Prime Minister David Cameron has
flatly rejected calls from a leading public health expert to lower the age of
consent for sexual activity to 15 without a debate. Was he right to do so?
The Issue
The president of the Faculty of
Public Health, Professor John Ashton, has argued that society has to accept about
a third of teenagers are having sex aged 14 or 15. He argues that lowering the
age of consent to 15 would make it easier for teenagers to get sexual health
advice. He said that ‘[teenagers] are doing it and we need to be able to
support them and protect them’.
In addition, he suggests that in
countries with a lower age of consent, young people get involved in sex at a
later age and the teenage pregnancy rates are lower.
Meanwhile, David Cameron has
confirmed the Government has ‘no plans to change [the age of consent].’
The Current Law
The current age of consent is 16.
This applies to all sexual acts by all individuals, whether the participants
are heterosexual or homosexual. The law between heterosexual and homosexual
acts was harmonised to the age of 16 in January 2001. The current law is set out in the Sexual Offences Act
2003. Section
13 of the 2003 Act provides that it is an offence for a person under 18 to
engage in sexual activity with a child under 16. The maximum sentence for this
offence is five years imprisonment. Where the person committing the offence is
aged 18 or over, the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment: section 9 of the
2003 Act.
Democracy
It is plain that faced with a
third of teenagers breaking the law and high teenage pregnancy rates, the time
has come to discuss whether the current age of consent is still adequate.
However, David Cameron has denied us that debate flatly and without
justification. It is highly undemocratic. The essence of democracy is dialogue
and debate.
Debate is highly desirable. As
John Stuart Mill noted when arguing in defence of free speech, debate is vital
for two reasons. Firstly, if we suppress debate we might lose the benefit of
discovering the truth about something or improving the state of affairs.
Secondly, even if we have already achieved the truth or best state of affairs,
suppressing debate prevents us from defending the truth or current state of
affairs which consequently damages our ability to justify the truth or state of
affairs.
Solution
So should the age of consent be
lowered to 15? For my own part I am not sure if this is correct. It would allow
the predatory minority of members of society to pursue even younger girls.
Similarly, I do not think that society wants to punish teenagers, who all develop
and become ready for sexual relations at different ages, for engaging in their
sexual relationships. Indeed, lowering the age of consent will improve access
to sexual advice and might well lead to better sexual health and lower teenage
pregnancy rates. We have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in
Europe, even though other countries have a lower age of consent (such as Sweden where
it is 15).
Both of these concerns might,
perhaps, be met by the introduction of a ‘two year rule’. Under a two year rule
the age of consent would remain 16, but the law would provide that an
individual engaging in sexual activity under that age would not be prosecuted so
long as both participants have attained the age of 14 and there is no more than
two years between the two participants. Perhaps this suggestion answers the
problem. Perhaps it does not. That is the whole point of having a democratic debate
and that is what society has been denied.
What are your thoughts?
