Reject JFJ’s recommendations

THE EDITOR, Madam:

The recent call by Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) for decriminalisation of consensual sex between minors requires urgent scrutiny. While framed as a human rights issue, the proposal fundamentally seeks to recognise a legal capacity for children to consent to sexual activity — a concept that is legally fallacious and socially hazardous.

In Jamaican law, children lack the legal capacity to consent to sexual acts, even among themselves. This is not a punitive measure but a protective one; the law guards children even from their own developing impulses. To recognise ‘consensual’ sex between minors is to de facto decrease the age of consent. Such a shift would inevitably open the door for the sexualisation and victimisation of our youth, providing a legal foothold for predators who specialise in grooming and exploitation during a child’s formative years.

We must instead re-echo the calls from the Office of the Children’s Advocate (OCA) and various stakeholders to increase the age of consent to 18 years. Children need to be protected from predatory elements.

The narrative that children are currently being ‘criminalised’ is factually incorrect. Under the existing Child Diversion Policy, no child receives a criminal record or faces the traditional criminal justice system for these matters. Instead, they receive professional counselling, and their families are provided with essential support.

While critics point to delays in the diversion process as a reason for legislative change, this is a non sequitur. Delay is a systemic feature of the Jamaican justice system that requires administrative improvement, not the abandonment of protective legal principles. In sexual offence cases, where facts are often divergent and require careful investigation, thoroughness is a virtue. We should be advocating for greater resource allocation for social workers and investigators to expedite these checks, rather than dismantling a system that is currently yielding positive results.

The public must remain vigilant regarding JFJ’s recurring recommendations. One cannot forget the controversy surrounding the unauthorised ‘comprehensive sexuality education’ materials introduced into children’s homes, nor the organisation’s historic opposition to raising the age of consent. Introducing this proposal at year-end, while the nation is occupied with Hurricane Melissa relief and Christmas festivities, appears to be an attempt to bypass robust public debate.

We must firmly reject any attempt to reduce the age of consent.

JILLIAN FORBES