Psychiatrist and youth advocate Dr Daniel Thomas has warned that decriminalising sex between minors will expose children to emotional harm, early pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, and other long-term consequences.
Dr Thomas, who is president of the Love March Movement (LMM), issued the warning following a proposal by human rights activist group Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) that legislators introduce “a statutory defence” for consensual sex between minors. They strongly suggest that “no offence occurs if partners are less than two years apart in age [both under 16], with a further defence available for differences up to five years if the activity is consensual, there is no position of authority or dependency, and the younger party is at least 12 to 14 years old [to balance protection].”
Dr Thomas has been the latest to push back against the recommendation. In a letter to the Freedom Come Rain newspaper, he reinforced the long-held legal position that children should not be treated as though they can consent to sexual activity.
“A thirteen-year-old cannot consent to a medical procedure, cannot vote, cannot marry and cannot drink alcohol for the very fact that it is understood that there are certain decisions that have far-reaching consequences that children are unable to fully grasp,” said Dr Thomas, who provides psychiatry services at the Kingston Public Hospital.
He noted that a child’s ability to understand danger and to determine what is a risk is underdeveloped and is a valid reason to protect them by maintaining the laws the JFJ wants to be changed.
“Their underdeveloped ability to perceive danger, weigh risk and judge short and long-term outcomes, especially in the context of a hypersexualised culture, widespread broken family scenarios and youthful impulsivity, means children in the Jamaican context especially need protection from themselves,” Dr Thomas asserted.
Child advocacy group, Hear the Children’s Cry has described the JFJ’s proposal as “baffling and disheartening”. The organisation’s spokesperson, attorney Priscilla Duhaney, resolutely stated in a media release that they “disagree with the position for the decriminalisation of consensual sexual intercourse between minors along with the close-in-age exception.”
“It is baffling and disheartening when we desire to decriminalise the offence under Section 4 and Section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act for consenting minors,” she said before adding, “This goes against the grain of not only the moral fabric of society, but also the true purpose [for] which the provision was legislated—that is, to protect our youths, the vulnerable from self-inflicted harm, and later greater repercussions.”
Despite public outcry following the JFJ’s proposal, Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck stated that the government intends to analyse the proposal, particularly the recommendation for a close-in-age exemption.
Dr Thomas believes energies would be better invested in strengthening the diversion programme to meet existing demands, instead of removing its reach from vulnerable children who needs it.
“We have already made the situation somewhat confusing by lowering the age of consent to 16, we dare not make it worse. Weakening legal safeguards under the label of rights-based reform or decluttering the diversion policy that serves this vulnerable population of sexually active children puts too many children at risk. True protection requires vigilance, guidance, and the firm application of the law,” he said.