Human rights group Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ) is facing backlash over its proposal for a “further defence” for “differences up to five years” as part of its broader position urging legislators to decriminalise consensual sex among minors, with critics arguing that such a move could potentially lead to young adults having “consensual” sex with minors.

READ: Rights group backs call for decriminalisation of consensual sex between minors

JFJ’s 42-page report, ‘A Civil Society Review of the Diversion and Alternative Measures for Children in Conflict with the Law in Jamaica’, argued against consenting minors being brought before the courts.

It opined that the Child Diversion Programme arising out of cases brought to court was resources being misallocated, burdening the police, overwhelming the legal system and causing children to miss school, rather than dealing with those instances through “comprehensive sexual education”.

JFJ’s proposal included introduction of “a statutory defence where no offence occurs if partners are less than two years apart in age [both under 16]’.”

Jason McKay

However, the rights group’s proposal of 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]”, has attracted criticisms from social commentators such as criminologist Dr Jason McKay and Children’s Advocate Diahann Gordon-Harrison.

“I see where JFJ is now proposing a close-in-age defence, which would legalise a 14-year-old, a minor, having sex with a 19-year-old, who is legally an adult by more than a year,” McKay pointed out.

“Does JFJ understand the realities on the ground in some communities when the 19-year-old, who could be a gunman, sends for your 14- or 15-year-old?” McKay asked, stating that the law should remain as it relates to minors, pointing out that the court allows for proper ventilation of underlying issues.

“When you take a case-by-case approach, especially any close-in-age ratio, you would be opening a floodgate, enabling and empowering predators,” he said.

Whereas Gordon-Harrison said she supported JFJ’s call to decriminalise consensual sex among minors, a recommendation she, herself, had made to Parliament more than seven years ago, she was against the “further defence” listed under ‘Proposed Legislative Amendments’ on page 34 of JFJ’s report.

Children’s Advocate Diahann Gordon Harrison

Gordon-Harrison was clear that her proposal of a close-in-age-exemption was restricted to minors.

“The recommendation being made by JFJ echoes, in part, a very dated recommendation I, myself, had made to the house of parliament when reviewing the Child Care and Protection Act and Sexual Offences Act years ago,” she said.

“However, my proposal was that they both have to be minors. My close-in-age exception would be triggered were it two minors, not an adult and minor,” the children’s advocate emphasised, adding that the minors would have to be “very close in age”.

“I had proposed that where two youngsters are very close in age, and there was no force, coercion, violence, or fraud, and they consider themselves to be in a mutually consensual relationship, that, if there was any sexual connection, in these very narrow circumstances, then that was not a matter for the courts,” she said.