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

Original post by Underscore__

Okay sorry, you of course know more about the law than the Crown Prosecution Service

Posted from TSR Mobile

Except the cps never said that.
So you know more about the law than the judiciary?
I notice you still haven't answered my point. If you ask me to kill you and I do, have you not consented?
You also haven't answered why you will not be tried for rape if the sex was consensual but rather a different offence. You're incredibly stubborn, unable to admit you're wrong when you clearly are.

For some bizarre reason you are unable to comprehend the fact that consent is irrelevant to a crime. You can consent to something, that doesn't necessarily make it lawful. You cannot get your head around the fact that one can consent to sex yet that consent not making it legal. And you refuse to respond to the point about asking someone to kill you and that being consent.

You know nothing about the law. Quite clearly you have never studied it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 182

Original post by Bornblue

Except the cps never said that.
So you know more about the law than the judiciary?
I notice you still haven't answered my point. If you ask me to kill you and I do, have you not consented?
You also haven't answered why you will not be tried for rape if the sex was consensual but rather a different offence. You're incredibly stubborn, unable to admit you're wrong when you clearly are.

For some bizarre reason you are unable to comprehend the fact that consent is irrelevant to a crime. You can consent to something, that doesn't necessarily make it lawful. You cannot get your head around the fact that one can consent to sex yet that consent not making it legal. And you refuse to respond to the point about asking someone to kill you and that being consent.

You know nothing about the law. Quite clearly you have never studied it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Murder is a completely different crime and irrelevant. To say 'why is it not called rape?' is an idiotic argument; crimes have different names. The simple fact is that someone under 16 cannot consent to sex. If you have sex without someone under 16 it's a crime, thus their 'consent' is irrelevant.

Haha I've missed your ad hominem

Reply 183

Original post by Underscore__

Murder is a completely different crime and irrelevant. To say 'why is it not called rape?' is an idiotic argument; crimes have different names. The simple fact is that someone under 16 cannot consent to sex. If you have sex without someone under 16 it's a crime, thus their 'consent' is irrelevant.

Haha I've missed your ad hominem

Yes they can, which is why if it's consented to, it's not rape. As you say, consent is irrelevant. Not because it can't be given, but because the crime is not based on consent.

If an under 16 could not consent, how come if they consent it is a defence to rape?
Show me where in the statute it says under 16s cannot consent, because it isn't anywhere.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 184

Original post by Bornblue

Yes they can, which is why if it's consented to, it's not rape. As you say, consent is irrelevant. Not because it can't be given, but because the crime is not based on consent.

If an under 16 could not consent, how come if they consent it is a defence to rape?
Show me where in the statute it says under 16s cannot consent, because it isn't anywhere.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Nowhere in the statute does it explicitly say someone under 13 cannot consent but that is the case. Someone under 16 cannot consent in law, having sexual relations with someone under 16 will always be a crime.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 185

elitepower

13

Original post by Twinpeaks

I mean, if she was less than one year older this wouldn't even be a legal issue?

No, because even if the girl was 16 he still decided to cheat on his pregnant girlfriend. That might not have been a crime but he would still be a dick either way. However she wasn't 16, she was underage and he knew that. So I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

Footballers shouldn't be treated like anyone else. If you heard of someone cheating on their pregnant girlfriend would you feel sorry for them? If no then how come you would feel sorry for Johnson?

Reply 186

Original post by Bornblue

Show me where in the statute it says under 16s cannot consent, because it isn't anywhere.

Sexual Offences Act 2003:

9 Sexual activity with a child

(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),

(b) the touching is sexual, and

(c) either—

(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

(ii) B is under 13.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved—

(a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,

(b) penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,

(c) penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body, or

(d) penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis,

is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(3) Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

You'll notice that, in this section of the act, consent of the victim (person B) is not a valid defence to an accusation of the crime. The crime is not rape: it is sexual activity with a child - what the Americans call statutory rape. Rape itself is criminalized elsewhere in the act, of course.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences/section/9

Reply 187

Original post by Good bloke

Sexual Offences Act 2003:

9 Sexual activity with a child

(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally touches another person (B),

(b) the touching is sexual, and

(c) either—

(i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

(ii) B is under 13.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved—

(a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,

(b) penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,

(c) penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body, or

(d) penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis,

is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(3) Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

You'll notice that, in this section of the act, consent of the victim (person B) is not a valid defence to an accusation of the crime. The crime is not rape: it is sexual activity with a child - what the Americans call statutory rape. Rape itself is criminalized elsewhere in the act, of course.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences/section/9

That doesn't say they cannot consent. It just means that their consent is irrelevant. It's not about consent.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 188

Twinpeaks

OP

18

Original post by elitepower

No, because even if the girl was 16 he still decided to cheat on his pregnant girlfriend. That might not have been a crime but he would still be a dick either way. However she wasn't 16, she was underage and he knew that. So I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

Footballers shouldn't be treated like anyone else. If you heard of someone cheating on their pregnant girlfriend would you feel sorry for them? If no then how come you would feel sorry for Johnson?

Why would I feel sorry for him on the basis that he's a footballer? It's more likely to be the other way around...

I don't know why people keep bringing up that he cheated, that's an entirely different matter.

Reply 189

nulli tertius

Original post by Good bloke

You'll notice that, in this section of the act, consent of the victim (person B) is not a valid defence to an accusation of the crime. The crime is not rape: it is sexual activity with a child - what the Americans call statutory rape. Rape itself is

Bornblue and I have been saying this and saying this and saying it again.

Underscore is trying to assert that the reason such behaviour is criminalised is because a person 13-16 cannot consent. We have been saying that yes they can give a valid consent because, if they couldn't, the perpetrator would commit the section 1 offence of rape. As you say, consent is irrelevant to the section 9 offence as it is to the section 5 offence of rape of a child under 13.

An important difference between the laws of most American states and English law is that in most states there is no idea that there is different criminality depending on whether the young person consents or not. That different criminality is important because the maximum sentence for rape of a 13, 14 or 15 year old is life whilst the maximum sentence for sexual intercourse (ie consensual or not provably non-consensual) with a 13, 14 or 15 year old is 14 years.

That does mean that at the upper end of the scale there will be meaningful differences in treatment. The sentencing starting point for a multiple rapist is 15 years. That is higher than the maximum sentence for a multiple groomer of 13-15 year olds.

Reply 190

Original post by nulli tertius

An important difference between the laws of most American states and English law is that in most states there is no idea that there is different criminality depending on whether the young person consents or not..

Yes.It seems that many people get their knowledge of the law from watching American cop shows on TV. The term statutory rape has no meaning in England, but people still use it to mean underage sex, and the relevant law is itself divided into sections that dish out completely different punishments for the different crimes.

Reply 191

Original post by nulli tertius

Bornblue and I have been saying this and saying this and saying it again.

Underscore is trying to assert that the reason such behaviour is criminalised is because a person 13-16 cannot consent. We have been saying that yes they can give a valid consent because, if they couldn't, the perpetrator would commit the section 1 offence of rape. As you say, consent is irrelevant to the section 9 offence as it is to the section 5 offence of rape of a child under 13.

An important difference between the laws of most American states and English law is that in most states there is no idea that there is different criminality depending on whether the young person consents or not. That different criminality is important because the maximum sentence for rape of a 13, 14 or 15 year old is life whilst the maximum sentence for sexual intercourse (ie consensual or not provably non-consensual) with a 13, 14 or 15 year old is 14 years.

That does mean that at the upper end of the scale there will be meaningful differences in treatment. The sentencing starting point for a multiple rapist is 15 years. That is higher than the maximum sentence for a multiple groomer of 13-15 year olds.

I really can't understand how you seem to think you're right and I'm wrong. From the beginning I have said that someone under the age of sixteen is incapable of giving valid consent in law. Sexual activity with someone under 16 is illegal thus their consent is irrelevant; thus meaning their legal consent isn't possible.

The reason I believe s.9 is in there is because there is a belief that people under 16 lack the capacity to consent but to lesser extent than those under 13. I can't see any other reason it would be criminalised

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 192

Original post by Underscore__

I really can't understand how you seem to think you're right and I'm wrong. From the beginning I have said that someone under the age of sixteen is incapable of giving valid consent in law. Sexual activity with someone under 16 is illegal thus their consent is irrelevant; thus meaning their legal consent isn't possible.

The reason I believe s.9 is in there is because there is a belief that people under 16 lack the capacity to consent but to lesser extent than those under 13. I can't see any other reason it would be criminalised

Posted from TSR Mobile

You're conflating and muddling up the two crimes.
Rape is a crime based on consent/ reasonable belief. SAWC is not, consent is irrelevant.

Someone under 13 cannot consent. They do not have the capacity which is why it is automatically rape. Someone 13-16 can consent which is why it isn't rape. It's why the statute does not say they cannot consent but does say an under 13 cannot.

It will still be SAWC and not rape though if they are 13-16. That's because consent is not a defence, not because it cannot be given. Like the example with asking someone to kill you, consent can be given but it doesn't make the act lawful.
It's also why sentencing for SAWC is lower than for rape. Because SAWC is if they did consent, rape is if they didn't.

You're conflating the two and keep for some reason thinking that because consent doesn't make something lawful that you cannot consent but that is incorrect.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 193

Original post by Underscore__

I really can't understand how you seem to think you're right and I'm wrong. From the beginning I have said that someone under the age of sixteen is incapable of giving valid consent in law. Sexual activity with someone under 16 is illegal

There are two separate categories of crime against people aged under 16 (or 13).

In one, rape, subject to a maximum of life imprisonment, the victim does not give consent. This offence can be committed against a young person.

The second, subject to a lesser maximum penalty of fourteen years' imprisonment, can be used to convict if the victim either consented or there is insufficient evidence that they did not consent. It provides a means of getting the perpetrator anyway.

Can you see the difference? The young person can consent, and that consent leads to a lesser offence in many circumstances.

Note that a young person (under 18) cannot be convicted of sexual activity with a child under section 9, meaning that only section 13 applies, which makes the (even consenting) activity illegal but with lesser sentences.

Section 5 of the act criminalizes (as rape) all penetrative sex with a person younger than thirteen, regardless of consent or the age of the perpetrator.

Reply 194

Original post by Good bloke

There are two separate categories of crime against people aged under 16 (or 13).

In one, rape, subject to a maximum of life imprisonment, the victim does not give consent. This offence can be committed against a young person.

The second, subject to a lesser maximum penalty of fourteen years' imprisonment, can be used to convict if the victim either consented or there is insufficient evidence that they did not consent. It provides a means of getting the perpetrator anyway.

Can you see the difference? The young person can consent, and that consent leads to a lesser offence in many circumstances.

Note that a young person (under 18) cannot be convicted of sexual activity with a child under section 9, meaning that only section 13 applies, which makes the (even consenting) activity illegal but with lesser sentences.

Section 5 of the act criminalizes (as rape) all penetrative sex with a person younger than thirteen, regardless of consent or the age of the perpetrator.

Thank you. Very well explained.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 195

Original post by Good bloke

There are two separate categories of crime against people aged under 16 (or 13).

In one, rape, subject to a maximum of life imprisonment, the victim does not give consent. This offence can be committed against a young person.

The second, subject to a lesser maximum penalty of fourteen years' imprisonment, can be used to convict if the victim either consented or there is insufficient evidence that they did not consent. It provides a means of getting the perpetrator anyway.

Can you see the difference? The young person can consent, and that consent leads to a lesser offence in many circumstances.

Note that a young person (under 18) cannot be convicted of sexual activity with a child under section 9, meaning that only section 13 applies, which makes the (even consenting) activity illegal but with lesser sentences.

Section 5 of the act criminalizes (as rape) all penetrative sex with a person younger than thirteen, regardless of consent or the age of the perpetrator.

You're both confusing factual consent and legal consent. If a 14 year old agrees to sex they're giving factual consent but not legal consent. As I've repeatedly said, a person under 16 cannot give legal consent. It's rape if the child is younger than 13 but a lesser offence after that because whilst not being capable of giving legal consent the law recognises that people who are 13-15 have a greater capacity to give factual consent. I would suggest the legislation has also been set out that way for logistical reasons; if sex with anyone under 16 was rape the number of people under 16 convicted of rape would be substantially higher than it is currently. If somebody who is 15 is capable of giving consent why criminalise sexual activity with someone who is 15?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 196

Original post by Underscore__

You're both confusing factual consent and legal consent.

There is no such thing as "legal" consent, other than in your mind. The word is used with its ordinary meaning in the legislation, and valid consent is explained (section 74) thus:

For the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.

The word "capacity" is intended to cover the situation of a victim incapacitated by mental state, unconsciousness, sleep, drugs, or alcohol from giving consent, not age. Nowhere in the act is a person's capacity to give consent limited by virtue of age.

Reply 197

Jimmy Seville

16

Is that you Jim?

Spoiler

Reply 198