0
0
Note: this article is part of the International Law Society and The Witness Journal’s collaboration and article competition.
Mature enough for sex, but not to buy a pint?
In the United Kingdom, it appears that the law sends a somewhat conflicting message regarding when young people are deemed mature enough to make important decisions. 16 year-olds can legally consent to sex, potentially with people considerably older. Yet, those same 16-year-olds cannot vote or purchase alcohol, which require them to be 18 years of age. This begs some important questions: why are 16-year-olds denied other fundamental, ‘adult’ rights if they are mature enough to handle adult relationships? Or, more pertinently, why does the law assume they are mature enough to make such big decisions, anyway, if they cannot in other areas?
Legal adulthood – except for sex?
The Family Law Reform Act 1969 reduced the age of majority from 21 to 18, which marks the ‘official’ entry into adulthood. As the legal age, those turning 18 can consequently vote in elections (England and Northern Ireland), purchase alcohol and cigarettes, and serve on a jury – essentially, reaching 18 means very few legal limits apply to one’s life. Arguably, the reasoning for this is straightforward: this reflects the perceived age of maturity and political and social awareness. However, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 establishes the general age of consent at 16, creating a somewhat strange contradiction. Though this includes provisions for those abusing a position of trust, there is no consideration for coercion and power imbalances outside of those specific circumstances.
The absurdity of an arbitrary cut-off?
The arbitrary nature of the UK’s age of consent law in comparison to a large portion of other age-related laws seems nothing short of absurd. If a 15-year-old engages in sex, even with someone only slightly older than them, it is widely condemned – not to mention legally punishable. Yet, the moment they turn 16 society suddenly deems them mature enough to consent to sex with someone of any age (provided they, too, are over 16, of course). An adolescent who was deemed legally incompetent and unable to make such a choice one day is suddenly considered as a perfectly capable adult relationship partner the next.
Remember, however, they are still legally regarded as children in other circumstances. This lacks any form of logical sense – surely, even the most self-assured 16-year-old cannot truly consent to sex with someone potentially twice, even thrice, their age. The most glaring contradiction is evident when it comes to accessing pornography. Those aged under 18 legally cannot watch pornographic material. However, in the eyes of the law, it is perfectly acceptable, upon reaching 16, for one to engage with such activities. If this is not the epitome of an absurd contradiction, it’s hard to imagine what is.
Romeo and Juliet Laws – a more logical approach?
Consent laws are supposed to exist to protect young people from exploitation, power imbalances and coercion. Nevertheless, the current legal framework in the UK permits potentially exploitative relations while limiting other rights in favour of the argument that adolescents are not mature enough. Perchance, a more rational approach would be:
1) To raise the general age of consent, aligning it with the majority age, thus closing the loophole which allows adults to engage in relations with teenagers, following in the footsteps of countries such as Argentina, India and Turkey.
2) In addition, introduce ‘Romeo and Juliet’ laws (also known as close in age exemptions), as seen in New Mexico and Delaware in the United States.
This would prevent the criminalisation of normal teenage relationships while eliminating the gap that allows much older adults to pursue teenagers who, by every other legal standard, are not yet considered full adults. If we don’t trust 16-year-olds to vote or buy alcohol, why do we pretend they are suddenly equipped to navigate relationships with fully grown adults?
A debate without consensus
No matter how much debate surrounds this issue, a consensus will likely never be reached as there is no universally acceptable answer. The age of consent argument requires a fine balance between individual rights and protection from coercion and exploitation. However, it’s hard to claim that the legislation is anything other than paradoxical as long as 16-year- olds are denied almost all other adult rights while still being considered legal ‘adults’ in this one particular situation. After all, if you’re too young to buy a pint, surely you’re too young to have sex with a 50 year old?
Image: The Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom at Law Courts Building, Queen’s Square, Sydney, Chris Olszewksi, 2017//CC BY-SA 4.0
Average Rating