Illuminati-R-Us

from 13 to 16.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-65887198

The article doesn't say if the change is phased in. So if one has been shagging one's fourteen year old boyfriend/girlfriend, does one need to stop now?

Depends.
"a person who has had sex with a minor aged 13 to 15 will be punished only if the person is five or more years older than the minor"

g-one wrote:Depends.
"a person who has had sex with a minor aged 13 to 15 will be punished only if the person is five or more years older than the minor"

I know a lot of the US states used to have a drinking age of 18. But they all raised it (more or less blackmailed by the national government) to 21. However, the way most of them did it was, if you had already reached 18 at the time of the change, you were all set - the change only applied to people who hadn't already turned 18. There was no issue of, oh, I'm 19, so I was allowed to drink last week, but I can't drink next week, because they're changing the law.

So I wonder if Japan is doing it like that.

g-one wrote:Depends.
"a person who has had sex with a minor aged 13 to 15 will be punished only if the person is five or more years older than the minor"

So Bill Wyman (47) and Mandy Smith (13) would've been f**ked.

tubeswell wrote:

g-one wrote:Depends.
"a person who has had sex with a minor aged 13 to 15 will be punished only if the person is five or more years older than the minor"

So Bill Wyman (47) and Mandy Smith (13) would've been f**ked.

Well, if she were, then he would have been, albeit in a different sense of the word.

tubeswell wrote:

g-one wrote:Depends.
"a person who has had sex with a minor aged 13 to 15 will be punished only if the person is five or more years older than the minor"

So Bill Wyman (47) and Mandy Smith (13) would've been f**ked.

I don't think Britain would pass such a law. Cultural traditions and all that.

g-one wrote:

tubeswell wrote:

g-one wrote:Depends.
"a person who has had sex with a minor aged 13 to 15 will be punished only if the person is five or more years older than the minor"

So Bill Wyman (47) and Mandy Smith (13) would've been f**ked.

I don't think Britain would pass such a law. Cultural traditions and all that.

Yes, screwing the miners/minors is a popular passtime of the establishment here.

The UK sort of tiptoes around a "close in age" defence of the type that some (but note, not all) US states and, by the sound of it, Japan have. Someone who has sex with a person whom they know is under 16 is screwed in every sense. No close in age defence. You're 17, you know your girlfriend is 15 and you shag her, you face the wrath of the criminal law. There is a long and distinguished list of such people, not just the Bill Wymans and Rolf Harrises of this world. On the other hand, if you're under 18, you looking at a maximum of 5 years in a young offenders' institution rather than up to 14 years in jail.

However, there is a defence if you can convince a jury that you reasonably believed that the person was 16. In the past, there was a further proviso that you yourself had to be under 24, but that has now gone. Reasonable belief that your bedmate was at least 16 is all that's required - regardless of your age. Of course, if you're in your 56, a jury may be harder to convince that you reasonably believed they were 16 or more.

The exception is if you're in a position of trust: teachers and the like are in the crosshairs of this. Then the age of consent goes up to 18, but again there's a defence that you reasonably believed the person you shagged was at least 18. So if you bonk your Year 13 (what used to be called upper 6th) and she turned out to be 17, if you can convince a jury you reasonably thought she'd passed her 18th birthday, you're off the hook.

Of course all of the above also applies to under-age boyfriends.

Richard A wrote:The UK sort of tiptoes around a "close in age" defence of the type that some (but note, not all) US states and, by the sound of it, Japan have. Someone who has sex with a person whom they know is under 16 is screwed in every sense. No close in age defence. You're 17, you know your girlfriend is 15 and you shag her, you face the wrath of the criminal law. There is a long and distinguished list of such people, not just the Bill Wymans and Rolf Harrises of this world. On the other hand, if you're under 18, you looking at a maximum of 5 years in a young offenders' institution rather than up to 14 years in jail.

However, there is a defence if you can convince a jury that you reasonably believed that the person was 16. In the past, there was a further proviso that you yourself had to be under 24, but that has now gone. Reasonable belief that your bedmate was at least 16 is all that's required - regardless of your age. Of course, if you're in your 56, a jury may be harder to convince that you reasonably believed they were 16 or more.

The exception is if you're in a position of trust: teachers and the like are in the crosshairs of this. Then the age of consent goes up to 18, but again there's a defence that you reasonably believed the person you shagged was at least 18. So if you bonk your Year 13 (what used to be called upper 6th) and she turned out to be 17, if you can convince a jury you reasonably thought she'd passed her 18th birthday, you're off the hook.

Of course all of the above also applies to under-age boyfriends.

So for “reasonable belief”, does “s/he said so” cut it?

That is the question. "S/he said s/he was 16/18" is certainly relevant, but key questions that follow are: 1) "did you believe them?" and, if the jury think you did, then 2) "was it reasonable for you to believe them?"

And as Boris Johnson has just found out, albeit in a constitutional, as opposed to criminal, context, saying "I believed X" does not necessarily guarantee that the tribunal believe that you believed it!

Some states have "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions here. If the age of consent is 16, a 14 year old shagging a 13 year old is okay because they're close in age. None of us, however, could shag the same 13 year old.