Kerre Woodham: Not all sex acts are equal

The sentencing of a 23-year-old sex abuser to 240 hours of community service has outraged a number of people.

They reckon the abuser should have got jail time - never mind that the 13-year-old was physically mature and had represented himself as 17.

Never mind that the sex was consensual or that the teenager wasn't the one to lay the complaint.

And they weren't concerned that the teenager had gone to the home of the abuser and asked to stay the night. Nope. As far as some people are concerned, abusers are abusers and should be locked up and the key thrown away.

However, as we've seen with the new laws governing coach and taxi licences, not all sex abusers are created equal. The idea behind the law that came into effect on Monday was a good one. No sex abuser would be able to hold a licence to transport paying passengers. Who's going to argue with that?

But a storm arose when a couple of men spoke out through the media, complaining they'd lost their livelihoods because a lifetime ago they had been convicted of having sex with their girlfriends who were only just under the age of consent. They'd been convicted and fined, had lived blameless lives for the past 30 years, and now they had found themselves dragged into the same net as serial rapists and slavering predators.

Public sympathy was on their side. Criticism was made of a law that lumps people into one non-discriminating category.

But that's what laws do. They are blunt instruments that fail to take into account individual circumstances. That's what we have judges for, and in the case of the New Plymouth abuser, mitigating circumstances were considered by the judge. Hopefully, it's not because the abuser in this case was a woman and her victim, if he can be called that, was a boy. I presume the reason the judge didn't send the woman to prison was because, in this case, the boy was well and truly up for it and didn't see himself as harmed by the experience.

And I would hope that in the future, judges will apply those same considerations in cases where young women have freely and willingly entered into sexual relationships with men, despite the fact they are under age. Not all men are predators and not all young women are victims, despite what their appalled parents might think.

Of course, if couples who were going to copulate held back until they found out vital information, like dates of birth, that would save a lot of hassle and potential heartache.

The decision by legislators to treat males and females equally when it comes to laying charges of carnal knowledge is a good one. And so long as judges factor in that not all young women are victims, and not all young men are lucky little buggers for being seduced by suburban Mrs Robinsons, the law should provide protection for minors.

Each case is different, and must be treated as such.