Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Severus

Jeremy Forrest sentenced to 5 1/2 years for abducting a minor

88 posts in this topic

Surely a paedophile is someone who likes pre pubescent children?

That's my understanding of the term too.  A young person of, say, 14 years old, of either gender, can be fully developed physically and so therefore in a sexual sense could quite easily be mistaken for an older individual.  In relation to paedophilia I think we have become distracted by chronological age.  Paedophilia has always been about phsyical development, or rather the lack thereof.  There is no way I could ever consider this man to be in the same category as a man who wants to have sex with a three year old.  The two are worlds apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it?  Why then are the punishments different?  Sex with a persion aged under 12 years is automatically rape whereas that is not the case for those over 12.  Surely that would suggest that even legally there is some difference attributed to age?

 

eta: just Googled and it would appear that paedophilia is not recognised as a legal term.

 

Correct. 

 

Paedophilia is a term that is used very loosely in the media and it is often employed incorrectly. The legislation in this country outlines a range of acts that are classed as sexual offences against minors and adults that are both general in application to everybody and also offences that apply to people in certain positions of responsibility. The legislation does not define a type of person, or generic definition, in terms of the acts they commit, but rather it focuses upon actions that are illegal. The headlines along the lines of, "X found guilty of paedophilia." are just media shorthand, or they are just plain lazy, depending on your point of view.

 

The suffix and prefix of paedophilia indicate that the word means something different from that which is intended in much of the media coverage in which the term is used, but that is another topic........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it?  Why then are the punishments different?  Sex with a persion aged under 12 years is automatically rape whereas that is not the case for those over 12.  Surely that would suggest that even legally there is some difference attributed to age?

 

eta: just Googled and it would appear that paedophilia is not recognised as a legal term.

Sex with a person aged 15 is automatically rape but the police won't necessarily prosecute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a man has sex with a 15 year old girl in the UK he is a paedophile but not if he does it in France? The murderers victim is definitely dead in any country tho.

Not necessarily. You could be found guilty of murder in the UK but cleared on the grounds of self-defence in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. You could be found guilty of murder in the UK but cleared on the grounds of self-defence in the US.

That's not the argument at all. You said murder not manslaughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not the argument at all. You said murder not manslaughter.

No, I said what constitutes murder differs between countries. Murder doesn't mean "killing"; killing could also be "manslaughter" or "self-defence". The exact definition varies between countries.

 

The same with sex; sex can be consensual or it can be rape. The definition of rape differs between countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I said what constitutes murder differs between countries. Murder doesn't mean "killing"; killing could also be "manslaughter" or "self-defence". The exact definition varies between countries.

The same with sex; sex can be consensual or it can be rape. The definition of rape differs between countries.

It doesn't matter what constitutes murder in individual countries, if someone is done for murder, they are done for murder.

What you are actually arguing for with your 'they are all paedophiles' line, is that everyone involved in a case involving a death (numerous causes/scenarios) is automatically labelled as a murderer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what constitutes murder in individual countries, if someone is done for murder, they are done for murder.

What you are actually arguing for with your 'they are all paedophiles' line, is that everyone involved in a case involving a death (numerous causes/scenarios) is automatically labelled as a murderer.

No, I'm not, I'm arguing that somebody done for underage sex is a paedophile just as someone done for murder is a murderer. That's how the law sees it.

 

As longboard referred to above, other sections of society e.g. the medical profession might define paedophilia differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not, I'm arguing that somebody done for underage sex is a paedophile just as someone done for murder is a murderer. That's how the law sees it.

As longboard referred to above, other sections of society e.g. the medical profession might define paedophilia differently.

So a man (or woman) having sex with a 15 year old in the UK is a paedophile but not if they travel to France to do it?

You are saying there are no shades of grey in the matter. There are though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it? Why then are the punishments different? Sex with a persion aged under 12 years is automatically rape whereas that is not the case for those over 12. Surely that would suggest that even legally there is some difference attributed to age?

eta: just Googled and it would appear that paedophilia is not recognised as a legal term.

You sure it's 12, I thought statutory rape was anyone under 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a man (or woman) having sex with a 15 year old in the UK is a paedophile but not if they travel to France to do it?

You are saying there are no shades of grey in the matter. There are though.

I'm saying that the law is black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link below may help, although it is not light reading.

 

It is  taken to be under the age of 13, based on the idea that children cannot give consent to such an act......

 

http://www.fpa.org.uk/professionals/factsheets/lawonsex#p8vW

No, it is based on the idea that there can be no defence of mistaken age. Sex below 16 is still illegal but the police may choose not to act. If it is below 13 then they must act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not simply about there being no defence of mistaken age. It is also about a child below 13 not being able to give consent. It is one of the basic protections for children in the sexual offences legislation; that's why it is there. Yes, the police do not always act on sexual activity by children between 13 & 16 years of age and the CPS also sometimes decide not to take action, sometimes on the basis of a prosecution not being in the public interest.

 

The thinking behind some  of those sorts of decisions in the past has been questioned in the light of some of the organised grooming and abuse cases that have come to trial in the the last couple of years, but that is going off topic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not simply about there being no defence of mistaken age. It is also about a child below 13 not being able to give consent. It is one of the basic defences of children in the sexual offences legislation; that's why it is there. Yes, the police do not always act on sexual activity by children between 13 & 16 years of age and the CPS also sometimes decide not to take action, sometimes on the basis of a prosecution not being in the public interest.

 

The thinking behind some  of those sorts of decisions in the past has been questioned in the light of some of the organised grooming and abuse cases that have come to trial in the the last couple of years, but that is going off topic...

The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women.

 

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a new series of laws to protect children under 16 from sexual abuse. However, 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.

 

Specific laws protect children under 13, who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity. There is a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for rape, assault by penetration, and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. There is no defence of mistaken belief about the age of the child, as there is in cases involving 13–15 year olds.

Read more at http://www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/law-on-sex#0oh6sQKSXmXAhB6m.99

 

tldr version: sex with an under-13 year old will always be prosecuted, sex with a 14 or 15 year old is illegal but may not be prosecuted if the other party is also young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying that the law is black and white.

But it clearly isn't. Two people having sex in different countries means one is a paedophile and one isn't. How come?

Do you think a man or woman having sex with a 15 year old they genuinely believe to be older renders them a paedophile? (In your opinion)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it clearly isn't. Two people having sex in different countries means one is a paedophile and one isn't. How come?

Do you think a man or woman having sex with a 15 year old they genuinely believe to be older renders them a paedophile? (In your opinion)

No to your second point.

 

But to your first, British law is clear who is or is not guilty of a sex offence, French law is equally clear. They just happen to differ.

 

British and French law differs on any number of things. That doesn't make either of them vague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just an indication that the matter has various degrees. While it might be handy for the papers to label everyone as paedophiles, it isn't usually accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just an indication that the matter has various degrees. While it might be handy for the papers to label everyone as paedophiles, it isn't usually accurate.

It has no degrees within British law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The age of consent to any form of sexual activity is 16 for both men and women.

 

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a new series of laws to protect children under 16 from sexual abuse. However, 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.

 

Specific laws protect children under 13, who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity. There is a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for rape, assault by penetration, and causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. There is no defence of mistaken belief about the age of the child, as there is in cases involving 13–15 year olds.

Read more at http://www.fpa.org.uk/factsheets/law-on-sex#0oh6sQKSXmXAhB6m.99

 

tldr version: sex with an under-13 year old will always be prosecuted, sex with a 14 or 15 year old is illegal but may not be prosecuted if the other party is also young.

 

 

Sol, have a look at the legislation on this and you'll see what I mean. It'll be available on the government legislation website. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just an indication that the matter has various degrees. While it might be handy for the papers to label everyone as paedophiles, it isn't usually accurate.

 

JOC, the  label paedophile is convenient for lazy hacks to use but it doesn't in itself inform the reader about what offences people have been convicted but it is conveniently sensational for the papers to include in a headline etc. Accuracy isn't what counts in newspaper headlines of course.

 

On a side issue, Forrest would still have committed an offence under the Sexual Offences Act if he abused his position of trust by having a physical relationship with a 16 year old pupil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed longboard, I aren't arguing that he has done nothing wrong. He has committed a sexual offence .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JOC, the  label paedophile is convenient for lazy hacks to use but it doesn't in itself inform the reader about what offences people have been convicted but it is conveniently sensational for the papers to include in a headline etc. Accuracy isn't what counts in newspaper headlines of course.

 

Maybe so but the argument was about whether Forrest was a paedophile or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe so but the argument was about whether Forrest was a paedophile or not.

Which you think he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017