Am I wrong in feeling a little sorry for Adam Johnson?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Underscore__
As I've already said if the fact that the consent part is missing from s.5 means it's implying someone under 13 can never consent then it's absence from s.9 would mean the same thing
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
No it doesn't.
Because consent/reasonable belief is the decisive factor in a rape case. The fact that the statute explicitly says it is automatically rape for under 13s shows there can be no legal consent.
But it doesn't say it's automatically rape for 13-15 year olds. That's because if they consent it's sexual activity, not rape.
The whole point is that it's a lesser charge because the sex was consensual. If an under 16 could not consent it would be automatically rape. They can, which is why it's not.
Stop being stubborn.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bornblue
No it doesn't.
Because consent/reasonable belief is the decisive factor in a rape case. The fact that the statute explicitly says it is automatically rape for under 13s shows there can be no legal consent.
But it doesn't say it's automatically rape for 13-15 year olds. That's because if they consent it's sexual activity, not rape.
The whole point is that it's a lesser charge because the sex was consensual. If an under 16 could not consent it would be automatically rape. They can, which is why it's not.
Stop being stubborn.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Because consent/reasonable belief is the decisive factor in a rape case. The fact that the statute explicitly says it is automatically rape for under 13s shows there can be no legal consent.
But it doesn't say it's automatically rape for 13-15 year olds. That's because if they consent it's sexual activity, not rape.
The whole point is that it's a lesser charge because the sex was consensual. If an under 16 could not consent it would be automatically rape. They can, which is why it's not.
Stop being stubborn.
Posted from TSR Mobile
S.9 says that it's automatically an offence to commit any sexual act with someone under 16 and the only defence is belief that the person was over 15. The only reason that wouldn't apply to s.5 is because it's pretty hard to mistake a 12 year old for a 16 year old.
Well it wouldn't automatically be rape because s.9 covers all kind of sexual activity. You're so hung up on semantics that you're ignoring everything else.
If the law felt that 13-15 year olds were capable of consenting why would sexual activity with people of that age be illegal?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
If the law felt that 13-15 year olds were capable of consenting why would sexual activity with people of that age be illegal?
If the law felt that 13-15 year olds were capable of consenting why would sexual activity with people of that age be illegal?
The consent lessens the offence and consequent punishment. The offence would be rape without consent, but sex with a young person if consent is present.
It really is time you gave up this silly argument.
Original post by Underscore__
If the law felt that 13-15 year olds were capable of consenting why would sexual activity with people of that age be illegal?
Posted from TSR Mobile
If the law felt that 13-15 year olds were capable of consenting why would sexual activity with people of that age be illegal?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Because it's not an offence based on consent. In the same way you can consent to being murdered but that consent doesn't make it lawful.
If they could not consent it would automatically be the more serious charge of rape. The fact there is consent makes it a lesser offence. Otherwise what's the difference between rape and sexual activity with a child?
You just cannot grasp the fact that consent is not the decisive issue.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Good bloke
The consent lessens the offence and consequent punishment. The offence would be rape without consent, but sex with a young person if consent is present.
It really is time you gave up this silly argument.
It really is time you gave up this silly argument.
He's quite simply being stubborn and inventing legal concepts and laws.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Good bloke
The consent lessens the offence and consequent punishment. The offence would be rape without consent, but sex with a young person if consent is present.
It really is time you gave up this silly argument.
It really is time you gave up this silly argument.
You didn't answer the question. Why is sexual activity with someone under 16 illegal if 13-15 year olds have the capacity to consent?
Original post by Bornblue
Because it's not an offence based on consent. In the same way you can consent to being murdered but that consent doesn't make it lawful.
If they could not consent it would automatically be the more serious charge of rape. The fact there is consent makes it a lesser offence. Otherwise what's the difference between rape and sexual activity with a child?
You just cannot grasp the fact that consent is not the decisive issue.
Posted from TSR Mobile
If they could not consent it would automatically be the more serious charge of rape. The fact there is consent makes it a lesser offence. Otherwise what's the difference between rape and sexual activity with a child?
You just cannot grasp the fact that consent is not the decisive issue.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You also didn't answer the question. If someone over 13 has the capacity to give consent then they are in the same position as an adult so why would it be illegal to have sex with a 13-15 year old?
No it wouldn't automatically be rape, rape is requires specific sexual activity whereas s.9 is a catch all offence.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
You didn't answer the question. Why is sexual activity with someone under 16 illegal if 13-15 year olds have the capacity to consent?
It is illegal to rape an under 16, but it is also a lesser offence to have consensual sex with one, for reasons connected with control, emotional development and social concerns..
Original post by Underscore__
You didn't answer the question. Why is sexual activity with someone under 16 illegal if 13-15 year olds have the capacity to consent?
You also didn't answer the question. If someone over 13 has the capacity to give consent then they are in the same position as an adult so why would it be illegal to have sex with a 13-15 year old?
No it wouldn't automatically be rape, rape is requires specific sexual activity whereas s.9 is a catch all offence.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You also didn't answer the question. If someone over 13 has the capacity to give consent then they are in the same position as an adult so why would it be illegal to have sex with a 13-15 year old?
No it wouldn't automatically be rape, rape is requires specific sexual activity whereas s.9 is a catch all offence.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Because it's not about consent, still. It's a lesser offence. It you ask me to murder you, you have consented. That consent does not make it lawful.
You're conflating two crimes.
Yes it would automatically be rape. If you have sexual intercourse with an under 16 what determines if it's rape or sexual activity? CONSENT
It would only be sexual activity and not rape or sexual assault if the victim has consented.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Bornblue
Because it's not about consent, still. It's a lesser offence. It you ask me to murder you, you have consented. That consent does not make it lawful.
You're conflating two crimes.
Yes it would automatically be rape. If you have sexual intercourse with an under 16 what determines if it's rape or sexual activity? CONSENT
It would only be sexual activity and not rape or sexual assault if the victim has consented.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You're conflating two crimes.
Yes it would automatically be rape. If you have sexual intercourse with an under 16 what determines if it's rape or sexual activity? CONSENT
It would only be sexual activity and not rape or sexual assault if the victim has consented.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You still can't get over the semantics of it, there's one term that encompasses all sexual activity with some 13-15.
You're still not answering the question. In your mind someone who is 13-15 can give consent so that negates the charge of rape and makes it merely an s.9 offence. If that is the case what is the point of s.9? 13-15 year olds, as you see it, can consent to sex so why should having sex with them be illegal?
Original post by Good bloke
It is illegal to rape an under 16, but it is also a lesser offence to have consensual sex with one, for reasons connected with control, emotional development and social concerns..
Control? Social concerns? Very vague. Have you got any evidence that shows damaged emotional development?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
You still can't get over the semantics of it, there's one term that encompasses all sexual activity with some 13-15.
You're still not answering the question. In your mind someone who is 13-15 can give consent so that negates the charge of rape and makes it merely an s.9 offence. If that is the case what is the point of s.9? 13-15 year olds, as you see it, can consent to sex so why should having sex with them be illegal?
Control? Social concerns? Very vague. Have you got any evidence that shows damaged emotional development?
Posted from TSR Mobile
You're still not answering the question. In your mind someone who is 13-15 can give consent so that negates the charge of rape and makes it merely an s.9 offence. If that is the case what is the point of s.9? 13-15 year olds, as you see it, can consent to sex so why should having sex with them be illegal?
Control? Social concerns? Very vague. Have you got any evidence that shows damaged emotional development?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Because consent is not the determining factor. Something can be unlawful even if consented to, like assisted suicide.
Just answer me one question. If a man was to have sexual intercourse with a 13-15 year old, what determines whether that is rape or sexual activity?
Consent does. Consent brings a lesser charge. Now if they could not consent it would be rape.
The consent reduces the charge.
It's not about semantics, it's about a basic understanding of the law. You'll never admit you're wrong though. The problem is that you are treating the words 'consent' and 'legal' as the same. They are not. That is where you're argument fails.
Something can be consented to and still be illegal. Yet you are treating the issues of consent and legality as one and the same, they are not.
I'll simplify it for you.
It is illegal to have sex with someone under 16. If they are under 13, they cannot legally consent and it will automatically be rape. If they are between the ages of 13-16 then it will be rape if the victim does not consent, but sexual activity with a child, if they do consent.
Your assessment that under 13s cannot consent is true but 13-16 year olds can. Rape is a crime based on consent, sexual activity with a child is not.
So it's still illegal to have consensual sex with an under 16. That's not because the law thinks they cannot consent, but rather that consent does not make it lawful.
There is nothing in the statute which says or even implies than 13-16 cannot consent. By saying that sexual intercourse with under 13s is automatically rape, it is very much saying that they cannot consent.
Your problem time and time again has been conflating the two crimes and being unable to distinguish between them. It's not a matter of semantics, they are two separate crimes, with separate sentencing guidelines.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Twinpeaks
I mean, if she was less than one year older this wouldn't even be a legal issue?
The difference between when the incident happened, and a few months down the line draws the difference between a child too young for sex, and a woman, who to have sex with would be completely legal?
I know there needs to be a legal definition, a line to draw. But it just makes me feel uncomfortable somehow.
The difference between when the incident happened, and a few months down the line draws the difference between a child too young for sex, and a woman, who to have sex with would be completely legal?
I know there needs to be a legal definition, a line to draw. But it just makes me feel uncomfortable somehow.
No you are not wrong. The Adam Johnson affair is a distraction from cases of real child sex abuse that go unpunished, for e.g. Operation Midland was whitewashed this week.
This video explains things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT0g8v_XRDw
Original post by Bornblue
Because consent is not the determining factor. Something can be unlawful even if consented to, like assisted suicide.
Just answer me one question. If a man was to have sexual intercourse with a 13-15 year old, what determines whether that is rape or sexual activity?
Consent does. Consent brings a lesser charge. Now if they could not consent it would be rape.
The consent reduces the charge.
It's not about semantics, it's about a basic understanding of the law. You'll never admit you're wrong though. The problem is that you are treating the words 'consent' and 'legal' as the same. They are not. That is where you're argument fails.
Something can be consented to and still be illegal. Yet you are treating the issues of consent and legality as one and the same, they are not.
I'll simplify it for you.
It is illegal to have sex with someone under 16. If they are under 13, they cannot legally consent and it will automatically be rape. If they are between the ages of 13-16 then it will be rape if the victim does not consent, but sexual activity with a child, if they do consent.
Your assessment that under 13s cannot consent is true but 13-16 year olds can. Rape is a crime based on consent, sexual activity with a child is not.
So it's still illegal to have consensual sex with an under 16. That's not because the law thinks they cannot consent, but rather that consent does not make it lawful.
There is nothing in the statute which says or even implies than 13-16 cannot consent. By saying that sexual intercourse with under 13s is automatically rape, it is very much saying that they cannot consent.
Your problem time and time again has been conflating the two crimes and being unable to distinguish between them. It's not a matter of semantics, they are two separate crimes, with separate sentencing guidelines.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Just answer me one question. If a man was to have sexual intercourse with a 13-15 year old, what determines whether that is rape or sexual activity?
Consent does. Consent brings a lesser charge. Now if they could not consent it would be rape.
The consent reduces the charge.
It's not about semantics, it's about a basic understanding of the law. You'll never admit you're wrong though. The problem is that you are treating the words 'consent' and 'legal' as the same. They are not. That is where you're argument fails.
Something can be consented to and still be illegal. Yet you are treating the issues of consent and legality as one and the same, they are not.
I'll simplify it for you.
It is illegal to have sex with someone under 16. If they are under 13, they cannot legally consent and it will automatically be rape. If they are between the ages of 13-16 then it will be rape if the victim does not consent, but sexual activity with a child, if they do consent.
Your assessment that under 13s cannot consent is true but 13-16 year olds can. Rape is a crime based on consent, sexual activity with a child is not.
So it's still illegal to have consensual sex with an under 16. That's not because the law thinks they cannot consent, but rather that consent does not make it lawful.
There is nothing in the statute which says or even implies than 13-16 cannot consent. By saying that sexual intercourse with under 13s is automatically rape, it is very much saying that they cannot consent.
Your problem time and time again has been conflating the two crimes and being unable to distinguish between them. It's not a matter of semantics, they are two separate crimes, with separate sentencing guidelines.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You still can't answer my question. Why is having sex with a 13 year old illegal? They're apparently consenting people so why is it illegal?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Underscore__
You still can't answer my question. Why is having sex with a 13 year old illegal? They're apparently consenting people so why is it illegal?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It's illegal because the SOA 2003 says it will be automatically rape. Rape is a crime based on consent/reasonable belief. The charge of rape entirely depends on CONSENT.
By the statute saying that it is automatically rape, it is logically and legally saying they cannot consent because consent is the determining factor. If you have sex with an under 13, it is rape - simple as that.
Whereas it is not rape for 13,14 and 15 year old if the sex is consensual. If they couldn't consent, it would automatically be rape.
It is illegal to have sex with someone under 16 whether they consent or not but if they don't consent it is rape, a higher charge, whereas if they do it's sexual activity, a lower charge.
Consent is not relevant for the crime of sexual activity for a child. That's why if you sleep with an under 16 (and over13) and it's consensual it will not be rape, because they have consented.
You yet again have struggled to grasp the very basic concept that just because something is illegal it means you cannot consent - you can. You can consent to someone killing you, that doesn't make it legal. You'd in all likeliness get a lesser sentence if it was consensual but nonetheless it doesn't make it legal.
You are treating the words 'consensual and legal' as meaning the same. They do not. Three people, including a lawyer in a criminal law firm (nullitertis) have shown why you are wrong, the statute shows you are wrong. Stop being stubborn, just for a minute and you'll also realise you're wrong.
Original post by Bornblue
Stop being stubborn, just for a minute and you'll also realise you're wrong.
hehe I think he must have been thinking that the passage of a week might have changed the situation or the law. Obviously, the time has not been spent profitably reflecting on and analysing it.
Original post by Prince_Paul_246
You are only saying because he is white. .
Go away. This has nothing to do with race.
Original post by Good bloke
Go away. This has nothing to do with race.
It actually does.
I think this would have been seen VERY differently had it been a black footballer ?
A black footballer molesting and having sex with underage white girls ?
Are you are seriously trying to tell me that would have been seen as the same as Adam Johnson ?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that this guy would have done a post expressing sorry if Adam Johnson was Yaya Toure ?
Or let's say had this been an Asian Muslim cricketer ?
Original post by Prince_Paul_246
I think this would have been seen VERY differently had it been a black footballer ?
I think this would have been seen VERY differently had it been a black footballer ?
Don't be silly. Your obsession with race issues clouded your judgement long ago. You are trying to manufacture argument about race where it does not exist and has no place.
Original post by Good bloke
Don't be silly. Your obsession with race issues clouded your judgement long ago. You are trying to manufacture argument about race where it does not exist and has no place.
There is not one major problem in this word that is not racial.
As I say had Adam Johnson not been white, this would have played out very differently
Original post by Prince_Paul_246
There is not one major problem in this word that is not racial.
As I say had Adam Johnson not been white, this would have played out very differently
As I say had Adam Johnson not been white, this would have played out very differently
You do talk nonsense. Johnson was found guilty; are you suggesting a black man would have been cleared?
As for non-racial problems, the impending water shortage seems pretty colour blind to me, affecting, as it will, rich, white California, the dusky Middle East and black Africa.
Original post by Good bloke
As for non-racial problems, the impending water shortage seems pretty colour blind to me, affecting, as it will, rich, white California, the dusky Middle East and black Africa.
As for non-racial problems, the impending water shortage seems pretty colour blind to me, affecting, as it will, rich, white California, the dusky Middle East and black Africa.
OK. And why is there a water shortage ? Who is mainly at fault for global climate change, soil and wetland erosion, polluted drinking water and air, and the related health effects of all these ? Yup. White people.
Also climate change disproportionately affects black people and other people colour around the globe.
Black people are more as likely as whites to live in the congested communities that experience the most smog and toxic concentration thanks to fossil fuel use ? Even as agricultural disruptions due to warming, caused disproportionately by the white west, cost African nations $600 billion annually.
Also in the water shortage problem in Cali - Who do you think will get most of the scarce supplies of water ?
You think poor black neigbourhoods in LA or the rich white areas in Beverly Hills ?
Original post by Good bloke
You do talk nonsense. Johnson was found guilty; are you suggesting a black man would have been cleared?
Because Johnson is white. He got a lesser sentence
Also when was the last time you felt the need to stand up and apologize for a crime committed by another white person?
When was the last time you felt the need to do this for fear that if you didn’t, your community would come to be viewed as inherently violent and dangerous, and perhaps be attacked as a result ?
Yet those Asians are still begging whites to forgive them in Rochdale
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Married at First Sight Australia 2023
- Diversity at Harper Adams
- Boris Johnson ‘can’t remember passcode’ to phone with Covid WhatsApp messages
- University
- I Feel Sorry for John Mayer
- Scared of going Gyno/period pain
- Has my friend died?
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 2: Depth Study 9HI0 2A-2H - 10 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Student finance income queston
- My privacy has been completely invaded!!
- I find porn disgusting
- I am too careless,
- Last min regrets about university
- Failed year 3 medicine osce
- Harper and Keele 22/2023 vet med applicants
- Is City University good for Law
- Trying hard but things just don’t go as planned
- Would you rather...
- Reapplying to Cambridge
- Johnson and Johnson work placement
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
