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.

No YOU HAVE BEEN POSTING RANDOM INCORRECT STUFF ABOUT THE LAW

Stuff which is NOT the law in either ENGLAND OR SCOTLAND

WHY would you go on a thread about one country and start talking about the laws in a different country without saying that is what you are doing? If you had referenced your quotes as being from the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 rather than just cutting and pasting parts that you thought supported what you were saying (even though they didn't) that might have been a little helpful, yes? When the CPS was mentioned you could have said oh well the COFPS do it like this. Yes?

Instead you don't BOTHER saying that you are talking about a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF LEGISLATION which is bizarre to say the lease.

"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."

What does this even mean? In relation to your statement "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 am finding your posts incoherent, quite frankly.

"No YOU HAVE BEEN POSTING RANDOM INCORRECT STUFF ABOUT THE LAW"

Why do you keep saying this? I have copy and pasted it several times, I even then gave you the link ???? Why is it random incorrect stuff? Do you disagree with the legislation or something, I have no idea why you find it easier to insult me than to acknowledge that the 'stuff' I have posted IS a direct lift from the legislation.

YOU said you were talking about the laws of the UK? I thought to myself, well I know a lot about this and there are inaccuracies being thrown about I shall post the actual facts!!! I was not aware that this discussion was only open for people wishing to talk about English law. You failed to mention that condition.

Are you aware that Scotland is a country in the Uk and it does have laws also, and that maybe people of that country would like to join in on an internet forum debate without being shouted down for not talking about English law and being accused of making up random incorrect stuff about the law.

Where did you say that it was only a discussion on the laws of England?

It would not be in the interests of the public to prosecute a girl for underage sex.

It 'might' be in certain circumstances (although highly unlikely) in the interests of the public to prosecute a boy for having underage sex with a girl.

Do you see it now?

"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"

This is not true.
Not in England and not in scotland.
Not according to the cut and paste that you did.
What you said was untrue, it is not the case, it is inaccurate.
I don't know how many different ways to explain to you. I have reposted the pertinent part of your CnP a few times. Maybe try reading it through again?

It would not be in the interests of the public to prosecute a girl for underage sex.

It 'might' be in certain circumstances (although highly unlikely) in the interests of the public to prosecute a boy for having underage sex with a girl.

I cannot agree with this.
I find your stance terribly sexist.

I too have repeatedly stated my reasons behind what I'm saying.

I'll try and be as clear as possible.

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.

The law exists but it is not enforced. Do you understand the difference?

However, boys could (although highly unlikely) be prosecuted. This is the decision of the Crown office.

What would more likely happen is that both parties wouldn't tell their parents, if they did their parents probably wouldn't alert the police, and if they did, the police would only under pressure of parents to press charges, and if that were the case then both boy and girl would be charged. It would in all likelyhood at that point be dropped from the prosecution office and referrals made to Child Services. If, this entire situation were to repeat itself with say perhaps the same boy and a different girl all the way through telling parents, reporting to police, etc then only then would the Prosecution service consider maybe taking actual proceedings against the boy. It is a big if. Have I made this clearer?

Just because the law exists it does not automatically mean that the Prosecution Service have decided that it is in the public's interests to enforce it.

I do not hold sexist views, it is the opinion of the Crown Office who uphold the best interests of the public.

Could you imagine the outrage of the public if underage girls were being prosecuted for having sex. Don't you think that girls and women have a difficult enough time in the eyes of the public with regards their sexual pursuits without starting to convict them for consensual sex. Can you see why this would NOT benefit the interests of the public.

Well this is new information:

"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. "

So what you are saying is not this "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" at all. But that the guidance says that although both a boy and a girl could be charged, the Crown (what do you mean by that? which department, organisation) deems in all cases that the girl cannot be found guilty. Meanwhile the boy can. That seems very peculiar but I am no expert on scottish law. Please can you link.

"Could you imagine the outrage of the public if underage girls were being prosecuted for having sex. Don't you think that girls and women have a difficult enough time in the eyes of the public with regards their sexual pursuits without starting to convict them for consensual sex. Can you see why this would NOT benefit the interests of the public."

No you plank I am saying that neither should be. As per "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."

There would be outrage if underage boys were prosecuted for having sex too. Thankfully we have established that they aren't. Phew!

Mutually agreed sex with someone of a near age with no coercion and etc blah, obviously.

Clearly if someone is abusing another (whatever their sex) then they should be prosecuted.

Both those statements are saying the same thing.

The Crown - (Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Office) the people in Scotland who decide which laws to prosecute.

I have linked the legislation already.

Why are you harbouring on about this same point? What more do you want me to say? That perhaps I have some 'inside' knowledge on these matters.

I don't like the myth that it is ok to have sex with underage girls because the police won't do anything anyway. It should be common knowledge that it is illegal to have sex with anyone under the age of 16 and that it can result in prosecution.

I also don't like the myth that no matter what you report to the police the liklihood is they won't care and will only provide a poor service. I'm sure there are plenty of people who could testify that their own experience was a poor one, however believing it to be the norm is only damaging and the main cause for women and girls not reporting crimes ( I am of course now referring to all sexual crimes). There are bad examples in every workforce, I have met bad nurses, bad teachers, bad GP's etc but it doesn't mean that I think they are all bad and not to be trusted and avoided. This myth must be destroyed and women and girls should feel free and able to report crimes to the police and know that they WILL be believed.

But the legislation does not say that

Well I don't like the myth that loads of young men and boys are locked up for having mutually agreed sex with a person only just under 16.

So there you have it.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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."

"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.

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!!!!!

"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)

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.

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