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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    Yeah. A 17 year old and 15 year old is a bit weird but understandable. If the guy was 18 and girl was 16 nobody would bat an eyelid so it's a bit unfair in that situation to put a guy in jail but Adam Johnson is nearly double her age.

    It's also funny that Adam Johnson having sex with a 16 year old would not get him jail time but a 18 year old with a 15 year old could possibly land a person in jail time? I think it's clear which one is more messed up in a social level.

    Like this would have all been avoided if he waited until she was 16 ffs. Not to defend the actions but he's just stupid as hell.
    Quite often, if it is between a 16 year old and a 15 year old and the sex was consensual, especially if they were in a relationship - the CPS will most likely choose not to prosecute because it wouldn't be in the public interest to do so even though it would be technically statutory rape.

    The law in that respect allows a bit of leeway and common sense to creep in.

    However it's a whole different situation with a 28 year old and a 15 year old. He was a multi-millionaire living a life most could only ever dream of. He could have almost any woman he wants and he chooses to pursue a 15 year old in the knowledge that she was underage.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Quite often, if it is between a 16 year old and a 15 year old and the sex was consensual, especially if they were in a relationship - the CPS will most likely choose not to prosecute because it wouldn't be in the public interest to do so even though it would be technically statutory rape.

    The law in that respect allows a bit of leeway and common sense to creep in.

    However it's a whole different situation with a 28 year old and a 15 year old. He was a multi-millionaire living a life most could only ever dream of. He could have almost any woman he wants and he chooses to pursue a 15 year old in the knowledge that she was underage.
    Sex between a fifteen year old and 16 year old cannot be consensual, the fifteen year old lacks the capacity to consent.

    In response to the OP I have absolutely no sympathy for him, he actively pursued a girl he knew to be 15. I'd feel sorry for him if it'd been like the original story I heard where he'd supposedly met her in a nightclub and had no idea she was underage


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Sex between a fifteen year old and 16 year old cannot be consensual, the fifteen year old lacks the capacity to consent.

    In response to the OP I have absolutely no sympathy for him, he actively pursued a girl he knew to be 15. I'd feel sorry for him if it'd been like the original story I heard where he'd supposedly met her in a nightclub and had no idea she was underage


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes you can, not legally but it doesn't mean it wasn't actually consensual. Use a bit of common sense. If two people freely agree to have sex, that sex is consensual in the ordinary sense of the word, it may not be legally but in reality it is. 'consent' is not merely a legal term. It has a non legal definition, as does rape.


    So it backs my point. If a 16 and 15 year old have voluntary, agreed sex then the cps in all likelihood would not prosecute as it would not be in the public interest to do so.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Age of consent is 14 in Germany and Italy, 18 in Turkey, France goes middle way 15. For the record I just researched this, I didn't find myself in Germany one day questioning if the girl I wanted to bang was legal or not.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yes you can, not legally but it doesn't mean it wasn't actually consensual. Use a bit of common sense. If two people freely agree to have sex, that sex is consensual in the ordinary sense of the word, it may not be legally but in reality it is. 'consent' is not merely a legal term. It has a non legal definition, as does rape.


    So it backs my point. If a 16 and 15 year old have voluntary, agreed sex then the cps in all likelihood would not prosecute as it would not be in the public interest to do so.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm not disputing that they rarely prosecute under those circumstances, merely pointing out consent isn't possible.

    Well someone who has a gun to their head is consenting by the dictionary definition, when you're talking about the law dictionary definitions are irrelevant


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No sympathy from me whatsoever.

    Yes the girl was loving it. Yes the girl got what she wanted. Yes the girl probably looks and acts every bit of the woman

    However..

    She was 15 and AJ knew she was 15. Its as simple as that

    If she had lied to him or mislead him... I would have much sympathy. She didnt
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I'm not disputing that they rarely prosecute under those circumstances, merely pointing out consent isn't possible.

    Well someone who has a gun to their head is consenting by the dictionary definition, when you're talking about the law dictionary definitions are irrelevant


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Consent is not just a legal term. It means two people voluntarily agreeing to do something. Yes the legal definition may be slightly different but that doesn't mean they can't consent in reality.

    Forget the legal term and give the term it's ordinary definition.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Consent is not just a legal term. It means two people voluntarily agreeing to do something. Yes the legal definition may be slightly different but that doesn't mean they can't consent in reality.

    Forget the legal term and give the term it's ordinary definition.
    The actual definition of consent is: 'permission for something to happen or agreement to do something' so by this definition someone who is coerced is consenting; that's the problem with attempting to apply a dictionary definition to a word with legal ramifications


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    The actual definition of consent is: 'permission for something to happen or agreement to do something' so by this definition someone who is coerced is consenting; that's the problem with attempting to apply a dictionary definition to a word with legal ramifications


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well you know what I meant. If two people aged 15 and 16 voluntarily agree to have sex the cps would in all likelihood not prosecute.

    That's consent in the ordinary meaning of the word even if not legally.

    I agree it's confusing and unclear and its up to the common law to determine what negates consent and what doesn't.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    tbh the football clubs have a responsibility to educate these overpaid oafs. if they did not have this soccer skill they would be emptying dustbins for £200 a week instead of £60000.
    This. They often go from little to overpaid in no time. Then all of a sudden they have all this money, probably little to no education and little to no common sense or maturity. And on top of that they'll have girls and women throwing themselves at them. If they can be taught common sense then it does need to be strongly enforced.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    The actual definition of consent is: 'permission for something to happen or agreement to do something' so by this definition someone who is coerced is consenting; that's the problem with attempting to apply a dictionary definition to a word with legal ramifications


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I see where you are getting a bit confused. There is a difference between consent and valid consent. If you are coerced and agree, that's consent but it isn't valid consent.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I see where you are getting a bit confused. There is a difference between consent and valid consent. If you are coerced and agree, that's consent but it isn't valid consent.
    No legally speaking it isn't, neither is consent given by a 15 year old but by the dictionary definition coerced consent is still consent


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What he did was illegal.

    Should the AOC be lowered or made more sensible? Yes. (E.g. A menstruating girl is legal, a biologically sound position.)

    Did he break the law? Yes.

    Is what he did wrong, in of itself? No.

    But he broke the law. And he knew he did. The law's the law.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    What he did was illegal.

    Should the AOC be lowered or made more sensible? Yes. (E.g. A menstruating girl is legal, a biologically sound position.)

    Did he break the law? Yes.

    Is what he did wrong, in of itself? No.

    But he broke the law. And he knew he did. The law's the law.
    You do realise that if a girl begins having periods at 8 that's not considered abnormal. Is having the age of consent at 8 a sound position?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent children. 15 is not pre-pubescent. Like I say, you can be as sexually mature at 17 as another may be at 15. I think he was being predatory, but not pedophilic.
    Too deep to understand:eek:
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I'm not disputing that they rarely prosecute under those circumstances, merely pointing out consent isn't possible.
    Please do not import concepts from another legal system.

    Children aged 13, 14 and 15 can consent to sex, which is why consensual sex with someone of that age is not the crime of rape, but their consent does not render the act lawful. It remains the crime of sexual activity with a child.

    A child under the age of 13 cannot give a valid consent and so any sexual intercourse is rape of a child under 13.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Please do not import concepts from another legal system.

    Children aged 13, 14 and 15 can consent to sex, which is why consensual sex with someone of that age is not the crime of rape, but their consent does not render the act lawful. It remains the crime of sexual activity with a child.

    A child under the age of 13 cannot give a valid consent and so any sexual intercourse is rape of a child under 13.
    What on earth are you talking about? A thirteen year old can not give valid consent


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    What on earth are you talking about? A thirteen year old can not give valid consent

    That is simply not correct.

    In the case of a 13 year old her consent is a valid defence to a charge of rape.

    In the case of a 12 year old, it is not.

    Consent is not relevant to an offence of sexual activity with a minor regardless of whether he or she is 13 or 15.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...rape/section/1

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...r-13/section/5

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...nces/section/9
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by celloel)
    At the end of a day, he groomed a young girl. It's an abuse of power - I'd still see what he did as being wrong, even if she was 'of the legal age'. He saw a girl that was clearly infatuated with his fame and used that to coerce her into sexual acts.
    It's wrong, no matter what her age is.
    You do realise this is how like 90% of rich people get partners - by using their wealth. The age is the only issue here, not the fact he used his strengths to get a girl.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    I was watching the BBC news earlier and the presenter kept saying "the child" in every passing sentence. It was predatory of him yes, she was underage yes.
    You're right he's not a pedo,dirty perv is the correct technical term.
 
 
 
  • 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.