Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Is that you Jim?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    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
    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
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    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.
    Would you be talking about him and feeling sympathy if he wasn't a footballer? Genuinely curious. Its like those people who adamantly defence Ched Evans yet not a peep about any other similar case.

    Its not a different matter. You said do you feel sympathy for Johnson as if the girl had been a few months older, it wouldn't have been illegal. The answer is no as he still cheated on his pregnant girlfriend which makes him a tool either way.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They can consent, but the issue isn't about consent.
    What is the issue?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (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:.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Guys, after some thoughtful consideration, and of course with your replies, I no longer feel sorry for Adam Johnson

    Thread goals achieved. Maybe time to end the thread.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Guys, after some thoughtful consideration, and of course with your replies, I no longer feel sorry for Adam Johnson
    I see . I guess I am alone in my opinion :getmecoat:.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kvothe the arcane)
    I see . 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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.