Mary gets in touch

Mary Beard kindly replied after Heretic TOC queried by email the accuracy of her radio statement that the age of consent in England was 12 for many centuries. The eminent classical scholar conceded that “what happened between 13th and 19th century is complicated”, adding “and how far driven by LAW is not clear”.

Yep, no argument with that. Thanks to excellent work by reader Peter (see comment to Mary, Mary, wonderfully contrary) we can now refer to important information in Carolyn E. Cocca’s book, Jailbait : the politics of statutory rape laws in the United States, which goes back to the English origins of those laws. On page 10 of that book, Cocca wrote about the Statute of Westminster of 1275. She says:

This newly drafted law constructed the crime as sexual intercourse with a female under 12, who was regarded as unable to consent. The offence was made a capital one in 1285, and the age was lowered to 10 in 1576, “if any person shall unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any woman-child under the age of 10 years, every such unlawful and carnal knowledge shall be a felony.

However, it seems the Statute of Westminster was not explicitly repealed by the later Act, so 12 arguably continued to be the age of consent. But if the girl was 10 or 11 years old an offence against her would count only as a misdemeanour, not as a felony. In other words, it was to be considered a less serious offence, punishable “only” by prison rather than by death.

So basically Mary could well have been right, but for centuries the law was hardly crystal clear. The late historian Vern Bullough was of the opinion that the English AOC was raised from 10 to 12 by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; then to 13 in 1875 and to 16 in 1885.  (Bullough, V.A., Children and adolescents as sexual beings: a historical overview, Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 13(3), 447-59, July 2004).

Whatever! What we can be sure of is that for centuries the AOC was a hell of a lot lower than it is now. Also, as readers have pointed out, the AOC in question was solely an age at which girls could give valid consent to sex with a male. Unless “sodomy” was involved, any other age and gender combination might well have passed muster throughout most of history.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

4 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cyril

Tom, one guy is trying to prove that MAPs were tortured in Medieval England by this quote:

The belief in the right of personal vengeance did not disappear even in those places where a conception of wrongdoing as a public offense gained ground the most quickly. Indeed, frequently felonies could be considered as both a private and a public wrong. Thus in Flanders during the late twelfth-century execution of an offender might still be left to a volunteering kinsman of the victim.24 Similarly in England in the early fourteenth-century, a victim of rape might be expected to gouge out the eyes and/or severe the offender’s testicles herself.25 By the mid-fourteenth-century, however, royal authority over the trial and punishment of crime had asserted itself in western Europe.

“The Medieval Blood Sanction and the Divine Beneficene of Pain: 1100–1450”, Trisha Olson, Journal of Law and Religion, 22 JLREL 63 (2006) 

Do you know, Tom, whether the quote is correct? I have some reasons not to trust the quoter.

Cyril

The Telegram user claims that adult-child sex was considered as rape, and in accordance to conjunction ‘Similarly’ the father of a girl was allowed to do it instead of her.

The question is whether the text is written by Trisha Olson or Telegramer has forged it.

4
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
Scroll to Top