Over the last few weeks, fueled by the changes in the Criminal Code Chap. 171, to increase penalties for various sex offenses, we have heard a flurry of conversations about additional revisions needed to this section (consent) of the law.
The age of consent was once sixteen and moved to fifteen. Going on memory only, I think at that time a person could also get married below that age with their parent’s consent. It would not surprise me if the law said girls, but I could be wrong.
Some may say move the age of consent to eighteen, which I suppose is to mimic the age of suffrage (the right to vote in public political elections). Others may argue that the appropriate age is sixteen. I guess the politicians are afraid to give us a number because they are not confident about where most of our people are on this topic, and no one wants to be on the wrong side of any proposed change. Well, my friends, leaders are required to LEAD!!!
I feel that those who are calling for the age of consent to be moved up to eighteen (18) are just playing it safe, especially when they tie it to the age of voting. This argument sounds just like the Americans who want to drink before the legal age (21) when they say, “They can vote and join the military at eighteen but cannot drink a beer.” To those people and now our own, I say someone must protect us from ourselves, even when it’s setting an arbitrary age limit for our children to give consent to engage in sexual activities.
I will now boldly step out and say, let’s move the age of consent up/back to sixteen (16). I choose 16 for a few reasons and the first one is a child could be legally married under the age of 16 with consent from their parents. It is also the age at which anyone can purchase alcohol legally in SVG. Let’s face the facts: our children are drinking and having sex at or above this age.
Our new law should specifically protect young people in sexual relationships who have a small age differential. e.g. if the victim was 13, 14, or 15 years of age and the accused older person was between 15, 16, or 17. Another way to look at my suggestion is the accused abuser cannot be more than two years older than the victim. And the sexual conduct must be consensual.
We must find a balance between protecting children from unwanted sexual advances and fairness to these young adults.
There are reasonable arguments for the absolute position that any sexual activity with a minor should be punished to the fullest extent. If that is your position, make it and stand by it. But I am simply asking you to look at our reality and our success in enforcing the current law.
I believe this absolute position could or would unfairly punish teenagers in “committed” relationships. It also means we are not willing to accept that minors are involved in sexual activity, like it or not. Now, I do agree that my position on changing the age to 16 may be viewed as arbitrary, and my proposal to exempt some activities between certain ages could still allow for the exploitation of some young people. In my position, it may be challenging to determine if consent is voluntary, but I will leave that to the authorities (courts) to decide.
The truth test of our resolve is whether we are willing to trust the system to enforce the laws aggressively without fear or favor.
Now, to be clear, my proposed 16-year age of consent is not a free pass for those grown adults to take advantage of our children. Non-consensual sex is rape. Persons in a position of authority or trust, such as stepparent, adoptive parent, legal guardian, teacher, coach, clergyperson, etc., cannot engage in sexual activity without fear of prosecution.
Horatio.