I thought that even if a 15year old did 'consent' they are not legally able to consent due to being under 16 and the man OR WOMAN in the case of a boy under 16 would be charged with 'statutory rape'.
It is irrelevant whether the person under 16 agreed to sex of not.
1) Rape is the offence of having non-consensual sex. It doesn't matter if the complainant is 6 years old or 60 years old - the prosecution have to prove that either a) she didn't understand what sex was, or b) she didn't want to have sex. Obviously, if the complainant is 6 years old, it will be very easy to prove point A.
2) There is a different offence called 'sexual activity with a person under 16'. The prosecution have to prove the defendant had sex with the complainant, and that she was under 16. If they prove this, then the defendant is guilty even if the complainant did consent.
3) The law does not say that one has to obtain a certain age to give 'valid' consent. There is no such thing as 'valid' or 'invalid' consent in english law. You either consent or you don't.
4) There is no such thing as 'statutory rape'. Technically all rape is statutory, in that the law of rape is contained in a statute (as opposed to existing merely at common law). I think that what you are probably getting at is the law in some american states that if the defendant is charged with rape and the complainant is under a certain age, then lack of consent is irrebuttably presumed. As I explained in Point 1, that is not the case in english law.
Albania 14
Austria 14
Bosnia 14
Bulgaria 15
Croatia 15
Czech republic 15
Denmark 15
Estonia 14
France 15
Germany 14
Greece 15
Hungary 14
Iceland 14
Italy 14
Liechtenstein 14
Monaco 15
Montenegro 14
Poland 15
Portugal 14
Romania 15
San Marino 14
Serbia 14
Slovak 15
Spain 13
Sweeden 15
As part of the EU, it seems odd that something like age of consent is not the same throughout the area.
The variation in ages just shows how absurd the concept of 'age of consent' is. It's so arbitrary.
People mature sexually at different individual rates. One girl might feel ready at 14, one guy at 19. What makes the law even more absurd, is that includes any shared sexual contact (even mutual masturbation). I remember when I was 15, mutual pleasuring was pretty rampant amongst my year group.
People will continue to do what they want regardless, whether age of consent is 16 or 13. If someone's ready, then nothing will stop them.
Most people who have sex under the age of consent do so having consented. They want to have sex and do the other bad things they do. The concept of an age of consent is not viable. The result is selective justice, where some people who have sex with people who are considered too young to consent get locked up for 18 years, and others suffer no consequences.
There should be a minimum legal age for having sex like there is for driving and voting, and there should be severe consequences for having consentual sex under age. The minimum age should be 18. There is no good reason why people should be having sex and becoming parents at 16 or younger. Teenagers who want to do those things at that age are usually disfunctional and bad, and its about time they suffered consequences for their actions instead of being given the vulnerable label, which used to belong to young children, the elderly and disabled and now belongs to drug users, prostitutes, shop lifters and even sex offenders.
Young people already feel pressure to have sex.
Why not? If a 17-year-old considers herself too young to have sex, that should be considered a valid reason even though the age of consent is 16.
Wow, please tell me you're joking? It's natural for most to want to explore their sexuality as teenagers, way before 18. Starting with exploring one's own body and then graduating onto exploring another person's. I'd argue that it can be just as harmful to hold someone back from developing sexually at the pace their own body is telling them to.
The variation in ages just shows how absurd the concept of 'age of consent' is. It's so arbitrary.
People mature sexually at different individual rates. One girl might feel ready at 14, one guy at 19. What makes the law even more absurd, is that includes any shared sexual contact (even mutual masturbation). I remember when I was 15, mutual pleasuring was pretty rampant amongst my year group.
People will continue to do what they want regardless, whether age of consent is 16 or 13. If someone's ready, then nothing will stop them.
The problem is that it has to be arbitrary, because the only other alternative is to have it decided by the courts on a case by case basis, which is fine in theory, but in practice is lunacy.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I had to provide an exciting monologue. I hadn't contributed to the thread beforehand so I did tonight - and simply gave my opinion on lowering the age of consent to 13. Whether I wrote 1 word or 100 words my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's in this thread.
If my one word reply really irked you that much then you could have simply ignored it. There was no need to try and humiliate me like that as I'm sure it impressed no-one.
You're right, this has been, on the whole, a respectful thread. That is until you decided to make a bitchy, condescending remark when it was completely uncalled for. Well done.
Anyway, I'll leave you to your enjoyable discussion.
That is until you decided to make a bitchy, condescending remark when it was completely uncalled for. Well done.
Ad Hominem post...you posted an non-contextual single word in a thread that has been full of excellent comments...you now try and back up this one word comment by trying to contextualise it and attempt to get some moral discussional high ground.
Please learn how debates are carried out...non contextual single word posts do not achieve anything.
2) There is a different offence called 'sexual activity with a person under 16'. The prosecution have to prove the defendant had sex with the complainant, and that she was under 16. If they prove this, then the defendant is guilty even if the complainant did consent.
.
Sorry, you seem to have said two different things - above you say the only thing that matters is was that person under 16, if so, whether they agreed to have sex does not matter but in the quote below:
If a man is charged with rape and the complainant is 15, he will be acquitted unless the prosecution prove the complainant did not consent. They cannot use her age to prove lack of consent, they must prove she did not want to have sex. If she did want it, he will be acquitted.
This implies that even if that person was under 16 BUT consented to have sex that person over 16 would be acquitted.
Not being difficult here - you just seem to have said two different things above,
The problem is that it has to be arbitrary, because the only other alternative is to have it decided by the courts on a case by case basis, which is fine in theory, but in practice is lunacy.
I see your what you're saying, but I just can't help thinking the law is a bit pointless (in terms of being a deterrent, I don't think it's very effective).
Sorry, you seem to have said two different things - above you say the only thing that matters is was that person under 16, if so, whether they agreed to have sex does not matter but in the quote below:
This implies that even if that person was under 16 BUT consented to have sex that person over 16 would be acquitted.
Not being difficult here - you just seem to have said two different things above,
A man would be acquitted of rape if a girl of 15 consented. He could still be found guilty of "sexual activity with a person under 16".
I see your what you're saying, but I just can't help thinking the law is a bit pointless (in terms of being a deterrent, I don't think it's very effective).
I for one am not going to argue that it's a deterrent.
Comments
1) Rape is the offence of having non-consensual sex. It doesn't matter if the complainant is 6 years old or 60 years old - the prosecution have to prove that either a) she didn't understand what sex was, or b) she didn't want to have sex. Obviously, if the complainant is 6 years old, it will be very easy to prove point A.
2) There is a different offence called 'sexual activity with a person under 16'. The prosecution have to prove the defendant had sex with the complainant, and that she was under 16. If they prove this, then the defendant is guilty even if the complainant did consent.
3) The law does not say that one has to obtain a certain age to give 'valid' consent. There is no such thing as 'valid' or 'invalid' consent in english law. You either consent or you don't.
4) There is no such thing as 'statutory rape'. Technically all rape is statutory, in that the law of rape is contained in a statute (as opposed to existing merely at common law). I think that what you are probably getting at is the law in some american states that if the defendant is charged with rape and the complainant is under a certain age, then lack of consent is irrebuttably presumed. As I explained in Point 1, that is not the case in english law.
The variation in ages just shows how absurd the concept of 'age of consent' is. It's so arbitrary.
People mature sexually at different individual rates. One girl might feel ready at 14, one guy at 19. What makes the law even more absurd, is that includes any shared sexual contact (even mutual masturbation). I remember when I was 15, mutual pleasuring was pretty rampant amongst my year group.
People will continue to do what they want regardless, whether age of consent is 16 or 13. If someone's ready, then nothing will stop them.
Wow, please tell me you're joking? It's natural for most to want to explore their sexuality as teenagers, way before 18. Starting with exploring one's own body and then graduating onto exploring another person's. I'd argue that it can be just as harmful to hold someone back from developing sexually at the pace their own body is telling them to.
The problem is that it has to be arbitrary, because the only other alternative is to have it decided by the courts on a case by case basis, which is fine in theory, but in practice is lunacy.
Ad Hominem post...you posted an non-contextual single word in a thread that has been full of excellent comments...you now try and back up this one word comment by trying to contextualise it and attempt to get some moral discussional high ground.
Please learn how debates are carried out...non contextual single word posts do not achieve anything.
Sorry, you seem to have said two different things - above you say the only thing that matters is was that person under 16, if so, whether they agreed to have sex does not matter but in the quote below:
This implies that even if that person was under 16 BUT consented to have sex that person over 16 would be acquitted.
Not being difficult here - you just seem to have said two different things above,
I see your what you're saying, but I just can't help thinking the law is a bit pointless (in terms of being a deterrent, I don't think it's very effective).
A man would be acquitted of rape if a girl of 15 consented. He could still be found guilty of "sexual activity with a person under 16".
I for one am not going to argue that it's a deterrent.
Thanks for the clarification...I thought it was less flexible than that.