The government has voiced strong opposition to lowering the age of consent, emphasizing that such a move would undermine child safety and potentially increase the vulnerability of minors to exploitation. This stance reflects concerns raised by various bodies, including the Law Commission, which firmly opposes lowering the age of consent from 18.
The core argument against lowering the age of consent centers on the belief that individuals under 18 may lack the cognitive and emotional maturity to make informed decisions about sexual activity. Maintaining the current age threshold is seen as crucial to protecting vulnerable minors from sexual offenses, child marriage, and child trafficking. Lowering the age of consent could inadvertently facilitate early and forced marriages, making it easier for perpetrators to exploit minors.
Opponents of lowering the age of consent also point to the potential for increased difficulties in prosecuting cases of vulnerable children involved in prostitution, sex abuse rings, or forced marriage. The existing legal framework is designed to protect children from exploitation and abuse, and any reduction in the age of consent could weaken these safeguards. Concerns have been raised that lowering the age of consent would normalize and legitimize sexual relationships between adults and children under 16, creating opportunities for predatory individuals and networks to target younger individuals.
It is also argued that lowering the age of consent could have a negative impact on efforts to combat child marriage and child trafficking. Maintaining the age of consent at 18 aligns with the objectives of shielding children from sexual offenses and ensuring their well-being. Some also suggest that the legal age of consent should be somewhere around 18.
Despite these arguments, some propose reforms that include lowering the age of consent. Those in favor of lowering the age of consent argue that existing laws fail to protect kids and that age-of-consent laws are ineffective, misused, and counterproductive. They believe that young people should have the right to control their own bodies and that laws restricting their sexual autonomy contribute to their subjugation. It is also argued that fixed legislative rules can result in mature young people being prosecuted for making autonomous decisions about their sexual activities. Furthermore, some argue that lowering the age of consent would make it easier to provide appropriate sex education and sexual health services to young people.
The debate surrounding the age of consent also involves the question of judicial discretion. Some propose introducing guided judicial discretion in sentencing, particularly in cases involving tacit approval among adolescents aged 16 to 18. This would grant courts the authority to exercise flexibility in sentencing, taking into account various factors in cases where a child aged 16 or older has been involved in an intimate relationship with the accused.
Ultimately, the government's stance against lowering the age of consent reflects a commitment to safeguarding children and protecting them from potential harm. The debate over the age of consent is complex and multifaceted, involving considerations of child safety, individual autonomy, and the role of the law in protecting vulnerable populations.