Talk:Sexual Offences Act 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is generally thought by most scholars to be a bad law, this page should consist of more than just criticism (even though it is probably justified) and perhaps give more of the other side of the debate.

[edit] Unique?

"The law is unique since neither the Home Office nor the Police have any intention of policing it or prosecuting those who break it except in extreme circumstances. "

This can't be the only case of a law that exists, but won't be policed except in extreme circumstances? Can it? Danohuiginn 12:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New offences

What is dubious about this statement?

It replaced older sexual offences laws with more specific and explicit wording. It also created several new offences such as voyeurism, assault by penetration, causing a child to watch a sexual act, and penetration of any part of a corpse.

Certainly these new crimes exist in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Is it considered dubious that these were legal before? On what basis? Mdwh (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

While I am not sure what reasoning was used in putting the dubious tag there, I would certainly question the voyeurism claim. The current statement suggests that all forms of voyeurism is now illegal but I can only find reference to voyeurism involving children in the Act. Or am I missing something?

In any case, I think we need to add a citation at the end of the statement which lists the relevant sections that introduce these new offences. Also, a second source that states that they are new offences would be useful support for the statement. Alternatively, we could drop the words "also" and "new" from the second sentence if no sources are readily available. Road Wizard (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Voyeurism is illegal, whatever the age of the person [1]. I guess links to the direct sections would be helpful, but it wasn't exactly hard for me to fine (it's listed under the heading "Voyeurism"...) Mdwh (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the link. With 143 sections it is a rather long Act and I must have missed that part. However, from the text it appears that you are incorrect; it is only non-consensual voyeurism that is illegal, consensual voyeurism appears to still be legal. This distinction needs to be made in the article.

I am having connection problems with my ISP at the moment, so I will have to edit the article later (unless you or another editor does it first). Road Wizard (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)