Human rights group Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ) has sought to clarify its recommendation to decriminalise consensual sex among minors, including its proposal for close-in-age exemptions for “differences up to five years” which triggered backlash from at least one social commentator.

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”.

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

It also includes 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]”. That position attracted criticisms from social commentators including criminologist Dr Jason McKay who argued that it could empower predators.

READ: ‘Does JFJ understand the realities on the ground?’

However, in a news release on Sunday, JFJ sought to clarify its proposal “to ensure there is no doubt or confusion as to the organisation’s positions.”

The human rights group noted that it fully supports maintaining the age of consent at 16, which it said “protects young people from adult exploitation and ensures appropriate access to sexual and reproductive health services.”

It said it does not promote or encourage early sexual activity.

“The most effective way to address adolescent sexual behaviour is through prevention and education. JFJ strongly advocates expanding Comprehensive Sexual Education, building on Jamaica’s Health and Family Life Education (HFLE) programme, to help young people delay initiation, understand consent, and make safe choices,” the JFJ said, adding “We support empowering parents so they are equipped to provide age-appropriate and factual conversations to their children.”

JFJ argued that decriminalising truly consensual peer activity protects children, noting that it avoids the harm caused by criminal charges in non-exploitative cases while keeping all coercion, force, and predation fully punishable under the law.
It stressed that decriminalising consensual sex is “not a license to have sex.”

“The law was intended to protect children from predators, not to turn children into criminals for acting on normal adolescent feelings. A policy regime properly designed to protect children should center counselling, education and guidance, not placing minors who engage in genuine consensual peer to peer to activities before an adversarial judicial system,” the JFJ said.

According to the human rights group, Jamaica’s Sexual Offences Act applies a blanket approach to all sexual activity involving a person under 16, without a statutory close-in-age provision. It said this means:

– Even consensual acts between peers can lead to serious charges. This was not Parliament’s intent.
– Boys are disproportionately affected due to societal norm of seeing girls as victims and boys as perpetrators or seeing boys as always being the initiators of sexual encounters, and perhaps due to how some offences are defined.
– The Child Diversion Programme is overwhelmed by matters that require preventative social interventions rather than court proceedings. For example, more than half of offences for which children have been referred for diversion involve sexual offences, many of which appear to be consensual peer interactions—diverting resources from children with greater behavioural challenges that could lead to involvement in gang activities or other serious issues. Furthermore, diversion is not guaranteed: while the programme is valuable, police have discretion only for certain offences and, as our research shows, utilization among officers is low. Courts can also order diversion, but this is not assured. Bringing a child into an adversarial court system causes unnecessary trauma, stigma, and disruption for young people. For instance, an act such as digital penetration cannot be diverted by police; the child must be charged with grievous sexual assault, brought before the courts, and have an attorney request diversion.

The JFJ gave an example of what it said is a “common scenario” — two 15-year-olds in a mutual relationship engaging in consensual intimate acts.

“Under current law, while both children could be charged, it is typically the boy who faces arrest, charges, repeated court appearances, and long-term consequences, even though no exploitation occurred,” it said. “JFJ’s position is that neither the boy nor the girl should be charged with an offence.”

Regarding the close-in-age exemptions, the JFJ noted that its report does not prescribe a detailed close-in-age model, “as the focus was primarily on the diversion programme.”

It said, however, to address the overwhelming burden of consensual peer sexual cases on the diversion system, the report strongly suggests introducing balanced, tiered close-in-age exemptions, noting the below as one option.

– A primary provision: No offence where partners are less than two years apart in age (both under 16), so the matter would not go before the Courts.

– A further provision: Where the age differences exceeds the less than two year gap but is up to five years, the conduct would be prosecutable, but a defence against prosecution could be raised where the activity is truly consensual, there is no authority or dependency, and the younger partner is at least 12 to 14 years old.

JFJ said the reference to “12 to 14” sets the minimum age for the younger partner, arguing that this ensures greater safeguards for younger children.

“Accordingly, no child under the age of 12 can ever ‘consent’ to peer sexual activity, and any such case would remain fully criminal with no defence available. In other words, a 14-year-old could not claim a defence if the other child was 11 years old,” JFJ said. “This approach is designed to cover typical teenage peer relationships while providing robust protection against risks for younger children. Any act involving force, coercion, exploitation, or power imbalance remains fully criminal and prosecutable—no exceptions.”

With regards to media reports on the criticisms of the proposal, the JFJ said: “We note the Gleaner and Jamaica Observer publications dated December 20, 2025, have—perhaps unintentionally through positioning of excerpts from our report—led to interpretations that do not reflect these safeguards. JFJ’s suggestions are always grounded in maximum protection for the most vulnerable.”

The JFJ also pointed to what is said is “Canada’s well-established close-in-age framework” as an effective example that Jamaica could also consider:

– Age of consent: 16.

– For a younger partner aged 14 or 15: There is no criminal offence if the sexual partner is less than 5 years older (e.g., a 15-year-old with a 19-year-old).

– For a younger partner aged 12 or 13: There is no criminal offence if the sexual partner is less than 2 years older (e.g., a 13-year-old with a 14- or 15-year-old).

– These close-in-age exemptions do not apply where there is exploitation, trust, authority, or dependency.

“In place since 2008, this tiered system has successfully protected children from predators while preventing the criminalisation of teenage relationships. A balanced approach like this would protect young people from the trauma of unnecessary criminal proceedings in non-harmful cases,” the JFJ said. “JFJ urges that we shift emphasis to prevention through enhanced education, counselling (via Child Protection and Family Services Agency and schools), and support services.”

The human rights group said it will release a detailed policy brief exploring both models to inform Parliamentary review.

“We value every voice in this conversation and are here to provide facts, answer questions, and work toward solutions that best serve Jamaica’s children,” JFJ said.