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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chosenone93)
    Utter failure in realising that was a hypothetical analogy to show your piss poor logic
    Can you even comprehend English? I wouldn't go around crying rape if my 15 year old daughter decided and consented to having sex with a 28 year old. However I will never have a daughter so if either of us will ever have to face that situation, it's gonna be you, not me. So have fun crying about it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lolakirk)
    Can you even comprehend English? I wouldn't go around crying rape if my 15 year old daughter decided and consented to having sex with a 28 year old. However I will never have a daughter so if either of us will ever have to face that situation, it's gonna be you, not me. So have fun crying about it.
    Never said it was rape but if he had sex with my 15 year old daughter knowing she was underage i'd want him dealt with end of.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    Clearly you have no knowledge of the SOA because the definition of consent is given its own section


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lolakirk)
    Yes, exactly. Just because you find it inappropriate doesn't mean a 15 year old can't consent. And consent doesn't depend on the sexual partner's age. If you consent decide to have sex with a someone your own age, you can consent to having sex with anyone.
    So if age 13 should be legal due to the teenager status, what if an older woman, say a female tennis player, had sex with a 13 year old boy. I just think 13 is very young.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Clearly you have no knowledge of the SOA because the definition of consent is given its own section


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And it doesn't say that under 16s cannot consent. No statute does. Neither expressly nor impliedly.
    It does however say under 13s cannot consent because that's automatically rape.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Clearly you have no knowledge of the SOA because the definition of consent is given its own section


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You didn't read post 205 where I quoted that section, then?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    And it doesn't say that under 16s cannot consent. No statute does. Neither expressly nor impliedly.
    It does however say under 13s cannot consent because that's automatically rape.
    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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You didn't read post 205 where I quoted that section, then?
    Well then why did you try and make out consent is taken as in its ordinary meaning?

    Dictionary definition of consent: 'Permission for something to happen or agreement to do something'
    SOA definition of consent:
    'For the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.'

    As you can see the SOA definition is more substantive. By the dictionary definition coerced people are still giving consent.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    He's quite simply being stubborn and inventing legal concepts and laws.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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 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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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
    Offline

    0
    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.
    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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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
 
 
 
  • 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.