Not condoning adult-child sex

THE EDITOR, Madam:

In the letter to The Gleaner on January 6, titled “Don’t expand close-in-age exemption, educate the children”, the writer suggests that the Fi We Children Foundation (FWCF) is essentially condoning adult-child sex by advocating for a close-in-age exception as a sexual defence.

That assertion is incorrect.

FWCF’s position is clear: the close-in-age exception we support applies strictly to children. Any age difference would only apply when both parties are minors. FWCF does not support, and has never supported, any legal framework that permits adults to engage in consensual sexual activity with minors. Jamaica’s age of consent would remain firmly at 16.

Additionally, neither the lower age threshold nor the size of any age gap has been proposed by FWCF. The age range does not need to be as low as 12, nor does the age difference need to be as wide as five years. Our position is simply that Jamaica should consider a close-in-age exception and determine its own criteria based on our unique social and cultural realities. In our article, we referenced recommendations from Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) and aspects of Canadian law solely to illustrate how such framework could operate and for Jamaica to consider adopting a model that works for us.

While it may appear that a close-in-age exception disproportionately benefits males, the reality is that young males are already disproportionately harmed by the absence of such a provision. Relying exclusively on judicial discretion after charges are laid is reactive and insufficient. By the time a young person—again, most often a young male—appears before a judge, the damage has already been done: arrest, school disruption, psychological trauma, and lasting social stigma. A statutory exception prevents children from being unnecessarily drawn into the adversarial criminal justice system in the first place.

This is a sensitive but necessary discussion, and all perspectives deserve careful consideration. Even if Jamaica ultimately adopts a very strict criterion, the need for some form of close-in-age consideration is evident. The best interests of the child must remain paramount. Children should not be treated as criminals for natural, consensual sexual development among age peers where there is no exploitation, coercion, authority, or power imbalance. Where appropriate, alternative legal and protective mechanisms must exist to shield children from unnecessary exposure to the criminal justice system.

FI WE CHILDREN FOUNDATION

info@fiwechildren.org