Letter of the Day | Close-in-age exemption a safeguard, not an open door

THE EDITOR, Madam:

In your Letter of the Day published on Monday, January 5, 2026, a writer using the moniker ‘Concerned Citizen’ argued, “Don’t expand the close-in-age exemption, educate the children.” In doing so, the writer referenced comments by Mickel Jackson and Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) calling for the decriminalisation of sexual activity between minors. Several aspects of that letter suggest a misunderstanding of the issue under discussion.

First, there is currently no close-in-age exemption in any Jamaican statute. Therefore, there is nothing to “expand”. The law is explicit: the age of consent is 16, and any sexual activity involving a person under 16 is a criminal offence, regardless of the ages of the other party involved.

Second, the writer incorrectly juxtaposed JFJ’s recommendation with a publication from the Fi Wi Children Foundation and concluded that adults would be permitted to have sexual relations with minors once there is “consent”. This is inaccurate. The proposal under discussion applies only to sexual activity between minors. It cannot be interpreted as legitimising sexual activity between adults and children.

Third, the claim that such a proposal would encourage grooming is similarly misplaced. Grooming, under Jamaican law, refers specifically to conduct by an adult who communicates with or meets a minor for sexual purposes. The proposed close-in-age exemption does not alter or weaken these provisions in any way.

NOT AN EITHER/OR PROPOSITION

The proposal to introduce a close-in-age exemption is neither radical nor new. It is, in fact, long overdue. Jamaica AIDS Support for Life (JASL), in submissions to joint select committees of Parliament in both 2014 and 2016, recommended the introduction of such an exemption, with a strict age gap of no more than two years. This ensures that an adult can never be excused for engaging in sexual activity with a person under 16. Even after a minor attains the age of 16, the exemption would not apply to anyone over the age of 18.

I agree with ‘Concerned Citizen’ that introducing a close-in-age exemption disproportionately benefits males. However, this is precisely because of how the Sexual Offences Act is framed. The act recognises only penile penetration of the vagina, which means it is typically males who are charged and dragged before the courts. This proposal is not about excusing predators or encouraging sexual activity among children. It is about protecting minors from the trauma of criminal prosecution when they are merely navigating age-appropriate boyfriend-and-girlfriend relationships.

Education is undoubtedly essential and, on that point, I am in full agreement with ‘Concerned Citizen’. However, this is not an either/or proposition. We can educate our children and implement legal protections that prevent them from being unnecessarily criminalised.

Evidence shows that better-informed children tend to delay their sexual début. It is time we stop pretending that simply declaring “sex is not for children” ends the conversation.

A close-in-age exemption is a safeguard, not an open door.

PATRICK LALOR

Policy and advocacy officer at

Jamaica AIDS Support for Life

plalor@jasforlife.org