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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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
    Sexual activity with someone under 16 but older than 12 is defensible if you were unaware of their true age and reasonably believe them to be sixteen or older. There is no valid consent but you can essentially argue reasonable belief as a defence.

    The way you're making it out is as though if someone slept with a 13 year old and both parties said that they agreed there'd be no criminal offence


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Sexual activity with someone under 16 but older than 12 is defensible if you were unaware of their true age and reasonably believe them to be sixteen or older. There is no valid consent but you can essentially argue reasonable belief as a defence.

    The way you're making it out is as though if someone slept with a 13 year old and both parties said that they agreed there'd be no criminal offence


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No he's not. He's saying that it would be a criminal offence, but it wouldn't be rape.
    If you consensually have sex with someone under 16 and older than 12, the offence is 'sexual activity with a child' and not 'rape'.

    If you coerced someone of that age into sex, then it would be rape.

    Consent determines whether or not it is rape, it is a defense to rape. It is however not a defense to sexual activity with a child.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No he's not. He's saying that it would be a criminal offence, but it wouldn't be rape.
    If you consensually have sex with someone under 16 and older than 12, the offence is 'sexual activity with a child' and not 'rape'.

    If you coerced someone of that age into sex, then it would be rape.

    Consent determines whether or not it is rape, it is a defense to rape. It is however not a defense to sexual activity with a child.
    If somebody is younger than 16 they lack the capacity to give consent, as clearly stated on the CPS website:

    'Whether a complainant had the capacity (i.e. the age and understanding) to make a choice about whether or not to take part in the sexual activity at the time in question.'


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    If somebody is younger than 16 they lack the capacity to give consent, as clearly stated on the CPS website:

    'Whether a complainant had the capacity (i.e. the age and understanding) to make a choice about whether or not to take part in the sexual activity at the time in question.'


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No where does that say 'under 16'. Nowhere does that say under 16.

    You're just factually incorrect here. This isn't subjective or a matter of opinion, you're argument is simply legally and factually incorrect. A 13 year old can consent to sex. A 15 can consent to sex. Both legally and in the ordinary sense of the word.
    Having sex with someone under 16 is sexual activity with a child if it was consensual. If it was not consensual it is rape.


    If you have sex with a 15 year old who consents, the crime is sexual activity with a child. The consent is not a defense to that, but it is to rape.

    If you coerce a 15 year old into sex, that is rape like it is with a person of any age.
    Consent is not a defence to sexual activity with a child but it is to rape.


    Please look here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s..._with_a_child/

    "Type/nature of activity: Penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth or penetration of the vagina or anus with another body part or an object

    Starting points: 4 years custody
    Sentencing ranges: 3 - 7 years custody
    "


    Notice how that says 'penile penetration of the vagina anus or mouth' and NOT 'rape'. That's because the issue of consent is irrelevant for sexual activity with a child.
    Please please please stop arguing on a wrong point. A 13 year old can consent both legally and ordinarily to sex. That consent is a defense to rape but the perpetrator would instead be guilty of sexual activity with a child.

    It's really not a difficult point to grasp.
    Offline

    2
    She just exposed, the so-called victim, that she was betrayed by Adam Johnson? Betrayed for what? She was consistent on the relationship, she could've refused yet she "boasted" about it to all her friends - not an conduct an victim would due. Our media culture and laws are just barbaric. And yes he has money, but in this case, many wont do him no good whatsoever.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Read some of the texts the other day.

    Regarding what happened in the car with the girl: "that was class lol"

    Regarding his partner sending him a picture of the scan of his unborn baby: "that was class lol"

    He seems like if Beavis or Butthead stumbled upon a pot of gold and accidentally became rich.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I don't feel sorry for him at all he has millions in the bank and is a cheating scumbag that would rather sleep with a 15 year old child! while he had a gf and a baby at home. He don't deserve sympathy heck I feel more sorry for Sharapova than this dim wit.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No where does that say 'under 16'. Nowhere does that say under 16.

    You're just factually incorrect here. This isn't subjective or a matter of opinion, you're argument is simply legally and factually incorrect. A 13 year old can consent to sex. A 15 can consent to sex. Both legally and in the ordinary sense of the word.
    Having sex with someone under 16 is sexual activity with a child if it was consensual. If it was not consensual it is rape.


    If you have sex with a 15 year old who consents, the crime is sexual activity with a child. The consent is not a defense to that, but it is to rape.

    If you coerce a 15 year old into sex, that is rape like it is with a person of any age.
    Consent is not a defence to sexual activity with a child but it is to rape.


    Please look here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s..._with_a_child/

    "Type/nature of activity: Penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth or penetration of the vagina or anus with another body part or an object

    Starting points: 4 years custody
    Sentencing ranges: 3 - 7 years custody
    "


    Notice how that says 'penile penetration of the vagina anus or mouth' and NOT 'rape'. That's because the issue of consent is irrelevant for sexual activity with a child.
    Please please please stop arguing on a wrong point. A 13 year old can consent both legally and ordinarily to sex. That consent is a defense to rape but the perpetrator would instead be guilty of sexual activity with a child.

    It's really not a difficult point to grasp.
    With how loosely you throw words around I can't believe you're making an argument based on semantics. A fifteen year old lacks the capacity to consent. The reason the age is set at 16 is because of the theory that at 16 someone is capable (has the capacity) of consenting. Whilst yes it isn't 'rape' the capacity to consent is still the issue


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    With how loosely you throw words around I can't believe you're making an argument based on semantics. A fifteen year old lacks the capacity to consent. The reason the age is set at 16 is because of the theory that at 16 someone is capable (has the capacity) of consenting. Whilst yes it isn't 'rape' the capacity to consent is still the issue


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No it isn't the issue. The prosecution does not need to prove absence of consent. The defence will get nowhere saying she consented. The judge will tell the jury consent is irrelevant. The only question for the court will be how old is she? Did sexual activity take place?

    What we have, unlike some other jurisdictions, is an aged based rule not an aged based presumption of ability to consent.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    With how loosely you throw words around I can't believe you're making an argument based on semantics. A fifteen year old lacks the capacity to consent. The reason the age is set at 16 is because of the theory that at 16 someone is capable (has the capacity) of consenting. Whilst yes it isn't 'rape' the capacity to consent is still the issue


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, that's not the law.
    A 13, 14 and 15 year old girl or boy can consent legally to sex. The fact that if they are held to have consented the offender would be convicted of sexual activity and not rape proves that.

    If you have sex with a 15 year old, the normal rules of rape apply. If they don't consent and there is an absence of reasonable belief it will be rape.
    If they do consent or there was reasonable belief it will not be rape but it will still be sexual activity with a child because consent is irrelevant to that offence.

    For sexual activity with a child, it is nothing whatsoever to do with consent. The only issue is whether the activity took place, whether consensual or not.

    What proves that a 13-16 year old can legally consent is that consent is a mitigating factor in sentencing.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No it isn't the issue. The prosecution does not need to prove absence of consent. The defence will get nowhere saying she consented. The judge will tell the jury consent is irrelevant. The only question for the court will be how old is she? Did sexual activity take place?

    What we have, unlike some other jurisdictions, is an aged based rule not an aged based presumption of ability to consent.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Are you/have you been a criminal lawyer out of interest?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Are you/have you been a criminal lawyer out of interest?
    I have neither been a criminal lawyer out of interest or out of the need for money but my firm does do crime and I have had some involvement in its management (or herding cats)


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oblivion99)
    She just exposed, the so-called victim, that she was betrayed by Adam Johnson? Betrayed for what? She was consistent on the relationship, she could've refused yet she "boasted" about it to all her friends - not an conduct an victim would due. Our media culture and laws are just barbaric. And yes he has money, but in this case, many wont do him no good whatsoever.
    Doesn't change that he broke the law and is a dirty perv.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by chosenone93)
    Doesn't change that he broke the law and is a dirty perv.
    You're acting like she was 5 years old. She was 15 on the threshold of puberty thus she was fully aware and technically at 15 I was making all my decisions independently. Yes he did broke the law and should pay for it but the fact that the girl is appointed to as a victim, horrifies me LOL.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oblivion99)
    You're acting like she was 5 years old. She was 15 on the threshold of puberty thus she was fully aware and technically at 15 I was making all my decisions independently. Yes he did broke the law and should pay for it but the fact that the girl is appointed to as a victim, horrifies me LOL.
    He groomed her and what is more he admitted he groomed her.

    Grooming means he contacted her at least twice, he then intentionally meets her, he intends to commit a sexual offence with her, she is under 16 and he doesn't reasonably believe she is over 16.

    The point about grooming is that there is nothing spontaneous about this offence. Everything revolves around a pre-planned course of action on his part.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    No, that's not the law.
    A 13, 14 and 15 year old girl or boy can consent legally to sex. The fact that if they are held to have consented the offender would be convicted of sexual activity and not rape proves that.

    If you have sex with a 15 year old, the normal rules of rape apply. If they don't consent and there is an absence of reasonable belief it will be rape.
    If they do consent or there was reasonable belief it will not be rape but it will still be sexual activity with a child because consent is irrelevant to that offence.

    For sexual activity with a child, it is nothing whatsoever to do with consent. The only issue is whether the activity took place, whether consensual or not.

    What proves that a 13-16 year old can legally consent is that consent is a mitigating factor in sentencing.
    Consent is essentially irrelevant in that situation because it can't possibly exist.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oblivion99)
    You're acting like she was 5 years old. She was 15 on the threshold of puberty thus she was fully aware and technically at 15 I was making all my decisions independently. Yes he did broke the law and should pay for it but the fact that the girl is appointed to as a victim, horrifies me LOL.
    All 15 year olds aren't the same as you she idolised him and he took advantage of this. He should never have contacted her at all or said that he was expecting something from her for signing her shirt like a kiss.

    I would have had little sympathy if the girl lied about her age but she clearly didnt and he also googled 'age of consent' on his iphone so he knew he was breaking the law but thought he would get away with it because he is a 'high profile' footballer.

    He even made the girl out to be a liar and cheated on his girlfriend who just had a baby. He is a dirty scumbag who deserves everything he gets he has ruined his career and he could have been a big star but he has thrown all that away as no English team will want to associate themselves with him and the fans will continue to abuse and ridicule him at every opportunity. He will piss off to somewhere like China after his sentence.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chikane)
    All 15 year olds aren't the same as you she idolised him and he took advantage of this. He should never have contacted her at all or said that he was expecting something from her for signing her shirt like a kiss.

    I would have had little sympathy if the girl lied about her age but she clearly didnt and he also googled 'age of consent' on his iphone so he knew he was breaking the law but thought he would get away with it because he is a 'high profile' footballer.

    He even made the girl out to be a liar and cheated on his girlfriend who just had a baby. He is a dirty scumbag who deserves everything he gets he has ruined his career and he could have been a big star but he has thrown all that away as no English team will want to associate themselves with him and the fans will continue to abuse and ridicule him at every opportunity. He will piss off to somewhere like China after his sentence.
    I think people are overplaying the 'she idolised him' part. Famous people use their fame to sleep with adult women as well so it wasn't her age that made her susceptible.

    Haha Adam Johnson could never have been a big star, he's very mediocre. Moving to China would have, financially, been a good move but by the time he's served his sentence he'll be too old for professional football most likely


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ComputerMaths97)
    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.
    There is a HUGE difference between using power to groom and manipulate someone vs using wealth to attract people.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by celloel)
    There is a HUGE difference between using power to groom and manipulate someone vs using wealth to attract people.
    And all he did was use his wealth, shown by the text messages, she was clearly after monetary value. However I do also assume his status played in her mind.

    The simple fact is, the girl wasn't as innocent as the victims usually are in these situations, as it's clear she was getting something out of him.
 
 
 
  • 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.