The Student Room Group

Am I wrong in feeling a little sorry for Adam Johnson?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Underscore__
With how loosely you throw words around I can't believe you're making an argument based on semantics. A fifteen year old lacks the capacity to consent. The reason the age is set at 16 is because of the theory that at 16 someone is capable (has the capacity) of consenting. Whilst yes it isn't 'rape' the capacity to consent is still the issue


Posted from TSR Mobile


No it isn't the issue. The prosecution does not need to prove absence of consent. The defence will get nowhere saying she consented. The judge will tell the jury consent is irrelevant. The only question for the court will be how old is she? Did sexual activity take place?

What we have, unlike some other jurisdictions, is an aged based rule not an aged based presumption of ability to consent.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Underscore__
With how loosely you throw words around I can't believe you're making an argument based on semantics. A fifteen year old lacks the capacity to consent. The reason the age is set at 16 is because of the theory that at 16 someone is capable (has the capacity) of consenting. Whilst yes it isn't 'rape' the capacity to consent is still the issue


Posted from TSR Mobile

No, that's not the law.
A 13, 14 and 15 year old girl or boy can consent legally to sex. The fact that if they are held to have consented the offender would be convicted of sexual activity and not rape proves that.

If you have sex with a 15 year old, the normal rules of rape apply. If they don't consent and there is an absence of reasonable belief it will be rape.
If they do consent or there was reasonable belief it will not be rape but it will still be sexual activity with a child because consent is irrelevant to that offence.

For sexual activity with a child, it is nothing whatsoever to do with consent. The only issue is whether the activity took place, whether consensual or not.

What proves that a 13-16 year old can legally consent is that consent is a mitigating factor in sentencing.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
No it isn't the issue. The prosecution does not need to prove absence of consent. The defence will get nowhere saying she consented. The judge will tell the jury consent is irrelevant. The only question for the court will be how old is she? Did sexual activity take place?

What we have, unlike some other jurisdictions, is an aged based rule not an aged based presumption of ability to consent.
Posted from TSR Mobile


Are you/have you been a criminal lawyer out of interest?
Original post by Bornblue
Are you/have you been a criminal lawyer out of interest?


I have neither been a criminal lawyer out of interest or out of the need for money but my firm does do crime and I have had some involvement in its management (or herding cats)


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Oblivion99
She just exposed, the so-called victim, that she was betrayed by Adam Johnson? Betrayed for what? She was consistent on the relationship, she could've refused yet she "boasted" about it to all her friends - not an conduct an victim would due. Our media culture and laws are just barbaric. And yes he has money, but in this case, many wont do him no good whatsoever.

Doesn't change that he broke the law and is a dirty perv.
Original post by chosenone93
Doesn't change that he broke the law and is a dirty perv.


You're acting like she was 5 years old. She was 15 on the threshold of puberty thus she was fully aware and technically at 15 I was making all my decisions independently. Yes he did broke the law and should pay for it but the fact that the girl is appointed to as a victim, horrifies me LOL.
Original post by Oblivion99
You're acting like she was 5 years old. She was 15 on the threshold of puberty thus she was fully aware and technically at 15 I was making all my decisions independently. Yes he did broke the law and should pay for it but the fact that the girl is appointed to as a victim, horrifies me LOL.


He groomed her and what is more he admitted he groomed her.

Grooming means he contacted her at least twice, he then intentionally meets her, he intends to commit a sexual offence with her, she is under 16 and he doesn't reasonably believe she is over 16.

The point about grooming is that there is nothing spontaneous about this offence. Everything revolves around a pre-planned course of action on his part.
Original post by Bornblue
No, that's not the law.
A 13, 14 and 15 year old girl or boy can consent legally to sex. The fact that if they are held to have consented the offender would be convicted of sexual activity and not rape proves that.

If you have sex with a 15 year old, the normal rules of rape apply. If they don't consent and there is an absence of reasonable belief it will be rape.
If they do consent or there was reasonable belief it will not be rape but it will still be sexual activity with a child because consent is irrelevant to that offence.

For sexual activity with a child, it is nothing whatsoever to do with consent. The only issue is whether the activity took place, whether consensual or not.

What proves that a 13-16 year old can legally consent is that consent is a mitigating factor in sentencing.


Consent is essentially irrelevant in that situation because it can't possibly exist.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Oblivion99
You're acting like she was 5 years old. She was 15 on the threshold of puberty thus she was fully aware and technically at 15 I was making all my decisions independently. Yes he did broke the law and should pay for it but the fact that the girl is appointed to as a victim, horrifies me LOL.


All 15 year olds aren't the same as you she idolised him and he took advantage of this. He should never have contacted her at all or said that he was expecting something from her for signing her shirt like a kiss.

I would have had little sympathy if the girl lied about her age but she clearly didnt and he also googled 'age of consent' on his iphone so he knew he was breaking the law but thought he would get away with it because he is a 'high profile' footballer.

He even made the girl out to be a liar and cheated on his girlfriend who just had a baby. He is a dirty scumbag who deserves everything he gets he has ruined his career and he could have been a big star but he has thrown all that away as no English team will want to associate themselves with him and the fans will continue to abuse and ridicule him at every opportunity. He will piss off to somewhere like China after his sentence.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by chikane
All 15 year olds aren't the same as you she idolised him and he took advantage of this. He should never have contacted her at all or said that he was expecting something from her for signing her shirt like a kiss.

I would have had little sympathy if the girl lied about her age but she clearly didnt and he also googled 'age of consent' on his iphone so he knew he was breaking the law but thought he would get away with it because he is a 'high profile' footballer.

He even made the girl out to be a liar and cheated on his girlfriend who just had a baby. He is a dirty scumbag who deserves everything he gets he has ruined his career and he could have been a big star but he has thrown all that away as no English team will want to associate themselves with him and the fans will continue to abuse and ridicule him at every opportunity. He will piss off to somewhere like China after his sentence.


I think people are overplaying the 'she idolised him' part. Famous people use their fame to sleep with adult women as well so it wasn't her age that made her susceptible.

Haha Adam Johnson could never have been a big star, he's very mediocre. Moving to China would have, financially, been a good move but by the time he's served his sentence he'll be too old for professional football most likely


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ComputerMaths97
You do realise this is how like 90% of rich people get partners - by using their wealth. The age is the only issue here, not the fact he used his strengths to get a girl.


There is a HUGE difference between using power to groom and manipulate someone vs using wealth to attract people.
Original post by celloel
There is a HUGE difference between using power to groom and manipulate someone vs using wealth to attract people.


And all he did was use his wealth, shown by the text messages, she was clearly after monetary value. However I do also assume his status played in her mind.

The simple fact is, the girl wasn't as innocent as the victims usually are in these situations, as it's clear she was getting something out of him.
Original post by Underscore__
I think people are overplaying the 'she idolised him' part. Famous people use their fame to sleep with adult women as well so it wasn't her age that made her susceptible.

Haha Adam Johnson could never have been a big star, he's very mediocre. Moving to China would have, financially, been a good move but by the time he's served his sentence he'll be too old for professional football most likely


Posted from TSR Mobile


Gareth Bale is rubbish too and Real Madrid signed him for a record fee lmao they probably would have signed Johnson too.

Its fine if she was an adult but Johnson still would have been a cheating scumbag but so was John Terry and Ryan Giggs but at least they never slept with 15 year olds. Johnson is a stupid brainless idiot.
Original post by llys
The law doesn't punish adultery. We would have to lock up half the population if it did. :lol:
Original post by xylas
Exactly lol but tazarooni seems to disagree...


Yes I know it doesn't punish adultery. But I'm saying that it should, so that "half the population" stop doing it.
Original post by Oblivion99
You're acting like she was 5 years old. She was 15 on the threshold of puberty thus she was fully aware and technically at 15 I was making all my decisions independently. Yes he did broke the law and should pay for it but the fact that the girl is appointed to as a victim, horrifies me LOL.
no im not acting like shes 5 as I didnt label him a pedo but a perv there is indeed a difference. In some ways I agree shes not a 'victim' per say as she appears to of enjoyee it but if that 15 year old was a relative of mine id want him rightly dealt with
Original post by Underscore__
Consent is essentially irrelevant in that situation because it can't possibly exist.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes it can.
If consent can't exist how come it is not automatically rape to have sex with an under 16?i
If it didn't exist how could it reduce a crime of rape to that of sexual activity with a child?

It consent couldn't exist it would be. But it does, which is why consent means that the offender will not be convicted of rape but sexual activity with a child.

I know you like to be stubborn but this isn't a matter of opinion, you're just factually and legally Incorrect here.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by chikane
Gareth Bale is rubbish too and Real Madrid signed him for a record fee lmao they probably would have signed Johnson too.


Please refrain from discussing football ever again.

Original post by chikane
Its fine if she was an adult but Johnson still would have been a cheating scumbag but so was John Terry and Ryan Giggs but at least they never slept with 15 year olds. Johnson is a stupid brainless idiot.


Yes he would have been a cheat but that doesn't detract from the point that it wasn't the girls age that made it so easy for him to sway her.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bornblue
Yes it can.
If consent can't exist how come it is not automatically rape to have sex with an under 16?i
If it didn't exist how could it reduce a crime of rape to that of sexual activity with a child?

It consent couldn't exist it would be. But it does, which is why consent means that the offender will not be convicted of rape but sexual activity with a child.

I know you like to be stubborn but this isn't a matter of opinion, you're just factually and legally Incorrect here.


No I'm not, I'm reading the statute from the purposive view. The reason under 16's cannot legally have sex is because they lack the capacity to consent, why else would it be a crime if they can consent?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
Please refrain from discussing football ever again.



Yes he would have been a cheat but that doesn't detract from the point that it wasn't the girls age that made it so easy for him to sway her.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Don't worry i hate football.

Yes he was bored of his millions and saw a young pretty girl and thought he would try his luck even knowing she was 15 that didnt stop him.
He ruined his career all by himself for being a dirty pervert, would say the same if it was a teacher.
Original post by chikane
Don't worry i hate football.

Yes he was bored of his millions and saw a young pretty girl and thought he would try his luck even knowing she was 15 that didnt stop him.
He ruined his career all by himself for being a dirty pervert, would say the same if it was a teacher.


Well luckily for him he'd made enough money before his 21st birthday to never have to work again


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending