|
|
mihangel
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: UK
Registered: July 2002
Messages: 192
|
|
|
About ten days ago I referred to Tim's suggestions for a sliding scale of permissible age difference between minors having sex. And said something like "while it's got much to be said for it, it's not practical politics".
Blow me. In yesterday's 'Guardian' (25/01/01) there was an article on the British government's current proposal for new legislation to rationalise the present messy state of the law on sex with minors. Two quotes from the article:
"Ministers want to call the new offence 'adult sexual activity with a child' rather than 'adult sexual abuse of a child' so it might include offences involving no physical contact.'"
"It is expected that the new offence would apply to a man or woman over 18 who was involved in a sexual act with a child under 16. This would ensure that all children under 16 get the same kind oif protection. The law would cover those who incited, induced or compelled a child to carry out a sexual act whether on the accused, another person or the child himself."
The article says nothing about the status of 16- and 17-year-olds who have sexual activity with an under-16. But the implication seems to be that they would not be covered by the proposed law. If so, is this not the beginnings of a sliding scale?
The whole article, 'Catch-all crime to tighten law on child sex', can be found on society.guardian.co.uk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
I am struggling here. This law may make the giving ADVICE to a child illegal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
The article is below. I see now a "sample" of the offences. Of course attempting to criticise such a law makes one open to accusations of paedophilia, but I am certain that aspects of this law MUST be criticised. The current laws have made people afraid to play with kids in swimming pools, and even to take happy holiday snaps of their own kids naked on the beach or at bathtime.
Does this mean that when I walk naked in the gym changing room, I can be prosecuted for making a child witness my nudity? There are young (gasp) girls in the changing room too
__________________________________________________________
This article comes from http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,639194,00.html
A new crime of "adult sexual activity with a child" and a reform of the law on rape are to be included in an overhaul of Britain's laws on sex offences, to be introduced into parliament this year.
The new catch-all criminal offence, the first of its kind anywhere in the world, recognises that sexual activity between adults and children is unacceptable, and that some cases are so serious that they warrant a life sentence.
Ministers also want to strengthen the law on rape to tackle the appallingly low 9% conviction rate and define consent by setting the prosecution the lower test of proving that the victim had not given their "voluntary and genuine agreement".
The government will also tell police and courts to start recording child sex abuse cases immediately so that they appear separately in the official crime figures, ending wild speculation over the extent of the problem.
Ministers began this week to thrash out their detailed response to an internal Home Office review of the law on sex offences published in July 2000.
The new crime of "adult sexual activity with a child" will replace the seven different sex offences used to prosecute in child sex cases such as indecent assault, intercourse with a girl under 13, gross indecency and buggery. Ministers believe the law is unnecessarily complex with different crimes covering boys and girls, some with different age limits, and with wildly differing penalties and defences.
Certain offences, such as unlawful sexual intercouse with a girl under 16 and gross indecency, carry time limits which mean that cases cannot be brought more than 12 months after the time of the offence, making inquiries into child abuse allegations going back many years very difficult.
It is expected that the new offence would apply to a man or woman over 18 who was involved in a sexual act with a child under 16. This would ensure that all children under 16 get the same kind of protection. The law would cover those who incited, induced or compelled a child to carry out a sexual act whether on the accused, another person or the child himself.
Ministers want to call the new offence "adult sexual activity with a child" rather than "adult sexual abuse of a child" so it might include offences involving no physical contact such as a recent case where a man incited two young girls to undress.
The offence would cover an adult who forced a child to witness a sexual act whether it was live or recorded. It would ensure that much heavier penalties were available to courts for child sex offences. It is also expected that the offence would not carry any time limits.
The changes in the law on rape will not see the introduction of a lesser offence of "date rape" which ministers believe is just as traumatic as stranger rape. The legal concept of "consent" however is to be clarified and defined as "voluntary and genuine agreement".
It would still be for the prosecution to prove that the woman did not consent to sex if the defence said she did, but the law will list examples where such consent is not present. They include where a person was asleep or too affected by alcohol or drugs to give "voluntary and genuine agreement".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...with this new proposal, actually...I think I'm happy living in a non-democratic state.
Except that "buggery" will be gone...Good Lord, what lewd language...I'm glad there isn't a child reading along with me on this screen!
What is "buggery" anyhow? Something anal, right?
"Always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them quite so much." Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
The penetration by the offender's penis of the offended against's anus, whether orgasm occurs or not. The act of penetration (conceivably attempted penetration) is buggery
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
No Message Body
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mihangel
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: UK
Registered: July 2002
Messages: 192
|
|
|
... to get het up about the details, which we won't see until the definitions are published in the draft bill. There's no doubt the law's in a mess and needs rationalising and, in particular, defining more closely. That's where the potential problems lie.
In what you might call borderline cases, doesn't everything hinge on proving intent? I think I'm right in saying that all the few prosecutions for taking family snaps of kids in the bath have been laughed out of court because there's no hint of sexual intent. Whereas if there was evidence that they were to be used for posting on a paedophile site, it would be a different matter.
Likewise when Tim simply walks naked through the gym changing room, assuming it's approved by the management and customers expect nudity there, he's not indulging in a 'sexual act' as he might well be suspected of if he walked naked into his kid's classroom. OK, one might envisage Tim doing other things while naked in the changing room which could readily be construed as 'sexual acts' (only using you as an example, Tim!), and one might envisage people - even youngsters - deliberately going to the gym to look at Tim for sexual purposes (ditto!), but that's not the point. If his intent, in those circumstances, is innocent, it's OK. Or it has been in the past, and I don't see any sign in the article that's it's likely to be altered. It's not in the same category as the bloke getting girls to undress for him.
All right, there are grey areas which can't be closely defined: there always have been and always will be. But provided a law is properly framed, one likes to think that the law enforcers and the judiciary are going to abide by its spirit, even if its letter is not totally clear. I admit it doesn't always happen that way, and I may be starry-eyed. But I think it's premature to start campaigning until we (and the government itself) know more about the proposals. And if I'm right about seeing the beginnings of a sliding scale here, then that surely is an interesting move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that this is a giant step backwards instead of forward. This proposal is so ambiguous that having "the talk" with your children can lead to criminal prosecution. If you talk to them at twelve and they become sexually active at sixteen, the case can be made that you encouraged the act. With no time limit, a person could be prosecuted for their children marrying and consumating the vows.
And yes, the way I read it, juvenile counseling will become a thing of the past. Nobody would risk telling a mixed up teen to explore his sexuality as that could lead to intercourse.
Too much open to interpretation by Appeals Courts. I cannot see how this law would pass a constitutionality test.
Hugs, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
I don't see any sliding scale. This proposal seems to lump everyone under 16 together. It is assuming that 15 year olds and 9 year olds have the same needs. It says nothing about activity between two people under 16.
I am not too knowadgeable about the details of politics in the UK. Since this is described as a government proposal, it sounds like a serious possibility. In the US things like this get introduced so legislators can get publicity figuring that the courts can take the heat of overturning them.
Anybody in the UK know what the behind the scenes politics is?
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mihangel
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: UK
Registered: July 2002
Messages: 192
|
|
|
It seems to have the makings of a sliding scale in that, on the face of it, 16- and 17-year-olds indulging in sexual activity with under-16s would be not be subject to the same law as over-18s indulging in sexual activity with under-16s. At least, that's the way I read it. But of course the article may be wrong, or selective, or simplifying.
What sometimes happens here is that the government publishes a 'White Paper' throwing open their proposals to public debate, and may (or may not) listen to the reaction. Whether that's likely to happen in this case I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
On how to go about engaging in oral or anal sex to youth on a site that also hosts a story involving an intergenerational sexual relationship might be deemed as intentual.
It is a matter of informed perspective, unfortunately, prosecuting attorneys seldome take the time to be totally informed.
Just a casual observation.....
Marc
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
No Message Body
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
No Message Body
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
No Message Body
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
No Message Body
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tim
|
|
Really getting into it |
Location: UK, West of London in Ber...
Registered: February 2002
Messages: 842
|
|
|
Not one enshrined in statute singular) but one enshored in statutes (plural), sometimes defined as "The Common Law". When I was 16 I could have taken an examoination in "The British Constitution.
My imperfect understanding is that it is formed both from the multiple laws passed by our legislators, ADN from precedents set in courts, starting at Magistrate's Courts (lowest level and "will have to do" standard), and moving through Crown Courts (Main level of Criminal law, and providing good case law) to the Court of Appeal (Almost the ultimate in case law) and The Law Lords (The final appeal respurce in the English legal system).
The system both benefits from and suffers from political pressure and public opinion, BUT is independent of the government and can, by legal verdict, almost overturn a law that has been passed by parliament.
A long preamble to my nervousness at the courts' interpretation of the (yet to be drafted) law. Did I, for example, in anyway coerce my son to consider gay sexuality by telling him that I wil always love him whether he has a boyfriend or a girlfrined? If I let him see a porn video/ magazine/ sex toy, do I commit one of the new offences?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
My understanding is that British constitutional government dates from the declaration issues by William III when he landed in 1688. With its entry into the European Union the UK is subject to explicit human rights regulations more stringent than those arising from the Bill of Rights in the US constitution.
I agree this is definitely scary business.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Is there a UK counterpart to the Amer Civil Liberties Union? They are usually the source of organized oposition to iniatives such as this in the US.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
about the possibility of a sliding scale. There is now a differntiation made between ages of minors.
But what concerns me more is the change to "sexual activity". A smart lawyer (or barrister if you wish) can make almost anything fit activity, where before the acts where more clearly spelled out. I shudder to think what would happen if a law like that ever made it onto the books here in the US. The extreme right would have a field day, not to mention Young Republicans and Christian Coalition.
Hugs, Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
All this interesting activity while I wasn't watching the board - it's enough to make me consider changing jobs!
I think Marc raised an interesting point about constitution-free Britain. We don't have a constitution on the American model, though some have campaingned for a 'Bill of Rights' in recent years. We like to wallow in history, and pretend that we are a monarchy, and in a true monarchy the monarch has absolute power. Now that never went down well with the great and the good (or the great and the bad, for that matter!) and the monarch's power has been progressively eroded over the centuries. We tend to date the process from the 'Magna Carta' or Great Charter, which was extorted from King John by his self-interested nobility in 1215, but its true origins are even earlier. We have developed what we like to call a 'Constitutional Monarchy', in which we pretend that the Queen has ultimate power, provided that she does as Parliament tells her. Even today, an Act of Parliament does not become effective until signed by the Queen - the 'Royal Assent' - though in reality she cannot withhold that assent. It's all a bit of a decorous game.
Tim is right about the division between 'Statute Law', which is created in Parliament, and 'Common Law' which is founded upon long-established custom and practice, some of it dating from medieval times. Both kinds are subject to 'legal precedent'. As Tim says, we have a tiered legal system. (There are more tiers in England than Scotland, so English lawyers make more profit that their Scottish counterparts. Just another example of the iniquity of the English!) The general idea is that the lowest tier - Magistrates' Courts and various kinds of Tribunals - must follow any interpretation previously applied by a higher Court, but this tier is not bound to follow its own previous interpretations. Each of the higher tiers Tim mentions is similarly bound by the decisions of higher Courts, but also by decisions at its own level. It's only in very recent times that the House of Lords (despite the name, this Court consists wholly of Judges, not the titled gentry!) decided that it had the power to review its own decisions.
Precedent isn't everything, though; it is the Court system, not the politicians, which decides what an Act of Parliament really means, and there are lots of examples in which the Court's conclusion is very different from the politicians' intention! Of course, Government Ministers derive their power from the law, and the Courts can (and do) bring them to heel if they overstep those powers.
In short, therefore, what we have is a system not all that different from the United States, except that our appeal procedures are much more narrowly focussed and thus can be exhausted much more quickly. But Richard makes a very important point with regard to the European Union - despite what we see as our proud and ancient tradition of Civil Liberties, much of the effective current legislation was made in Brussels, not in London.
Here endeth the boring bit.
I am very concerned by way things are moving in today's Britain. Sex offences in general, and instances of child abuse in particular, have been blown up out of all proportion by our press, which despite its proud history is now in the main concerned with profit rather than principle, and has dumbed down its approach to become the gutter of Europe. Righteous indignation against 'perverts' is trumpeted at both national and local level; in my own corner of the United Kingdom victims of press campaigns have been driven from their homes by the furore whipped up in the local press. The press seems to have lost all sense of scale, so that the sad individual prosecuted for possession of illegal material (pictures of nude children readily available from the web, and even at one time on Tim's site, would meet this description) is likely to be vilified almost to the same extent as a child-murderer. It's a dangerous development. Few of those who contribute to this board would condone real abuse of a child - but there's a world of difference between looking at a photograph (which need not have any overtly sexual characteristic - simple nudity is sufficient to make it illegal here) and coercing a child into a sexual act. We desperately need to regain a sense of balance, but I doubt whether new legislation in the present over-emotional atmosphere will move in that direction.
I also think that in relation to non-aggressive sexual relationships with children some form of time-limit on prosecution is justifiable. There have been too many instances of lives destroyed by prosecution of a middle-aged adult for offences which were committed half a lifetime ago. That is not to say that I condone the offences, but is the unhappy accused the same person he/she was when the offence was committed? If there is no evidence of continuing illegal activity in the intervening years, what does a prosecution achieve? Obviously, in the most serious cases there should be no limitation, but in many situations our current practice effectively imposes a punishment which is out of all proportion to the crime.
Finally, I agree with Mihangel's conclusion that the proposals incorporate the beginnings of a sliding scale, and I agree also that it's too early to talk of campaigning until we have a clearer idea of what we would be campaigning about. But these proposals need to be carefully watched.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Message Body
"Always forgive your enemies...nothing annoys them quite so much." Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
The Higgins book that I mentioned has some very interesting stuff on past coverage in the British press. Its history hasn't been all that noble. I found it remarkable how similar the patterns in the UK and US have been.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
I found some online information that seems relavant to this issue:
Liberty's Response to the Home Office Consultation Paper: Setting the Boundaries
(proposed changes to rape laws)
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
