Rethink close-in-age exception for sexual offenses

The Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society (JCHS) notes the recent disclosure that there are 363 sexual offences cases on the Home Circuit Court term’s list of which 156 involve the offence of having sexual intercourse with persons under 16 years old. The Acting DPP, Ms. Claudette Thompson, is quoted as saying “children are the complainants in many of the sexual offences cases”. 

What has not been published is the average age of the accused individuals. Neither has any figure been stated as to the numbers of cases which were “consensual” or otherwise. These figures have nevertheless led to a renewed call for there to be a close-in-age exception.  The issue would not arise if we were to simply accept that persons under 16 are incapable of consenting to “sexual intercourse”.  The JCHS supports the position of Hear The Children’s Cry in opposing the proposal of a close-in-age exception.

Our reasons are as follows:

1.         There is already in place a Child Diversion Act which classifies the offence of sexual intercourse with persons under 16 as a “diversion offence”.  The Act provides that a Constable may refer a diversion offence to the Child Diversion Committee which means that in all likelihood these cases are not placed before the Court; they are dealt with at the level of the Police with the involvement of the parents/guardians. Section 11 of the Act makes it clear that “where a child is referred to a Child Diversion Committee …criminal proceedings shall not be instituted or continued   during the period of the child’s participation in the child diversion programme”.

A child who has been referred to the Child Diversion programme only comes before the Court if the “child fails to comply with, or to complete the programme” (Section 19).  The JCHS queries whether any research was carried out to ascertain the relevance of the Child Diversion programme to these cases currently before the Home Circuit Court? Is it that the children involved failed/refused to complete the programme? Are amendments needed to the Child Diversion Act which would assist in its efficacy?

2.         What message do we want our minors to hear?  There are so many reasons to discourage children from engaging in sexual activity. Instead of amending the law to legitimise these activities, we should be reminding them that there is a law with consequences for these activities. Additionally, there are other unwanted and premature life changing consequences of engagement in sexual activity.

If the argument is that the law should be amended because of non-compliance, then we may as well abolish traffic offences and the law against homicide. Without the law there would be no need or even rationale for social intervention. Law provides a standard of acceptable behaviour.

3. It is indisputable that pornography is much more accessible to all, including teenagers, who are now equipped with easy access to the internet. Porn has been described as the new digital drug with proven brain-and behaviour altering harms particularly on the still-developing frontal lobe of the brain of teenagers who cannot fully grasp the consequences of their actions.  Efforts should be made to reduce the appetite for pornography by seeking to help our children lead healthy lives instead of enabling them to be involved in unhealthy activities. The current law helps to provide well-needed guidance.