underage sex

Former Member

hi, as some of you may know i am a youth worker, basically i have had a question from a young person that i cannot answer or find the answer to.

if the young person aged 15, consented to sex with a 17 year old, has the girls mother then got grounds to go to the police to report the 17 year old lad. the girl is really worried about this. Any advice would be great so i can pass it on to her.

thanks

Former Member

I'm pretty sure that because the girl is underage, it doesn't matter if she consented or not, statutory rape or something.

Former Member

i just found out that she is the one who instigated the sex, would this n=make a difference?

Former Member

Yeah, I'm sure it's illegal for anyone over the age of consent to have sexual contact with someone under the age of consent.
It doesn't matter whether or not it was consentual, because it's still illegal.

ETA; Found this article from thesite... http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/victims/lawmyths

Skive

It would be fucking harsh if he did get in shit for that.

Former Member

Why would it be harsh? He needs to take responsibility for the fact that he knowingly consented to sexual intercourse with a minor, who was under the legal age of consent.

Skive

The law is black and white, when in reality situations such as that are never as simple.
The law is there to protect those who may not have devolped enough to handle the implications of a sexual relationship, but in a situation like this for all you know the 15 year girl could be more switched on than the lad.
Infact girls do develop quicker than lads.

If the lad hasn't actaully done anything else wrong here and sex was consensual, I would hope that nothing came of it.

Former Member

Skive wrote: »

The law is black and white, when in reality situations such as that are never as simple.
The law is there to protect those who may not have devolped enough to handle the implications of a sexual relationship, but in a situation like this for all you know the 15 year girl could be more switched on than the lad.
Infact girls do develop quicker than lads.

If the lad hasn't actaully done anything else wrong here and sex was consensual, I would hope that nothing came of it.

the lad speaks sense. Its unlikely any legal issues will arise from this, especially as the age gap between the two is so small.

Former Member

Sometimes the law differs from place to place. In the US from state to state, but even then there is the 2 year rule, if the two parties are within 2 years of each other, it is up to the judge to determine if it was rape of consensual.

Former Member

As far as I remember from when I was that age, the girls mother could report him to the police. I don't think it would be statutory rape (or whatever it is) because she is over 13, but it would come under something like sexual relations with a minor.

However, if she denies that anything ever happened and with the age gap in mind then it's very unlikely anything would come of it (other than the mother would lose her daughters trust for ever).

Former Member

Ilora-Danon wrote: »

Why would it be harsh? He needs to take responsibility for the fact that he knowingly consented to sexual intercourse with a minor, who was under the legal age of consent.

You really are a prize plank, aren't you.

To the OP and others: There is no such thing as "statutory rape", however having sex with a girl under the age of 13 attracts the same highest tariff as rape (life).

The maximum penalty for sex with a girl under the age of 16 is two years, and its unlikely that the police would even prosecute. The mother can make a complaint, but if the girl denies having sex and the boy denies having sex then the police can't do anything to either. No witness evidence = no case to answer.

Former Member

thanks for your responses everyone, sorry didnt want to cause a debate, just wanted to know the true facts so i can pass them on.

Former Member

If the girl is over 13 then only she can instigate a prosecution - she has to consent to a medical examination otherwise there is no prosecution IIRC.

Former Member

Kermit wrote: »

You really are a prize plank, aren't you.

To the OP and others: There is no such thing as "statutory rape", however having sex with a girl under the age of 13 attracts the same highest tariff as rape (life).

The maximum penalty for sex with a girl under the age of 16 is two years, and its unlikely that the police would even prosecute. The mother can make a complaint, but if the girl denies having sex and the boy denies having sex then the police can't do anything to either. No witness evidence = no case to answer.

I thought statutory rape was when someone over the age of consent has sex with someone under the age of consent? Now your saying it doesn't exist. This confuses me.

Former Member

I don't think it exists under UK law. US law, perhaps. Not entirely sure myself.

Former Member

Lacy wrote: »

I thought statutory rape was when someone over the age of consent has sex with someone under the age of consent? Now your saying it doesn't exist. This confuses me.

It doesn't exist, and has never existed under UK law. The law assumes that even very young children can consent to sexual intercourse; young children are protected by ensuring that the penalty for having sex with a young child (under the age of 13) is the same as for rape.

There is an offence of having sexual intercourse with a child under the age of consent, but that isn't the same thing.