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.

[chocladoodle]

Why are being so argumentative? The law is the law. I have only pointed the legislation out. Whether or not I think this is a realistic grasp on how I view society has got nothing to do with it.

Where have I went wrong? What exactly have I said to annoy you so much?

[SardineQueen]

optimisticpessimist it says that if the other person consents then they are also committing a crime.

So if A penetrates B and B consents then they are both committing the same crime of sex with an older child.

"Older child" is not a term that is used in the English laws AFAIK.

[chocladoodle]

That's right Optimistic, only the boy would be prosecuted. To understand it helps to read through the subsections.
It is a bit bizarre but it links to the old laws to protect the girls from unwanted pregnancies.

SQ
First of all you asked if I was in Afghanistan and then you referred to another poster that you were talking about the UK. Then went on to talk about 'our' country. Maybe you should have been explicit that you were only interested in discussing the laws on England, which is what I presume you are doing.

[SardineQueen]

"Why are being so argumentative? The law is the law. I have only pointed the legislation out."

You have pointed out the legislation in SCOTLAND. All through teh thread we have been talking about the law in ENGLAND. Are you scottish?

And the piece that you have pasted DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU IMAGINE IT SAYS. You are misreading it because you have pre-existing ideas about what the law says. It DOES NOT SAY what you claim it says. And it's scotland.

Of course I'm irate. It's like trying to have a conversation with a goldfish.

[SardineQueen]

That's right Optimistic, only the boy would be prosecuted. To understand it helps to read through the subsections.

NO THAT'S NOT RIGHT
TRY READING WHAT YOU HAVE PASTED
IT SAYS THEY ARE BOTH COMMITTING THE SAME CRIME
ADDITIONALLY WHY ARE YOU PASTING THE LAW IN SCOTLAND WHEN WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ENGLAND ALL THROUGH THE THREAD

[SardineQueen]

"I have copied the legislation that says boys aged 16+ can be prosecuted for having sex with girls under 16."

NO YOU HAVE COPIED THE LEGISLATION TALKING ABOUT TWO OLDER CHILDREN HAVING SEX WITH EACH OTHER

[chocladoodle]

Why would I be talking about the law in England? Why are you not talking about the law in Scotland.

You said you were talking about UK law, which in fact doesn't exist. Am I not allowed to talk about the law in my own country, but in fact go away and learn about the law in another country.

However, I have no doubt that major similarities exist between the two.

[chocladoodle]

SQ
look further up thread, my first copy and paste related directly to that.

[SardineQueen]

"I have copied the legislation that says boys aged 16+ can be prosecuted for having sex with girls under 16."

NO YOU COPIED THE LEGISLATION TO BACK UP THIS COMMENT:

"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. "

AND IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT YOU SAY IT SAYS.

[chocladoodle]

My comment here Sun 06-May-12 13:37:21 mentions the legislation.

[LowFlyingBirds]

Chocadoodle - i cant speak for anyone else but i find your posts rather annoying because youre not actually making any valid points yet seem to have a strong urge to get some sort of point across.

Why not just post, clearly, what you think and why. Would be a lot easier all round.

Just realised, think this may be why some people are so willing to trot out the '17yo jailed for consensual sex with 15yo' myth...its shorthand for an agenda that they arent willing to vocalise, or perhaps even acknowledge themselves?

[SardineQueen]

"Why would I be talking about the law in England? Why are you not talking about the law in Scotland. "

My second post talking about the CPS. This is the service in england and wales. in scotland it is called something else.
And the small matter of me linking to and quoting the sexual offences act 2003 all through the thread.

[SardineQueen]

Your first copy and pasted linked directly to what?

[SardineQueen]

Your first cut and paste looks like a small excerpt from the sexual offences act 2003 (england and wales)

Your second if from the legislation that applies to scotland

???

[SardineQueen]

Thank you lowflyingbirds.

I am not sure what choc's point is either but she seems determined to make it

[chocladoodle]

My first copy and paste (as stated above in 13:37) is an excerpt from the same legislation that I have been talking about all the way through. The reason why I mentioned it was because SQ kept posting that it was the policy of the police to not do anything when a girl of under 16 and a boy of 16+ have sex. I wanted to point out that it is in fact illegal and that it is now becoming common knowledge that it is ok to have sex with girls under 16 when in fact it is against the law. I have copied it again for you.

Having intercourse with an older child
If a person (?A?), who has attained the age of 16 years, with A?s penis, penetrates to any extent, either intending to do so or reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of a child (?B?), who?
(a) has attained the age of 13 years, but
(b) has not attained the age of 16 years,
then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of having intercourse with an older child.

It appeared that SQ couldn't imagine this from ever happening and I agree that it is extremely unusual. However the law is there and it is there for the protection of girls (mainly) because they have the higher risks of such sexual encounters.

I don't know how this makes me annoying !!!

[chocladoodle]

SQ
I have no idea now what point you are making. You have jumped about on this thread all over the place and have decided to mix my words, misinterpret what I have said and try and shout me down.

Perhaps it is best not to try and educate you in the law and leave you believing that having sex with underage girls is acceptable and that (if reported) to the police will do nothing.

[LowFlyingBirds]

My theory is that we are costantly being fed certain myths and some people, through no fault of teir own other than perhaps an unwillingness/inability to look a little deeper, absorb them and believe them and therefore have strong feelings of injustice about the subject - ie, many youn men being criminalised due to laws that mean females have at their fingertips the opportunity to have an innocent boy/man jailed on a whim (maliciousness?).

Then they get involved in conversations where the facts, the Actual facts and statistics, entirely undermine what they have previously been led to believe but the feelings are stll there, the feeling that decent men and boys are in danger from these laws (and malicious girls/women who rely on them), so this leads to grasing at straws because they feel so strongly about it all.

But if the foundations are ripped away from under what you believe, try looking at why you believed they were solid foundations in the first pkace...get angry about that instead of desperately trying to prop up your feelings with yet more shifting sands.

[SardineQueen]

chocladoodle

Please can you confirm why you have been referring to scottish law when throughout the thread we have been talking about english law

Please can you confirm why you claim that if a 15yo boy and girl have sex the boy can be prosecuted but not the girl when this is not the case in english law OR scottish law

Please can you confirm why you responded to my quotes from the sexual offences act 2003 if you were talking about scotland, rather than saying at that point that you were referring to different legislation in a different country (which would have been helpful)

And as for this "The reason why I mentioned it was because SQ kept posting that it was the policy of the police to not do anything when a girl of under 16 and a boy of 16+ have sex."

I ONCE AGAIN refer you to the sexual offences act 2003 "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." which takes us back to where we started.

I have at NO POINT said it is legal to have sex with underage girls my question was HOW COMMON IS IT FOR MALES TO BE PROSECUTED FOR HAVING MUTUALLY AGREED SEX WHEN THEY ARE SIMILAR IN AGE IE 17 AND 15 and the answer is VERY UNCOMMON INDEED AND LOOK THE LAW EVEN SAYS IT.

I still do not know what your point on this thread is apart from to spout rubbish about the law without ever getting to the point. Still it's been fun

[SardineQueen]

Oooh that was a good post lowflyingbirds!

[chocladoodle]

SQ
Not once in this thread did you say that refer only to English law. You mentioned the law of the UK???

It was only when I linked the Scotland law that you jumped on this.

Is it just an assumption that we've all to make that any discussion, unless otherwise stated, is relevant to England and only England, and the remainder of the UK can be ignored.

Oh, you mention CPS but don't know what its equivalent is called in Scotland, well that's ok then, as long as the rest of us non-English UK citizens understand what you are talking about, you don't need to know about what's relevant to us. Talk about the privileged !!!

[SardineQueen]

Are you in scotland?

I would have thought that linking to the sexual offences act 2003 and quoting from it would be enough to indicate that it was the law relating to that document that we were talking about.

And FYI and you still don't seem to realise that it is bollocks that when 2 15 yo have mutually agreed sex the boy can be prosecuted but not the girl whether you are in england OR scotland.

What point are you trying to make on this thread?

[SardineQueen]

IF I wanted to talk about the situation in scotland, I would A say "this is a case in scotland, I am interested in what goes on in scotland B refer to the COPFS rather than the CPS and C link to scottish laws rather than english ones.

I mean come off it are you trying to suggest that I have been talking rubbish when I have quite clearly named the sources of quotes I am talking about and what prosecuting authorities I am interested in?

While you are post loads of random incorrect stuff and expect to get around the fact of your total inaccuracy and lack of understanding of the law by saying OH I was talking about Scotland all along?

I wish you would just come out with whatever it is you are trying to prove rather than shifting round in circles the whole time and getting terribly irate without saying what is it you are irate about.

[AyeRobot]

What a bizarre thread. Great perseverance, SQ.

From the Sentencing Guidelines (NB for England & Wales

"in addition, it is not in the public interest to prosecute children who are of the same or similar age and understanding that engage in sexual activity, where the activity is truly consensual for both parties and there are no aggravating features, such as coercion or corruption. In such cases, protection will normally be best achieved by providing education for the children and young people and providing them and their families with access to advisory and counselling services. This is the intention of Parliament."

[chocladoodle]

I am in Scotland.

I have always been referring to Scottish Law, which by the way is not random incorrect stuff. I am not inaccurate in what I have said and I have a very good understanding of the law, thank you very much. Can you show me where you think this is the case?

I am not irate, it is you who said you were irate, typing with CAPS LOCK on and calling me a goldfish or something.

Not once, did you say English Law or the law of England. You did mention the act of 2003, which I suppose everyone else not in the privileged position of being English or residing in England should automatically know what you are talking about, but the same rules don't apply when I'm referring to the law of my home country. Can't you see the irony of your position in this thread.

I have repeatedly stated my position on what is legal and what isn't. I do not and never have disagreed with any poster on this thread when it has been said that it is unusual for a 17y boy to be prosecuted for having sex with a 15 y girl. That is the point I am making. Can't you see that we are in agreeance here.

The law could not be created with a discrimination against a 15 y boy and not a 15 y girl when it comes to who would be charged. However, what I am saying is that this scenario would never occur, I have never heard of it happening, just because there is a law there stating that it does not automatically mean that it is in the interests of the public to enforce that law. Do you now understand what I mean?