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

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

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince_Paul_246)
    You are only saying because he is white. .
    Go away. This has nothing to do with race.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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 ?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince_Paul_246)
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince_Paul_246)
    You are only saying because he is white. Simple as that.

    Would you say that if it was Christian Benteke or Yaya Toure who done this ?

    No you would not.
    You're a weird man aren't you.

    Not everything is about race, I suggest less tsr for you and more contemplation about that giant chip on your shoulder


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    He knows he's incorrect but rather than admitting he's wrong he's trying all sorts of digging to make out like somehow he isn't. He went on about 'factual vs legal consent', which isn't a thing in the context of rape, consent is what the law says it is.

    He's ignored regularly the fact that consent determines whether or not sexual intercourse will be rape or sexual activity with a child.

    It's underpinned by his perhaps purposeful failure to distinguish the concepts of consent and legality. In rape, consent and legality are effectively the same, in other crimes like assisted suicide and sexual activity with a child they are not. Consent does not always mean legality and in many cases doesn't.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I read some of the texts that Johnson shared with the girl. He also apparently checked for the age of cosent. All this happening when his girlfriend had given birth to his child.

    His actions were disturbingly bad. However, a part of me thinks that Johnson was a scape-goat.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince_Paul_246)
    Because Johnson is white. He got a lesser sentence
    Eton pupil Andrew Picard spared jail after creating and sharing thousands of 'appalling' child abuse images

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6896966.html

    Former Dragons' Den star Doug Richard breaks down in tears as he is cleared of child sex offences after having '50 Shades of Grey' sex with a 13-year-old girl

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ld-Bailey.html

    Doesn't look like a lesser sentence, i guess Adam Johnson must be black,
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    He has a kid and a partner , don't think what he did is justifiable
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It is not for me to judge how you feel, but I do not feel sorry for him.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince_Paul_246)
    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 ?
    What? He got 6 years which was higher than anticipated. The sentencing range goes up to ten years.

    He hardly got off lightly as you're implying.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    You're still failing to answer the question. You're saying a 13 year old has the capacity to consent. Why would sexual activity with someone who is capable of giving consent illegal? They are in the same position as an adult as you say


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    You're still failing to answer the question. You're saying a 13 year old has the capacity to consent. Why would sexual activity with someone who is capable of giving consent illegal? They are in the same position as an adult as you say


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because illegality does not equal a lack of consent. Consent does not equal legality.

    The law thinks it's wrong to have sex with someone aged 13-15. It's especially wrong if they don't consent - it will be rape. But even if they do consent it will still be a crime, but a lesser one.


    It's illegal because even though they have capacity to consent, the law doesn't think that should make it legal. Perhaps because it feels that even though they can consent, that old men shouldn't be allowed to take advantage. It doesn't matter why the law thinks that, all that matters is it what the law says, and the law does not say that under 16s cannot consent, it only says under 13s cannot.(by saying that it will always be rape because they don't have the capacity to consent).

    Likewise if I ask you to kill me and you do, it's no defence, that doesn't mean you cannot consent. But just that consent is not a defence.

    That's your big misunderstanding. Consent is sometimes a defence and sometime is not. For rape, consent is a defence. For sexual activity, consent is not a defence. You are mixing and conflating the two crimes.

    The simple facts are this:

    1.) Under 13 - you cannot legally consent - automatically rape.
    2.) 13,14,15 - You can consent, and if so it will not be rape, but it will be sexual activity with a child - a lesser charge. ( The consent makes it not rape)
    3.) Over 16 - can consent.


    Stop treating the terms 'consent' and 'legal' as the same. They are not. In some cases consent makes something legal. In others it does not, that does not mean consent cannot exist, just that consent doesn't make it legal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRUsername99)
    Eton pupil Andrew Picard spared jail after creating and sharing thousands of 'appalling' child abuse images

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a6896966.html

    Former Dragons' Den star Doug Richard breaks down in tears as he is cleared of child sex offences after having '50 Shades of Grey' sex with a 13-year-old girl

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ld-Bailey.html

    Doesn't look like a lesser sentence, i guess Adam Johnson must be black,
    If he was black he would got longer. He got six years, could be out in a lot less. As to your other examples that kinda proves my point
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What? He got 6 years which was higher than anticipated. The sentencing range goes up to ten years.

    He hardly got off lightly as you're implying.
    That Asian gang in Rotherham got 20 years.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince_Paul_246)
    If he was black he would got longer. He got six years, could be out in a lot less. As to your other examples that kinda proves my point
    How? They got way less! Johnson is clearly black.
 
 
 
  • 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.