Does anyone have figures for people in prison for consensual sex with similarly aged but underage partners?

[SardineQueen]

Just looking at another thread on here and a lot of people saying they know young men who are in prison / on the sex offenders register for consensual sex - the ages being talked about are 15 and 17.

Also someone saying that in young offenders institutes there are a of young people in there for similarly aged consensual sex.

This seems unlikely to me but I have no figures to go on so I don't really know. Does anyone have any stats on this?

Thanks.

[SardineQueen]

That was a of laughter BTW

Am not chanelling peppa pig

[SardineQueen]

[chocladoodle]

No I would tell him that contraception was the responsibility of the girl.






*joke

[SardineQueen]

But yes that is spot on.

[SardineQueen]

• contraception

[SardineQueen]

Yes I think those things are all absolutely spot on.

Great post IMO

[chocladoodle]

If I were a mother of a boy in Scotland then I would damn well make sure he respected girls and didn't coerce 14 and 15 yr olds into having sex.

I would also ensure he knew that it is illegal to have sex below the age of 16.

If he chose to have sex then I would make sure he understood the meaning of consensual and mutual agreement.

If he and she (or he) were sensible and the previous point applied then I would also see that the chances of the police chapping on our door was also a very unlikely prospect.

[SardineQueen]

I have read your posts.
I don't understand.
There is no logic.

I have been talking about the sexual offences act 2003 throughout this thread, that contains the statement "Although the age of consent remains at 16, the law is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation."

This sets my mind at rest that boys and girls who are of older teenage years are not being prosecuted for mutually agreed sex.

Something different appear to be in place in scotland - which I am very surprised about - although there is no source for this claim. Still, apparently in scotland, the law is applied differently to boys and girls.

If I were a mother of a boy in scotland I would have something to say about that.

Fortunately things are very different here in England.

[chocladoodle]

SQ

Please go back and read my posts. I have already explained all this.

[EdithWeston]

Whichever county of UK you are in, surely the key bit is "unless it involves abuse or exploitation"?

For if it is assumed this is an offence which will never be prosecuted, even when there is a possible defence of age propinquity, then it fosters an assumption that sex with girls under 16 is OK, and makes it harder for girls to confide in responsible adults about situations with undue pressure. The possibility of prosecution for anything other than enthusiastically consensual sex may only be a small part of a boy's thinking, but it's a nagging doubt that damn well ought to be there.

[chocladoodle]

It is not just my feelings!!!!

I have first hand experience of dealing with this sort of thing.

I have studied the law and enforced it!!!!

I DO know about this sort of thing.

Hasn't that been obvious from my posts!!!

[SardineQueen]

Oh come off it

Do you know what "illegal" means?
Illegal means what the law says

"Another thing that is illegal is in the case when both boy and girl are under 16yrs. The boy would be able to be prosecuted but not the girl"

The law that you have linked to DOES NOT say this.
You also keep saying the law is to protect girls who get pregnant. That is NOT TRUE in England at least the law is there to protect children of both sexes.

[SardineQueen]

choc says categorically that in scotland, "Another thing that is illegal is in the case when both boy and girl are under 16yrs. The boy would be able to be prosecuted but not the girl".

I want to know her source for that.
She quoted the legislation to back up her statement, but the legislation says something completely different.
Then she said that "Even though the legislation states that a boy and girl under 16 could both be charged, it is the decision of the Crown office that the girl would not be convicted of such an offence as it would not be in the public's best interest". I want to know her source for that. If it is in the guidance it will be written down. She is very definite and I want to know where it has come from, other than just her feelings about it all.

[chocladoodle]

KlickKlack - well I'm glad that point is at least sorted

[chocladoodle]

SQ

You'll just have to take my word on that. Try and see that maybe I DO know something that you don't and just because you refuse to accept it doesn't make ME wrong. My only suggestion would be for you to contact the Crown Office and ask what their interpretation of the law is and their ideals in enforcing it. You might however only get linked to the legislation.

Why are you so quick to dismiss what I say?

[KlickKlackknobsac]

hello???????
Quoting any legislation won't help-

[SardineQueen]

Show me the link that says the guidance in scotland is that if two 15 year olds have sex, both can be charged, however the girl may not ever be found guilty, while the boy can be found guilty.

[chocladoodle]

"You don't think that a large part of the reason for women and girls not reporting assaults is because of the low chance of conviction? Because they think the experience will be harrowing? Because they are concerned about being dragged through the mud in court? Because of what else might happen (see ched evans case as a good example)."

I agree

"I don't think that women and girls are deciding not to reports, because of a general view that prosecuting mutually agreed sex between older teens is not in the public interest?"

Nor do I, but it was said up thread about the police not bothering doing anything about it, and I think this attitutude could expand to more serious crimes and I think that it wrong.

"If a woman is raped, I don't think she thinks "Oh well I won't bother reporting it because I went out with a boy from 15 to 17 and was happily sleeping with him and no-one put him in prison". Are they now."

Really?? Do you think this is my point.

OMG

(Bangs head against the wall)

[KlickKlackknobsac]

OMG you two

I said ages ago that obtaining the legislation will not in itself give you a full understanding of how the law is interpreted (due to precedent and the fact that the ELS is not 'written')
Boys should not erroneously be CHARGED and placed on the SEX OFFENDERS REGISTER for having sex with an underage female, but if they have had sex with a minor then (ACCORDING TO THE EX CONS) they will be charged. There is a fine balance here between upholding the legal view that 16 is the earliest time when sex should be consented to, protecting girls by allowing the above to be advertised, and using discretion in case where a girl of 15 is mature enough to consent.
No idea about underage sex between gay men. Do not think courts would even consider underage sex between lesbians as a crime.
You are both right in your ways- STOP arguing!!!!!

[SardineQueen]

"The legislation would only contain the details of the law.

In practice the Crown Office would have their own guidance about how that law were to be upheld. * This is the bit where I think you can't get your head around. It won't be listed on the legislation."

Which is why I asked for a link.

[SardineQueen]

"The legislation was altered because of the number of young teenage boys who were being convicted of having mutally agreed sex with their underage girlfriends. "

When was the law changed? What did the previous law say? What are the statistics on the numbers of young men being locked up for this reason?

"I personally am not aware of people saying there are high numbers of youths locked up for underage sex"

Isn't this in direct contradiction to what you have just said?

"But perhaps I move in different groups than you and am not exposed to that sort of allegation."

Have you been reading the thread? Did you read the title? My whole point is that I DO NOT believe that high numbers of youths are being locked up for this reason, and my feeling was borne out by the sexual offences act 2003 which says "Although the age of consent remains at 16, the law is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed teenage sexual activity between two young people of a similar age,unless it involves abuse or exploitation."

[chocladoodle]

"choc why do you want to enforce the law regarding the age of consent, with young people who are around the age of consent, who are having mutually agreed sex? And why do you want it enforced regarding boys, but not girls?"

Ermm, I don't. I've never said that. Personally I think if it's mutual and there is no harm being done to either party, then fine.

All I've done throughout this thread is highlight the legislation and try and dispel some myths about what can and cannot be prosecuted.

[SardineQueen]

"The legislation would only contain the details of the law.

In practice the Crown Office would have their own guidance about how that law were to be upheld. * This is the bit where I think you can't get your head around. It won't be listed on the legislation."

Which is why I asked for a link.

[SardineQueen]

You don't think that a large part of the reason for women and girls not reporting assaults is because of the low chance of conviction? Because they think the experience will be harrowing? Because they are concerned about being dragged through the mud in court? Because of what else might happen (see ched evans case as a good example).

I don't think that women and girls are deciding not to reports, because of a general view that prosecuting mutually agreed sex between older teens is not in the public interest?

If a woman is raped, I don't think she thinks "Oh well I won't bother reporting it because I went out with a boy from 15 to 17 and was happily sleeping with him and no-one put him in prison". Are they now.

Bringing non-consensual sex into this is simply an attempt to muddy the waters in a huge way.

[chocladoodle]

The legislation would only contain the details of the law.

In practice the Crown Office would have their own guidance about how that law were to be upheld. This is the bit where I think you can't get your head around. * It won't be listed on the legislation.

The legislation was altered because of the number of young teenage boys who were being convicted of having mutally agreed sex with their underage girlfriends. This resulted in them being placed on the sex offenders list. This is obviously unfair and not the reason why the sex offender list was created. If anything it muddied the waters for the monitoring of the 'true' offenders on the sex offenders list. Therefore the law was changed to reflect this.

I personally am not aware of people saying there are high numbers of youths locked up for underage sex, if anything I would say it was unlikley and only relevant to repeat offenders (as per my earlier example of a 17yr running wild and impregnating numerous 15y girls). But perhaps I move in different groups than you and am not exposed to that sort of allegation.

It does remain however that having sex with an underage girl can result in prosecution and perhaps all these 17yr old boys should do well and remember that.