Latest on MJJC

Should the age of consent be lowered for people under the age of majority?

Bob George

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,168
Points
0
Location
Brisbane, Australia
The average age of consent in most countries is 16, although it varies from country to country. You'll find that in most countries the age on consent is in the range or 14-18. So technically, anyone over the age of consent who has sex with anyone under the age of consent can be charges with rape, and be registered as a sex offender. Again, this isn't the same for all countries.

So say the age of consent in your country is 16. You're 16 and you're boy/girlfriend is 15r, and the two of you have consensual sex. You can be charged with rape and become a registered sex offender for the rest of your life. But in my opinion, you did nothing wrong. You had sex with someone you knew and both of you were willing participants.

I think there's a way to avoid a 16 year old going to jail for having consensual sex with their 15 year old boy/girlfriend. Lower the age of consent for people under the age of majority. The average age of majority (when you become a legal adult) in most countries is 18. Again this varies from country to country. But it's mostly 18.

Obviously, lowering the age of consent for non-adults would be problematic in a country where the age of majority is 21. That means a 20 year old can legally have sex with a 16/15/14 year old, and that's socially and morally not acceptable in most cultures. There's a rule of thumb for age disparity in sexual relationships, and it's half your age plus seven. So maybe for people under the age of majority, this rule should be applied to determine the age of consent.

So in a country where the age of majority is 18, the age of consent for someone who's 17 should be 15 and 6 months. For someone who's 16 it should be 15. For someone who's 15 it should be 14 and 6 months. The when you get to 14, and apply the rule of thumb, you get 14 again. So that's where it should stop. Because once you go beyond that, to 13, you get a number high than the original number. So once the rule of thumb cannot be applied to produce a number lower than the original number, it should stop. So once you are under the age of 14 it's illegal to have sex. In a country where the age of majority is 21, when the rule of thumb would be most useful, the age of consent for a 20 year old should be 17. For a 19 year old it should be 16 and 6 months. For an 18 year old it should be 16. And so on and so forth until you get to 14 again.

Obviously, if this law was applied it shouldn't be promoting. Like "hey kids, guess what? You can have sex!" But it should just be applied if a case of teenage sex is brought to court and the can use the half-your-age-plus-seven rule to determine if the defendant should be prosecuted if they are under the age of majority. And also, obviously, if it's actual rape, the person could be prosecuted. But at the moment, with the way the law is in most countries, a 16 or 17 year old can be charged with rape for have consensual sex with their 15 year old boy/girlfriend.

So does that make sense, and would it work? Would it stop innocent non-adults, having consensual sex with someone just a couple of years younger than them, from going to jail and pretty much having their lives ruined by being a registered sex offender for the rest of their lives?
 
Last edited:
That sounds ok to me, i mean i've heard of cases where the girl was like a week off 16 and she had sex with her bf who was 16 and a half or something and he got done for it, its not fair!
 
Bob George said:
The average age of consent in most countries is 16, although it varies from country to country. You'll find that in most countries the age on consent is in the range or 14-18. So technically, anyone over the age of consent who has sex with anyone under the age of consent can be charges with rape, and be registered as a sex offender. Again, this isn't the same for all countries.

So say the age of consent in your country is 16. You're 16 and you're boy/girlfriend is 15r, and the two of you have consensual sex. You can be charged with rape and become a registered sex offender for the rest of your life. But in my opinion, you did nothing wrong. You had sex with someone you knew and both of you were willing participants.

I think there's a way to avoid a 16 year old going to jail for having consensual sex with their 15 year old boy/girlfriend. Lower the age of consent for people under the age of majority. The average age of majority (when you become a legal adult) in most countries is 18. Again this varies from country to country. But it's mostly 18.

Obviously, lowering the age of consent for non-adults would be problematic in a country where the age of majority is 21. That means a 20 year old can legally have sex with a 16/15/14 year old, and that's socially and morally not acceptable in most cultures. There's a rule of thumb for age disparity in sexual relationships, and it's half your age plus seven. So maybe for people under the age of majority, this rule should be applied to determine the age of consent.

So in a country where the age of majority is 18, the age of consent for someone who's 17 should be 15 and 6 months. For someone who's 16 it should be 15. For someone who's 15 it should be 14 and 6 months. The when you get to 14, and apply the rule of thumb, you get 14 again. So that's where it should stop. Because once you go beyond that, to 13, you get a number high than the original number. So once the rule of thumb cannot be applied to produce a number lower than the original number, it should stop. So once you are under the age of 14 it's illegal to have sex. In a country where the age of majority is 21, when the rule of thumb would be most useful, the age of consent for a 20 year old should be 17. For a 19 year old it should be 16 and 6 months. For an 18 year old it should be 16. And so on and so forth until you get to 14 again.

Obviously, if this law was applied it shouldn't be promoting. Like "hey kids, guess what? You can have sex!" But it should just be applied if a case of teenage sex is brought to court and the can use the half-your-age-plus-seven rule to determine if the defendant should be prosecuted if they are under the age of majority. And also, obviously, if it's actual rape, the person could be prosecuted. But at the moment, with the way the law is in most countries, a 16 or 17 year old can be charged with rape for have consensual sex with their 15 year old boy/girlfriend.

So does that make sense, and would it work? Would it stop innocent non-adults, having consensual sex with someone just a couple of years younger than them, from going to jail and pretty much having their lives ruined by being a registered sex offender for the rest of their lives?
Click to expand...

Mmm! I will have to do some research on this one...
 
Hmmmmmm...............
The law is there to protect children form explotation by people older then them. I don`t know how it works in the US, but I can`t think of any case here where a two young people who are in a relationship has been in a situation where he/ she has been judged as a rapist.
Usually the court does show some kind of sense? Eatch case is different, and this kind of falls into an area where common sense should be used, and even courts has to take things like that into consideration?
I don`t realy think its a change of law that is needed, just that its used common sense and that the cases are judged individualy.
In many cases, that is the problem- we can have as many laws as we like- but without people using their intelligense and common sense, it realy doesn`t matter anyway........
 
The law is the law. Common sense can't override any law. If a 16 year old has sex with a 15 year old, and the father of that 15 year old pressed charges of rape against the 15 year old, he can do so, and if it can be proven that a sexual act took place that 16 year old can receive jail time.
 
in what counrty does that happen cause ive never heard of that. if the two ppl are in a relationship they are hardly gonna accuse each other of rape.parents cant make the allegation when those invovled says its consenual.it would go no where. rape is very different
 
Well obviously it happens in the US a lot. But I've heard of cases in Australia. Even if it's consensual, it doesn't matter. If someone over the age of consent has sex with someone under the age of consent, they can technically be charges with rape because the second person wasn't legally old enough to give their consent. At the high school I went to, a teacher dobbed a 17 year old student in on suspicion that he was having sex with a 15 year old girl, however they both denied having sex to the cops. If they didn't deny it, the 17 year old could've been charged with a sex crime.
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker said:
in what counrty does that happen cause ive never heard of that. if the two ppl are in a relationship they are hardly gonna accuse each other of rape.parents cant make the allegation when those invovled says its consenual.it would go no where. rape is very different
Click to expand...
The US of course...Marcus Dixon is one example that I'm able to recall, but I do believe that there has been a handful more in the past few years. Here is a Dixon article that I found on the subject:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4081/is_200403/ai_n9364176

I know that in some States that there are "Romeo and Juliet" laws where statutory rape laws don't apply when one of the persons in question are within about 3 years of their consenting sexual partner, but it does need to be more across the board. The chances of people, particularly angry dads, taking advantage of the laws and turning innocent guys into future Marcus Dixon cases is far too great and the issue needs to be addressed with logic.
 
Well obviously it happens in the US a lot
Click to expand...

that doesnt count then. you get 50 years for stealing a loaf od bread there lol the law here is having underage sex not rape. consenting sex depending on the age is very different to rape.
 
well yes it can and i think it has been classed as that when the child is very young because its beleived that the child is to young to understand and therfore cant give consent. but when it invovles those a year or so under the age of consent and when they are seeing someone its treated differently.
 
So then is the age of consent irrelevant in the UK for people under the age of majority? How is a case treated when someone over the age of consent has someone under the age of consent and those two people are only a couple of years apart in age difference?
 
it isnt classed as rape unlike its what i said above. or say its someone whos say 16 but has a mental age of a child for eg. if a child is under 13 it can be classed as rape because its thought they are to young to give consent regardless but if its between 13-15 u can get done for sexual assult etc and indecent assult. but from what ive seen i think cases like that are quite rare because if the "victim" isnt prepered to make an allegation,obviously if they are in a releationship they wont thern there isnt much point going forward with the case. they arent many if any at all prosecutions where both kids are say 15 because its not seen to be in the public intrest. there is the letter of the law but its agrey area and the prosecution service dont prosecute just because they are both 15 for eg. common sense is used
 
this is how crazy it is in the UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/7255540.stm


Child, 12, guilty of raping boy

A 12-year-old boy has been convicted of raping a younger boy in a garden in Bradford, West Yorkshire.

Wednesday, 20 February 2008

A jury at Bradford Crown Court heard a boy aged five was forced to perform a sex act on the older boy, in return for being allowed to play on a trampoline.

The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been cleared of similar charges against an eight-year-old.

He will be placed on the Sex Offenders Register and sentenced on 28 March. The incident happened last August.

The Crown Prosecution Service said it believed the 12-year-old boy was the youngest person to be convicted of rape in West Yorkshire.

Neil Franklin, chief crown prosecutor for West Yorkshire, said: "Any case where the perpetrator and victim are both children will always involve extremely difficult decisions and very careful judgement on the part of prosecutors, particularly where there is evidence of a sexual crime.

"We are satisfied that the right decisions were taken in dealing with this case."
​
 
Last edited:
I believe the 3 year rule for adults having sexual encounters with technical minors is pretty reasonable. The minor cannot be more than 3 years younger than you, otherwise it is an offense.
 
arXter said:
this is how crazy it is in the UK


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/7255540.stm


Child, 12, guilty of raping boy​

A 12-year-old boy has been convicted of raping a younger boy in a garden in Bradford, West Yorkshire.​

Wednesday, 20 February 2008​

A jury at Bradford Crown Court heard a boy aged five was forced to perform a sex act on the older boy, in return for being allowed to play on a trampoline.​

The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has been cleared of similar charges against an eight-year-old.​

He will be placed on the Sex Offenders Register and sentenced on 28 March. The incident happened last August.​

The Crown Prosecution Service said it believed the 12-year-old boy was the youngest person to be convicted of rape in West Yorkshire.​

Neil Franklin, chief crown prosecutor for West Yorkshire, said: "Any case where the perpetrator and victim are both children will always involve extremely difficult decisions and very careful judgement on the part of prosecutors, particularly where there is evidence of a sexual crime.​

"We are satisfied that the right decisions were taken in dealing with this case." ​
Click to expand...

Judging only from what is written in this article, this is a far from ordinary case.
In our system, no child ( below 16) would ever be charged as an adult. In a case like this he would be treated as someone who needs psycological treatment. And there are obviously a story behind it, as no normal boy would do anything like this.

As I said, usually the court use common sense: If the couple in question is in a relationship, and is not far apart in age, I have not heard of any cases where a young man has been charged with rape. It would be wasting the money of the judicial system, and wasting time that should be used in other more important cases.

As I said before, common sense has to be used- and the laws are up to interpretation by the court. So in my opinion, making the age limit lower will do nothing, if people that are in the power to judge does not take into consideration that each case is different. If we did not need to interpret the law, and differentiate between cases, there would be no need for a jury system or lawyers, or even judges. There would be only needed to look at the facts, and sentence according to the offence made.
The saying that the law is "blind", is far from true, as it is influenced by the society it works in. And each society is different.
What is highly offensive in one part of the world is regarded as normal in another place.

So, in my opinion the problem here is not the law, but the societies view of the matter that should be changed.

Edit: I think this is a difficult thing to discuss..........
 
Last edited:
not sure what that article has to do with this thread? its totally seperate to the issue that is being discussed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top