Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

The age of consent to be raped....

56 replies

InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 16:07

I was shocked by this story about two twelve year-old girls being raped by six men, as anyone would be.

Apparently, from what was said in court, one of the two girls had texted the men and set up the meeting and allegedly suggested having sex. She ended up being raped by five of them.

The age of consent in the UK is 16, so below that age a girl cannot legally give her consent to sex.

But further down in the article there was this quote:

"if the activities had taken place just four weeks later than they had, when the main girl would have turned 13, none of the defendants would have faced any criminal charges because of the defence provided by her actions."

In other words (it seemed to me) although at age 13 a girl is judged legally unable to give consent to sexual intercourse, it seems she can consent to being statutorily raped. Hmm

Have I got this thoroughly mixed up?

OP posts:
AyeRobot · 14/04/2011 19:13

But two 15 year olds would be charged with a lesser offence under the SOA 2003, yes? So the justice system is not labelling them rapists, society is. Or some of society. And I think those cases rarely get prosecuted, do they?

Shame that there is so much debate at law school about that minute issue. Is there much discussion about the wider problems of convicting rapists? Do you examine rape myths?

dittany · 14/04/2011 19:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 19:20

Yes, noncuro, I'd be interested to hear what discussions you have at law school about prosecuting/defending rape cases.

From the outside it doesn't look like much has changed wrt putting the victim on trial etc. since the SOA2003. What do your tutors and fellow students say about it?

OP posts:
Original poster
InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 19:23

I'm increasingly sympathising with the zero tolerance approach too, dittany. There are far too many rape get-out clauses in the law regarding young girls as it is now.

OP posts:
nottirednow · 14/04/2011 19:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

nickschick · 14/04/2011 19:27

So what are the 'laws' on sex between young teens when both of them are under 16? (sorry to hi jack).

AyeRobot · 14/04/2011 19:28

I shall ponder on that whilst I cook my tea, dittany. I was just batting back the "oh we can't label them rapists" stuff from noncuro's fellow students. I don't see how I can disagree with you, although I was 17 when I first had sex so my experience is only relevant in that I think I was old enough.

I think this is the relevant section of the SOA. I have to say, the idea of paying money (the fine) for having sex with a girl under 16 is all kinds of wrong.

13Child sex offences committed by children or young persons

(1)A person under 18 commits an offence if he does anything which would be an offence under any of sections 9 to 12 if he were aged 18.

(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable?

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

AyeRobot · 14/04/2011 19:29

The whole Sexual Offences Act 2003

Original poster
InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 19:36

Out of interest, dittany (and please don't answer if it's too personal!) did you feel that having underage sex damaged you?

Another one here who waited until 17...

OP posts:
TeiTetua · 14/04/2011 19:38

If two 15-year-olds have sex (and plenty do) which of them is to be prosecuted? Both? You can read about this in the Wikipedia entry about the Sexual Offences Act; it doesn't make good reading to hear "The law is unique since neither the Home Office nor the Police have any intention of policing it or prosecuting those who break it except in extreme circumstances." Well, who gets to define that?

When Scotland got a Sexual Offences Act, they were more honest. Their law says something like "It is a defence if the people involved are within 2 years of age".

But regardless, the men in this case were adults, so forget questions about relative age. They'll be going away for a good long time, no doubt.

noncuro · 14/04/2011 19:38

Yes I agree about the pressure even when there is less than a years age gap, I was just using an example. I think this also links to wider problems in sex education.

Rape of a child (under 13) the perpetrator's age is irrelevant in the statute (though I'm pretty certain judges will be a lot more lenient on child perpetrators, as the maximum sentence is life) for sexual activity with a child the statute provides express differences in sentencing, over 18s can get up to 14 years and under 18s up to 5 years. I would imagine it is very unlikely that a child of a similar age will actually be prosecuted except in unusual cases though.

Our first lecture/tutorial on sexual offences was focussed on the difficulties in convicting rapists, however as with most things at university it's up to you which aspects of the course you decide to research further. I did a bit more on rape myths and was able to explore them a bit more in jurisprudence, as well as feminist legal theory generally. Criminal law is a compulsory module and so I think people with little interest in crime generally ignored that section. To be fair to the course staff, they also have to cover homicide, ABH, GBH, defences to crime etc and time is short. Family law, criminology and jurisprudence are better modules to discuss this in as everyone wants to be in the class!

dittany · 14/04/2011 19:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 19:46

dittany Sad

OP posts:
Original poster
InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 19:56

Someone has just mentioned to me that "statutory rape" as such doesn't actually exist in England and Wales.

Can anyone shed any light on this? Does that make sense to you, noncuro?

OP posts:
noncuro · 14/04/2011 19:59

Essentially the main problem about rape is that there are almost never witnesses. So it all boils down to consent, her v him, who do you believe? The problem for criminal lawyers who are also feminists is that we want to see rapists convicted but that one persons word is rarely enough to = "beyond all reasonable doubt". It's quite uncomfortable for most practitioners I think, as most defence lawyers want to protect people from the state but would get the same feeling protecting rape victims from the same state that offers them no support, if that makes sense. I don't know if there are any 'proper' lawyers on here that can explain their feelings about this.

The tutors I had (all male, if it's relevant) put a lot of emphasis on this aspect of the course, compared to say the criminology of murder, in fact our criminal law exam paper had a question asking us how to redefine the law of rape and explain why.

I think a lot of the problem isn't actually how the statutes and cases approach the issue, its what evidence is available. I have to say if I do go to clubs or bars I am wary of being too friendly to men who are probably perfectly nice in case anything awful DID happen and I had to give a statement against them and my previous friendliness was used as evidence in court. My closest friend on my course also admits to this.

And as an aside, I'm another one who had sex underage (15), other sexual activity at 14. I don't think I'm damaged, but I am 20 and so I have no idea how I'll feel when I'm a bit older.

noncuro · 14/04/2011 20:02

I think it's just a different name (in the US) for the similar English offence of 'rape of a child', i.e. it's rape as the statute says that it is always an offence to have sex with someone aged 12 and under, whereas in 'rape' there is a subjective question of consent.

Original poster
InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 20:04

"I have to say if I do go to clubs or bars I am wary of being too friendly to men who are probably perfectly nice in case anything awful DID happen and I had to give a statement against them and my previous friendliness was used as evidence in court."

That seems like an eminently sensible approach - sadly, getting women drunk in bars is the favourite MO of rapists.
Have you read the "Schrodinger's Rapist" blog?

OP posts:
Original poster
InmaculadaConcepcion · 14/04/2011 20:05

Thanks for clarifying that, noncuro.

OP posts:
noncuro · 14/04/2011 20:15

Thank you for the link, I've just read it and will be forwarding it on to my stepbrother!

dittany · 14/04/2011 20:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

noncuro · 14/04/2011 21:01

Yes sorry, it should be 'independent' witnesses, for want of a better term. And re evidence, a barrister I did work experience with told me that it was very easy to get evidence of sex, but evidence of consent was very difficult. This was just her own experience though I'm guessing, no concrete facts to back this up.

Do you mean it's a legal problem that victims are assumed to be lying, or a social one? I ask because if you think about it, all offences assume the victim is lying. You give a statement to the police and they collect other evidence to prove your version of events, the defendant normally has to prove nothing at all.

KitieMsDress · 14/04/2011 21:28

dittany The problem with rape is that victims are assumed automatically to be lying.

You really do talk some cr*p. Where on earth have you got that from??? (And yes I do have experience in this area both as a victim of rape and working with the victims). It doesn't do anyone any favour to continue to peddle ridiculous ideas like that

Yes there usually more evidence than 'just ones persons word' but it doesn't always assist the victim or the offender for that matter.

Just because a woman says something doesn't automatically make it true anymore than everything a man always being the truth.

AyeRobot · 14/04/2011 21:59

The jury will be full of people who think that the victim is lying. I take it you have heard of rape myths in your line of work, KitieMsDress?

So sorry that you were raped and hope you got justice.

HandDivedScallopsrgreat · 14/04/2011 22:08

I've never really understood why people would think the victim is lying (although they obviously do). Surely it is far more likely that the accused would be lying - as in most crimes? Confused So KitieMsDress, I would say that the man would be far more likely to lie than the victim in rape cases.

sakura · 15/04/2011 02:19

yes men are more likely to lie about raping a woman than a woman is likely to lie about rape,

so if you're in the habit of assuming things about you should automatically assume a man is lying when he protests his innocence