be made about how cautious we are about allowing what we deem as potentially harmful various substances like alcohol or drugs. I'm sure there is more to be said about this...

I've always been a proponent of homeschooling, which is something popular in the US. — Shawn

Yeah. It's largely uncontrolled, so that no authorities know which parents are beating their kids, or making them kneel on cement floors as penance. I've seen a number of home-schooling textbooks. The basic arithmetic and spelling are fine, but when you get into science, it's often sadly deficient and the history/social studies courses reek of exceptional nationalism. I have seen no materials at all - none - on sex education or general health and hygiene. If innocence means ignorance, you're on the right track.

I'm sure there are parents who are qualified to teach a range of subjects properly, make sure their children have enough exercise and learn manual skills and arts and also co-ordinate peer group encounters so that their children don't grow up isolated and socially inept. I can't help but suppose they're a minority.

..innocent until proven guilty. ... ..the innocence of a young child... — Shawn

Those are two different senses of innocence.

In the context of law, innocence means that the suspect is considered not guilty until proven guilty. I suppose it demotivates lynch mobs, and preserves the integrity of justice. It's a technical use of the word 'innocence'.

The innocence of a young child, however, seems to be based on the assumption that young children are incapable of being guilty or responsible for their actions..They have yet to learn the meanings and consequences of their actions, and can't be held responsible until they're old enough. But how old?

Children are being recruited as soldiers in wars, and as assassins in gang related conflicts. Young innocent looking children can be monsters.

There is a great danger in infantilizing our young, and in idealizing ignorance as a state of bliss.
Children are capable of understanding, learning and doing far more than we allow them to.

There is a great danger in infantilizing our young, and in idealizing ignorance as a state of bliss.
Children are capable of understanding, learning and doing far more than we allow them to. — Vera Mont

Totally agree. I recall as a young child desperately wanting not to be innocent/ignorant because I wanted to engage with the world more fully.

@Tom Storm,
"I recall...wanted to engage with the world more fully"
Poignant comment with the age limit for social media debate currently going on amongst Australian "adults".
open eyed smile

The last few weeks I've been looking after a poodle-spaniel cross ('cavoodle') about a year old. She's never been neglected or hit, and as a consequence she has a kind of child-like innocence about her - everything is new, everything is a fun game, other dogs and people are all potentially friends. So she has that kind of quality of innocence, in a dog kind of way.

So I guess the attraction is that innocence represents purity, unspoildness, and spontaneity. I think that's why many modern societies express reverence for nature and the environment. It's the opposite of jadedness, of cynicism, of remembered or forgotten pain and guilt.

Nicely put. Resonates also with the disenchanted world - Weber and Schiller.

Yes, well for little Cara, the world is indeed a vast enchanted garden.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/sep/11/the-happiness-of-dogs-by-mark-rowlands-review-a-masterclass-in-canine-philosophy

Sweet. Have you seen David Bentley Hart's dog book, described as a Platonic dialogue beast fable, Roland In Moonlight. Hart says it's the work he's most proud of.

now you mention that, I have noticed it, although haven't looked at it. I've just bought the Kindle edition of his The World is Full of Gods, which I quite like, although as I basically agree with every word in it, am finding it hard to actually enjoy. :rofl:

Innocence:— that from which one has fallen. It only has importance or even meaning from the point of view of the fallen, as the name and symbol of the paradise that has been lost.

As a parent, one knows that human innocence must inevitably be lost as the price of participation in society. One hopes and endeavours that one's child (and every child) loses their own innocence, rather than have it wrenched by another from them untimely.

What is innocence, and why is it very important to society and law? — Shawn

The presumption of innocence in the law describes the burden of proof, placing it entirely upon the state in proving the crime was committed. That is, the accused sits in the chair prior to the evidence being submitted as being considered fully innocent, and the prosecutor must then prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with the accused having no burden and having the right not to present any evidence and to remain silent if he so chooses.

That has nothing really to do with actual innocence like when a young innocent man loses his virginity to a seductress with golden flowing hair, a gentle smile, and ever so secret plans for the future.

An alternate legal system that assumes the accused guilty and then places the burden on the state to prove innocence might be more humane, as it would impose upon the people the duty to find the accused's excuses as opposed to proving him wrong, which is just to say there is more than one way to skin a cat, if skinning cats is what you do.

What is innocence, and why is it very important to society and law? — Shawn

I would say the word is being doubly applied, albeit the differences are arguably subtle.

Legal innocence, even irrespective of poetic arguments to tge contrary, just means one is not guilty, in the same sense as tge verdict. That is, innocence means entitled to due process before a verdict can be concluded.

A Child's Innocence (the legal implications are incidental. There are implications across the spectrum of 'knowledge'), in my opinion, is intuitive by many adults because it 'uncovers' a truth (maybe the truth). A child is innocent because they remain closer to the organic truth of a human animal. There haven't been enough Signifiers, and their associated structures, laws and dynamics, to fully displace organic sensation, mood and imagination, with perception, emotions, and make-believe. Thus the child is the real deal in our pursuit of truth and being.

To tie that in with the legal innocence of a child as victim, not accused; the fact that a child is a real human animal who is in the ineluctable process of being 'tainted' with make-belief is 'bad' enough (vis a vis our longing for truth and reality; for our survival, we have derived many benefits from our constructions and projections, hence human Mind is perpetuated); but to add insult to injury by inputting the worst of our worst in make-believe; a violent, selfish, oppressive set of Signifiers, we see that as a gross violation of their natural 'innocence ' I.e., of their, our true natures.