The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

I think a 15 yo can reasonably consent to sex and having sex with them is not something that should be criminalized.

I don't see her as a victim.
Original post by Kvothe the arcane
I think a 15 yo can reasonably consent to sex and having sex with them is not something that should be criminalized.

I don't see her as a victim.


They can consent, but the issue isn't about consent.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bornblue
They can consent, but the issue isn't about consent.



What is the issue?
Original post by Kvothe the arcane
What is the issue?


For 'sexual activity with a child', the offence he was convicted of, all that matters is that
a.) The sexual activity took place
B.) The victim was under 16

It does not matter whether they consent or not. Consent means it's not rape but it's still an offence.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bornblue
For 'sexual activity with a child', the offence he was convicted of, all that matters is that
a.) The sexual activity took place
B.) The victim was under 16

It does not matter whether they consent or not. Consent means it's not rape but it's still an offence.


Posted from TSR Mobile


You misunderstand me. I'm aware. I'm saying I don't think that should be the law.
Original post by Kvothe the arcane
You misunderstand me. I'm aware. I'm saying I don't think that should be the law.


That's a different debate. I don't think anyone claims the laws on sex make sense.

In practice, given consent and a genuine non-abusive relationship - the one this thread is supposed to be about doesn't count as that - then it won't end up in court.
Original post by unprinted
That's a different debate. I don't think anyone claims the laws on sex make sense.

In practice, given consent and a genuine non-abusive relationship - the one this thread is supposed to be about doesn't count as that - then it won't end up in court.


I was answering the OP's question on whether he's wrong to feel sorry for the footballer. I think it's entirely relevant to ponder whether the law is just or not. It seems clear to me that the judgement was lawful so there's no debate there.

I haven't read through the thread but it seems to me to be a question of ethics and values :dontknow:.
Guys, after some thoughtful consideration, and of course with your replies, I no longer feel sorry for Adam Johnson :smile:

Thread goals achieved. Maybe time to end the thread.
Original post by Twinpeaks
Guys, after some thoughtful consideration, and of course with your replies, I no longer feel sorry for Adam Johnson :smile:


I see :tongue:. I guess I am alone in my opinion :getmecoat:.
Original post by Kvothe the arcane
You misunderstand me. I'm aware. I'm saying I don't think that should be the law.




Posted from TSR Mobile
What should it be?
Original post by Kvothe the arcane
I see :tongue:. I guess I am alone in my opinion :getmecoat:.


I still think it's mind boggling how less than a year later, what he would have done would have been perfectly legal, leading to no repercussions. But I suppose the law has to draw a line somewhere, even if it does seem arbitary.

I no longer feel sorry for Adam Johnson because I myself forget how young even a mature 15 year old is. He knew what he was doing, and he did groom her.
Original post by Kvothe the arcane
I think a 15 yo can reasonably consent to sex and having sex with them is not something that should be criminalized.

I don't see her as a victim.


Same views if the girl was your 15 year old daughter with a 28 year old?I'd want him prosecuted weather she consented or not.
Original post by chosenone93
Same views if the girl was your 15 year old daughter with a 28 year old?I'd want him prosecuted weather she consented or not.


Indeed. I was getting ready to move out at 15 and I certainly felt capable of consenting then :h:. The girls I lived with had boyfriends in their 20s.
Original post by Kvothe the arcane
Indeed. I was getting ready to move out at 15 and I certainly felt capable of consenting then :h:. The girls I lived with had boyfriends in their 20s.


Well at least your consistent.
Original post by Kvothe the arcane
Indeed. I was getting ready to move out at 15 and I certainly felt capable of consenting then :h:. The girls I lived with had boyfriends in their 20s.


It's interesting isn't it?

Because almost every man I've ever known well,has had sexual contact with underage girls while they were a few years older.

Am I part of a paedophile ring!?

Are these men totally inadequate?

Were these girls groomed?


Am I living in the North:smile:?


No............

Spoiler

(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Kvothe the arcane
I think a 15 yo can reasonably consent to sex and having sex with them is not something that should be criminalized.

I don't see her as a victim.


At what age do you think it should be criminalized?
Original post by Bornblue
There is no distinction between the two in the statute.
You're not understanding that you can consent but that consent is irrelevant. A 15 year old can legally consent which is why if the sex is consensual it will not be rape. However consent is not a defence to sexual activity. That doesn't mean you cannot consent, you can. But like asking someone to kill you, the consent is irrelevant.

Posted from TSR Mobile


It's funny how you said I've clearly never studied law yet you can't grasp the concept of purposive interpretation.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
It's funny how you said I've clearly never studied law yet you can't grasp the concept of purposive interpretation.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Well, the purpose of this law is to reduce the penalty for sex with those under sixteen but older than twelve who consent to sex below that of rape, and to allow prosecutors to act even if the perpetrator can prove consent.
Original post by Underscore__
It's funny how you said I've clearly never studied law yet you can't grasp the concept of purposive interpretation.


Posted from TSR Mobile


It's funny that three people have explained clearly why you are wrong yet you stubbornly persist and now start backtracking with 'factual consent'. You're just making up the law now. You simply cannot grasp the idea that there can be consent without the matter being lawful, because it doesn't depend on consent.

The statute does not say under 16s cannot consent. The statute does say under 13s cannot consent. That's the end of the matter really. You don't decide the law, the statute interpreted by the judiciary do. There is nothing that says under 16s cannot consent.

I don't want your 'purposive interpretation' , I want the actual law.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
It's funny that three people have explained clearly why you are wrong yet you stubbornly persist and now start backtracking with 'factual consent'. You're just making up the law now. You simply cannot grasp the idea that there can be consent without the matter being lawful, because it doesn't depend on consent.

The statute does not say under 16s cannot consent. The statute does say under 13s cannot consent. That's the end of the matter really. You don't decide the law, the statute interpreted by the judiciary do. There is nothing that says under 16s cannot consent.

I don't want your 'purposive interpretation' , I want the actual law.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Please quote specifically the line in the SOA that says under 13s cannot consent.

If someone who is 13-15 can give consent why would it be illegal to have sex with them?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you