- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Decriminalise consensual underage sex
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the report, 'When teens have consensual sex...' (Nov 1).
In highlighting some of the difficulties faced when prosecuting underage sex, Attorney-General Walter Woon identified one particularly problematic category of cases - when both participants are under age and have consensual sex.
The penalties for underage consensual sex are stiff: Under Section 376A of the Penal Code, sex with a minor under 16 or 14 is punishable with lengthy jail terms and fines. The Attorney-General's current approach of looking at the circumstances of each case and warning offenders, instead of proactively enforcing the law, appreciates the complexities involved in such cases. It recognises that punitive action is counter-productive, traumatising all parties involved without providing redress.
However, the Attorney-General's position of compromise - not actively prosecuting underage consensual sex, even though it remains a criminal conduct - is inherently uncertain and undermines the integrity of the Penal Code.
Instead of repealing Section 376A altogether, because it serves a valuable purpose in protecting minors against abuse from sexual predators, perhaps a better solution is to introduce a legal exception for consensual sex between underage participants, with the issue of 'consent' between the minors to be proved as a question of fact.
Some members of society perceive underage consensual sex as morally wrong. However, political theorist John Stuart Mill opines that society may not enforce its moral perceptions unless its violation causes objectively perceptible harm to others. Even under a generous reading of Mill's 'harm principle', it is difficult to pinpoint the injury to be prevented in criminalising consensual sex between minors, especially when their safety, which is adequately protected by other provisions in the Penal Code, has not been compromised.
Instead of branding these young people as criminals, so tainting their future with a criminal record, they should be given better guidance, care and support by parents, schools and social workers.
Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the report, 'When teens have consensual sex...' (Nov 1).
In highlighting some of the difficulties faced when prosecuting underage sex, Attorney-General Walter Woon identified one particularly problematic category of cases - when both participants are under age and have consensual sex.
The penalties for underage consensual sex are stiff: Under Section 376A of the Penal Code, sex with a minor under 16 or 14 is punishable with lengthy jail terms and fines. The Attorney-General's current approach of looking at the circumstances of each case and warning offenders, instead of proactively enforcing the law, appreciates the complexities involved in such cases. It recognises that punitive action is counter-productive, traumatising all parties involved without providing redress.
However, the Attorney-General's position of compromise - not actively prosecuting underage consensual sex, even though it remains a criminal conduct - is inherently uncertain and undermines the integrity of the Penal Code.
Instead of repealing Section 376A altogether, because it serves a valuable purpose in protecting minors against abuse from sexual predators, perhaps a better solution is to introduce a legal exception for consensual sex between underage participants, with the issue of 'consent' between the minors to be proved as a question of fact.
Some members of society perceive underage consensual sex as morally wrong. However, political theorist John Stuart Mill opines that society may not enforce its moral perceptions unless its violation causes objectively perceptible harm to others. Even under a generous reading of Mill's 'harm principle', it is difficult to pinpoint the injury to be prevented in criminalising consensual sex between minors, especially when their safety, which is adequately protected by other provisions in the Penal Code, has not been compromised.
Instead of branding these young people as criminals, so tainting their future with a criminal record, they should be given better guidance, care and support by parents, schools and social workers.
Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy
