Quiz With Answers Ending With Ship
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Underage sex
21 Answers
I was wondering how come girls who get pregnant under the age of 16 don't get punished? Because as we all know having underage sex is illegal. So how come there isn't a fine or something for girl's who get pregnant under 16. Wouldn't this decrease teen pregnancies aswell as abide with the law?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Eurox. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
A girl under 16 is not legally assumed to be old enough to give consent (even if she does). Anyone who has sex with an underage girl is, therefore, guilty of rape, ie. non-consenting sex. Since the girl can't be deemed to have consented, she becomes the victim of the crime and thus cannot be punished.
There is, as far as I know, no law against underage motherhood.
There is, as far as I know, no law against underage motherhood.
Taking drugs is illegal, money laundering is illegal but people still do it. If this law were to be enforced then I don�t believe it would make a blind bit of different, young girl (and boys) will have sex either way. As for punishing girls who get pregnant under 16, what�s the point? They are already pregnant and will have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.
A little more on saxy-jags post.
The law presumes that when a girl is under 13 she is not mature enough to consent to sex (not 16). So even if a 12-year-old girl willingly has intercourse, as far as the law is concerned, she has not "consented" to it because legally she is not able to.
The implication of this is that anyone who has sex with a girl under 13 is committing "statutory rape". There is no defence to this charge - even if a boy says the girl was willing or that he thought she was older than she was, it would not matter.
Of course, there is a major difference between two 15-year-olds getting to it and an adult having sex with an underage girl or boy. But in the former, it is unlikely that the CPS will get involved.
Parents, if they are aware of their underage children having sex, could theoretically risk prosecution for aiding and abetting the unlawful intercourse. This might particularly happen if they allowed sex to take place in their house, or if they said: "Well, if you're going to do it, here's a condom."
There is a provision under the Parenting Order, whereby parents take the responsibility for their child breaking the law, although this applies mainly to anti-social behaviour, it could be applied to underage sex.
I am not aware of any lawful provision for "punishing" underage females engaging in sex, other than the above.
The law presumes that when a girl is under 13 she is not mature enough to consent to sex (not 16). So even if a 12-year-old girl willingly has intercourse, as far as the law is concerned, she has not "consented" to it because legally she is not able to.
The implication of this is that anyone who has sex with a girl under 13 is committing "statutory rape". There is no defence to this charge - even if a boy says the girl was willing or that he thought she was older than she was, it would not matter.
Of course, there is a major difference between two 15-year-olds getting to it and an adult having sex with an underage girl or boy. But in the former, it is unlikely that the CPS will get involved.
Parents, if they are aware of their underage children having sex, could theoretically risk prosecution for aiding and abetting the unlawful intercourse. This might particularly happen if they allowed sex to take place in their house, or if they said: "Well, if you're going to do it, here's a condom."
There is a provision under the Parenting Order, whereby parents take the responsibility for their child breaking the law, although this applies mainly to anti-social behaviour, it could be applied to underage sex.
I am not aware of any lawful provision for "punishing" underage females engaging in sex, other than the above.
Oh yes..fine them to the max. That is really going to help, isn't it? *ahem* I don't think so...
The only way round this is for parents to communicate with their children properly and try and inform them about their choices. Both my teens (17 & 14) have condoms. I may well be aiding and abetting, but if they do decide to have sex I would rather they were using condoms than nappies.
The only way round this is for parents to communicate with their children properly and try and inform them about their choices. Both my teens (17 & 14) have condoms. I may well be aiding and abetting, but if they do decide to have sex I would rather they were using condoms than nappies.
I didn't have sex until I was 16 and I am glad I waited but there were times before that when I came close and to be honest, I don't think I was at all ready.. I probably wasn't ready when I actually did do it at 16! I don't think at 16 you are old enough to make your mind up about something like that, but kids these days grow up far too quickly! At 13 I was out having fun and playing! Sex was far from my mind!
I hate it when some parents of some young mothers actually like it that their child has had a baby. A young girl who lives around here had a baby at 13 with a man of over 30. He is a lay about from the traveller camp. Her Mother did not even bat an eyelid or report him/her to the police and still actively encourages her daughter who is 14 now to be with this man.
It's cases like that, that the parents should be punished.
It's cases like that, that the parents should be punished.
On an historical note. The age of (informed) consent throughout history has usually coincided with the age of puberty although at sometimes it has been as early as seven.
Often a girl who has reached puberty (say 10 -12 years old) will have been betrothed by her parents to a man, preferably of nobility but not always, who would have been anything from 7 to 60 or more.
Early on age of consent was a familial or tribal matter and only became a legal one in the Greco-Roman period. The Roman tradition served as the base for Christian Europe as well as the Christian Church itself which generally, essentially based upon biological development, set it at 12 or 14 but continued to set the absolute minimum at seven.
It was in 1275 that the age was set at 12 and then 13 in 1875 and 16 in 1885.
In Northern Ireland, I believe it is 17. In Spain it is 13 and in Malta it is 12.
Often a girl who has reached puberty (say 10 -12 years old) will have been betrothed by her parents to a man, preferably of nobility but not always, who would have been anything from 7 to 60 or more.
Early on age of consent was a familial or tribal matter and only became a legal one in the Greco-Roman period. The Roman tradition served as the base for Christian Europe as well as the Christian Church itself which generally, essentially based upon biological development, set it at 12 or 14 but continued to set the absolute minimum at seven.
It was in 1275 that the age was set at 12 and then 13 in 1875 and 16 in 1885.
In Northern Ireland, I believe it is 17. In Spain it is 13 and in Malta it is 12.
i was 15 when i got pregnant 16 when i had him hes 5 now and i wouldnt change him for the world, my opinion is i think that a young girl that gets caught out young has enough to deal with never mind getting charged for it espesh when the babys there and theres no going back if the girl decides to keep it!
Spot on answer from Octavius.
All I will add is legal philosophy behind why they do not get punished.
The reason being (and I quote from the Law Lords
"It will be unethical to prosecute a person for an offence in which the law is there to protect"
Similar ethics have been applied to the Mental Health Act (and I quote from Ward-Minter)
"a person can be arrested and detained for being mad if he is in immediate danger to himself or others. However, you can not be prosecuted for being mad like in the olden days"
The same principle of ethics. The Mental Health Act is designed to protect.
Besides, back to your point. If under 16 year old girls were ever prosecuted, RAPE would be a defence to their pregnancies. When a society starts using rape as a defence, I will not be happy.
"Law Made Simple" by Captain Ward-Minter is available in all good book shops, priced at �12.99
All I will add is legal philosophy behind why they do not get punished.
The reason being (and I quote from the Law Lords
"It will be unethical to prosecute a person for an offence in which the law is there to protect"
Similar ethics have been applied to the Mental Health Act (and I quote from Ward-Minter)
"a person can be arrested and detained for being mad if he is in immediate danger to himself or others. However, you can not be prosecuted for being mad like in the olden days"
The same principle of ethics. The Mental Health Act is designed to protect.
Besides, back to your point. If under 16 year old girls were ever prosecuted, RAPE would be a defence to their pregnancies. When a society starts using rape as a defence, I will not be happy.
"Law Made Simple" by Captain Ward-Minter is available in all good book shops, priced at �12.99
