Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (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 . The girls I lived with had boyfriends in their 20s.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kvothe the arcane)
    Indeed. I was getting ready to move out at 15 and I certainly felt capable of consenting then . The girls I lived with had boyfriends in their 20s.
    Well at least your consistent.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kvothe the arcane)
    Indeed. I was getting ready to move out at 15 and I certainly felt capable of consenting then . 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?


    No............
    Spoiler:
    Show
    The 'offences' took place a long time ago.One can only assume that these poor innocent teenagers were damaged for life.

    Indeed some of them were so in the power of these men that they ruined their lives forever by actually marrying them!
    Offline

    1
    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.
    At what age do you think it should be criminalized?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    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?

    Section 1 (1) Rape

    A person (A) commits an offence if—

    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

    (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

    (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.


    Section 5 (1) Rape of a child under 13


    (1)A person commits an offence if—

    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis, and

    (b)the other person is under 13.


    Note the missing words in section 5
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    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
    The age of consent is 16. It is illegal for a person over that age to have sex with someone under the age of consent.

    The police generally operate on the basis that if two teenagers consent to sex and they are close in age, it's not in the public interest to take it any further.

    However; they will prosecute individuals who are significantly older than their underage partners. This is based on the belief that young teenagers may be manipulated and used for sex by significantly older and more mature partners.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    If someone who is 13-15 can give consent why would it be illegal to have sex with them?

    Section 1 (1) Rape

    A person (A) commits an offence if—

    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

    (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

    (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.


    Section 5 (1) Rape of a child under 13


    (1)A person commits an offence if—

    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis, and

    (b)the other person is under 13.


    Note the missing words in section 5
    So it doesn't explicitly say people under 13 cannot consent. The part about consent is also missing from s.9 so if it's absence means consent isn't possible that logic would apply to both s.5 and 9


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    So it doesn't explicitly say people under 13 cannot consent. The part about consent is also missing from s.9 so if it's absence means consent isn't possible that logic would apply to both s.5 and 9


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Think again. It is all in the definition of the words. Rape is sex without consent, by definition. Under the law any penetrative sex with a child under 13 is rape. However, the law specifies that some (nevertheless illegal) penetrative sex can take place with an under 16, and punishes it with a lesser tariff. What stops it being rape is the consent of the victim.
    Offline

    1
    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.
    So where would you draw the line? 14? 13? 12? When there's grass on the wicket?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Think again. It is all in the definition of the words. Rape is sex without consent, by definition. Under the law any penetrative sex with a child under 13 is rape. However, the law specifies that some (nevertheless illegal) penetrative sex can take place with an under 16, and punishes it with a lesser tariff. What stops it being rape is the consent of the victim.
    It's punished with a lesser sentence because of the capacity to give factual consent. Consent is not mentioned in either section so if it's absence means that consent cannot occur in one section it means the same in the other


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    It's punished with a lesser sentence because of the capacity to give factual consent. Consent is not mentioned in either section so if it's absence means that consent cannot occur in one section it means the same in the other


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Your are tying yourself in knots in a lost cause. By factual consent you must mean consent. Rape is a convenient word that means "sex without consent"; sex means "sex" (with or without consent). Words in acts of parliament have the ordinary meaning ascribed to them unless they are defined otherwise.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    6 years he has got probably serve 2


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by paul514)
    6 years he has got probably serve 2


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    this is probably true sadly
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Where'd your post go?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Yes, it is completely ridiculous. Teenagers are able to decide for themselves whether they wish to have sex with someone or not. There is no such thing as 'grooming' a teenager, you can only 'groom' someone if they are an actual child, aka 13 or under which means you are a pedophile. The age of consent and the average age to lose your virginity are are both 16 so it's ridiculous that this guy is suddenly a criminal because he had sex with someone who happened to be a few months younger. If this 15 year old was having sex with her 16 year old boyfriend, nobody on here would be freaking out about it but if she is sucking a 28 year old's ****, she is suddenly a little girl who should be playing with barbies. People have mental problems.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by knapdarloch)
    So where would you draw the line? 14? 13? 12? When there's grass on the wicket?
    A 13 year old is a teenager so that's where the line should be drawn, children younger than 13. In fact that's the definition of pedophilia and that's where the line should be drawn, not at sixteen. Every other kid is having sex at 15, it doesn't make a difference whether it's with another 15 year old or a 17 year old or a 20 year old.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.