Ridiculous Sentence, Ridiculous Law

I’m not saying a 45 year old teacher having sex with a 16 year old student is not wrong. But is it 18 months jail wrong?

No. Coming on top of the loss of his career, marriage, reputation and the respect of his three daughters, 18 months in prison, amongst psychos and genuine perverts in protective custody is grossly excessive.

Because the conduct occurred in Tasmania, where the age of consent is 17, it would have been a criminal offence regardless of the teacher / student relationship.

When sentenced, the teacher had already been in custody for more than three months. That is because he defied an order banning him from contacting the girl after they were seen kissing and reported. That’s probably long enough. The judge should have given him 6 months, which makes him immediately eligible for parole as long as he has been behaving himself in custody and has a positive report from the prison psychiatrist. The 6 months would really have been for defying the previous order banning contact with the girl. If that had not occurred, all he should have received was a suspended sentence (so that if he reoffends, he will immediately be jailed).

It is ludicrous not to have uniform age of consent laws across all states. The age is 16 everywhere but South Australia and Tasmania, where it is 17. So, a 40 year old can legally have sex with a 16 year old at a motel in Victoria, drive across the border into South Australia, do the same thing in another motel and be arrested, jailed as a paedophile and placed on a sex offenders’ register. That’s just bloody stupid.

What if they are South Australian residents, but drive across the border to Victoria to have sex? I believe they could not be charged in this case, as no offence has taken place in South Australia. That is how ridiculous the law is.

Equally as silly are the comparatively recent changes to most state laws, criminalizing sex between adults and a person under 18 “under their special care”, even if the conduct would be legal were the older person not in some “position of trust”. In NSW, this is S73 of the Crimes Act. Examples are teachers, sports coaches, priests, doctors. Even if the person is 18 tomorrow, the offence can carry 4 years jail.

I’m not saying people such as teachers or sports coaches who have sex with their charges haven’t done anything wrong. However, a custodial sentence for having sex with a 17 year old is patently ridiculous, particularly since the 17 year old could very well be having sex with their peers and the conduct would be perfectly legal if the adult was not in the position of authority. Why should the adult be placed on a sex offenders’ register, so that people will think they were preying on kids? Why does the 17 year old become a “victim” when they would not be a victim if they had sex with most other adults?

There needs to be a lot more common sense exercised here. We are not talking about 12 or 13 year olds; we are talking about 16 and 17 year olds, who may well be sexually active anyway. The magnitudes of the offences are vastly different. In fact, sex with the 16 or 17 year old is not criminal per se: it is only rendered so by the relationship of care or authority.

There is an absurd moral panic developing in English speaking societies around consensual sex with young people close to the age of consent, boys included. It’s not like the girl in the Tasmanian case was 13 and it’s not like she was coerced.

One might think this moral panic was coming from the conservative side of politics. Much of it is, however large sections of the left can be notoriously prudish and inconsistent when it comes to sex. If there are power relationships involved, you can bet someone on the left will want to make a law strictly regulating it. In fact, the S73 amendment to the NSW Crimes Act was enacted by the previous, Labor government, with bipartisan support.

Most of the left are quite happy to support gay sex (or in the case of the Greens, make it compulsory). They support gay marriage and probably even polygamy. Equalising the age of consent for homo and heterosexual sex was an initiative of the left (and a sensible one too). Yet none of the same people are speaking up against the obviously illogical S73 and its equivalents in other states.

Manifestly excessive sentences are being passed for conduct which is unlikely to cause significant harm. In the above case, had he not been her teacher, the conduct would not have been illegal in most states. So how is 18 months jail a sentence which accurately reflects the gravity of the conduct? I’d have thought a suspended sentence would suffice, taking into account the loss of his career, reputation and marriage.

Conversely, if an adult is having sex with genuine children ie. materially under the age of consent, the penalties should be harsh. This is the type of twisted and predatory behaviour which does real damage.