Senate Majority Leader Samantha Marshall Calls for Review of Age of Consent

8

Senate Majority Leader Samantha Marshall Calls for Review of Age of Consent Amid Loitering Legislation Debate

During yesterday’s parliamentary debate on new legislation addressing loitering, Senate Majority Leader Samantha Marshall raised an important point about the age of consent, emphasizing the need for a national discussion on the issue.

While addressing a bill targeting loitering among minors, Marshall spoke on the wider responsibilities of parents and society in protecting children, particularly when it comes to curfews and attendance at public events.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP

The new bill introduces a clause aimed at minors under 18 found loitering, stating that any child loitering without a valid reason, such as attending a sports event or similar association, will be considered in violation of the law.

Police officers encountering such minors will have three options: escort the child home, have the parent collect them from a police station, or charge the child with an offense.

The legislation specifically targets loitering between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. unless a minor is accompanied by a parent or guardian.

A critical aspect of the bill holds parents accountable if their child is found loitering after being previously warned.

Repeat offenses by minors will result in fines ranging from $2,000 to $5,000, with imprisonment for repeat offenders. Marshall emphasized that parents cannot shirk responsibility by claiming ignorance, stating, “Parents must bear some responsibility.”

During the debate, the issue of underage attendance at nightclubs and bars also came into focus. The bill proposes hefty fines for any establishment allowing individuals under 18 to loiter at such venues.

Marshall highlighted that the new legislation aligns the age of access to these spaces with other legal restrictions for minors, such as voting, driving, and working.

This alignment sparked a broader reflection on the age of consent, which currently stands at 16.

“If you’re not allowed to vote, drive, or even attend certain events until you’re 18, then why should the age of consent be any different?” Marshall asked, advocating for an open discussion on whether the current age of consent is appropriate given these other legal boundaries.

Marshall urged Parliament to proactively address these issues before they create contradictions in the law, stating, “This is a time to have this discussion. Let’s not wait till it’s too late.”

The call for reviewing the age of consent comes as the government continues to update laws aimed at protecting minors, ensuring their safety in public spaces, and holding parents accountable for their well-being.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP

Her call follows a similar one by Opposition leader Jamale Pringle in the Lower House.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]

8 COMMENTS

  2. Bravo Minister Marshall & MP Pringle.
    Yes, let’s make all of this make sense.
    When you are a legal adult i.e. 18, you are deemed to have full responsibility over your behaviours and liable to prosecution if found behaving illegally.

    Let the adult men who chase girls show adult restraint, adult respect for minors, and if not, let them.suffer the legal, and one would hope social, consequences.

  3. This change will never happen until ALP because they are an immortal gang of vultures. Find out who proposed that age many decades ago and why.

  4. Ask you boss what’s that like?
    Pixie!!!!👀
    Such hypocrisy!!!

    Makes me want to vomit!
    Ps. For some men, the younger the better!😥

  6. I respect that move but WHEN SHOULD AN INDIVIDUAL STOP PAY CJILD SUPPORT? if at 18 one can vote, drive an work, when does the support ends cause some women that use it as a business what gonna be the outcome?

  8. Lots of ambiguity there.
    1. “Repeat offenses by minors will result in fines ranging from $2,000 to $5,000:” What tracking mechanism will be in place to know that the offense was repeated. Will it be up to the officer to remember that he warned the individual already and how will any other officer know that that individual had already received a warning.
    2. “Police officers encountering such minors will have three options: escort the child home, have the parent collect them from a police station, or charge the child with an offense.” Sadly some of the officers are also guilty of child molestation. So if one of those officers are caught with a child in his car, he can say he was taking her home. Hence, when such situation occurs, the officer(s) should call the case into the dispatch center where the case will be documented. I think it will be even better for the parent to collect the child at the station so that the parent can be warned as well – if you take the child home, parent may not be there.
    3. How does the officer verify the valid reason (sport event etc) is true? This is very open ended – we live in a real world.

Comments are closed.