Definition, please

[scottycelt]

Here's the problem ... Dictionaries don't enter into it.

[Pabmusic]

[french frank]

I have scoured official dictionaries and cannot find any reference to "abduct" being a synonym for "elope".

I have scoured the OED and immediately find the dictionary definition:

To take (a person) away by force or deception, or without the consent of his or her legal guardian; to kidnap. All definitions clearly refer to illegal acts: social workers removing 'at risk' children from those in their care (parents or others) is clearly lawful if the proper procedures have been carried out.

If the girl had been 12, would you have called it 'eloping'?

[jean]

Here's the problem. Definitions change over time and (in this particular instance) according to context. And the context in this case is a particular act of Parliament. 'Abduct' means "takes or detains a child under the age of sixteen ... so as to remove him from the lawful control of any person having lawful control of the child; or ... so as to keep him out of the lawful control of any person entitled to lawful control of the child". Dictionaries don't enter into it.

But actually, they do - because a good dictionary will record a new definition, and if you scour hard enough, you will find it.

I am not sure what official dictionaries were scoured by scotty, but if he had got as far as the OED he would have found

2. trans.

a. To take (a person) away by force or deception, or without the consent of his or her legal guardian

I think abduct is always transitive, so it could never be a synonym for elope, which is what two people do together. The two verbs denote two different ways of looking at the same situation.

[Pabmusic]

But actually, they do - because a good dictionary will record a new definition, and if you scour hard enough, you will find it.

I am not sure what official dictionaries were scoured by scotty, but if he had got as far as the OED he would have found

2. trans.

a. To take (a person) away by force or deception, or without the consent of his or her legal guardian

I think abduct is always transitive, so it could never be a synonym for elope, which is what two people do together. The two verbs denote two different ways of looking at the same situation.

I don't disagree, but I am saying it's irrelevant. Words in a statute are to be given their normal meanings, except where a separate definition is given (as it is here). Any final decision as to the meaning of a disputed passage is for the court.

[french frank]

And there are actually two current cases: that of Jeremy Forrest, where the girl was 15; and John Bush (circs to be clarified) where she was 14. I don't see what the problem is with the use of the phrase 'child-abduction'. Elopement is not illegal, abduction is.

[scottycelt]

I have scoured the OED and immediately find the dictionary definition:

To take (a person) away by force or deception, or without the consent of his or her legal guardian; to kidnap. All definitions clearly refer to illegal acts: social workers removing 'at risk' children from those in their care (parents or others) is clearly lawful if the proper procedures have been carried out.

If the girl had been 12, would you have called it 'eloping'?

As the OP correctly points out 'abduction' implies an unwilling victim being kidnapped. As far as we know in both cases highlighted the 'abduction' was an agreed and voluntary action by both the 'abductor' and the 'victim'. I've already conceded the logic regarding the parents or legal guardians but 'abduction' still remains a curious choice of word, imho (and obviously those of others!).

I can well remember old newspaper reports of underage English girls voluntarily 'eloping' to Gretna Green with older males to take advantage of the less restrictive Scottish marriage laws.

As far as I know the law doesn't have a grading system when it comes to being classified as underage whether one is 12 or 15 ... ?

Of course, as we all know I'm no expert in these matters so I could be wrong ...

[Pabmusic]

...As far as I know the law doesn't have a grading system when it comes to being classified as underage whether one is 12 or 15 ... ?

Of course, as we all know I'm no expert in these matters so I could be wrong ...

I'm a bit rusty here (things change!) but there are offences such as USI (Unlawful Sexual Intercourse) that carry a harsher penalty if the girl was under 13.

[jean]

What is certain is that if the law says you are not in a position to give consent, then however willing you are, you have not given consent in law.

This used to have the unfortunate side-effect that in some circumstances you could not withhold consent, either. I remember this clearly from the first time I did jury service, in the 1960s, when a defendant could not be charged with rape, but only with indecent assault on a mental defective.

I believe the law has been changed now.

[DracoM]

There is another unfortunate complex of resultant issues here: the chances that a teacher who runs off with a 15 yr old will escape without a prison sentence are pretty well zero - at least on the basis of what posters have written on this thread. The divergence between whatever under the law a 15 yr old may want and what it is allowed to do seems unbridgeable. And of course one can see why. If the teacher were not punished, then a whole Pandora's box of nastier goodies about putative relationships between teachers and students would emerge.
BUT
I just can't help thinking what a grey area this must be for the courts in the area of 15/16 yr old 'victims'. Are they actually 'victims'? In LAW, unequivocally yes, but I keep coming back to the notion of informed choice. Is the law saying that a 15 yr 364 day old canNOT make an 'informed choice', or is within his/her legal rights to say "I am not being abducted, I chose to go of my own free will", and a 16 yr old can? What happens in the actual court room if a 15 yr old says quite clearly that he/she knew what they were doing and they went with Person X willingly? Does the court say 'sorry, chum, makes no difference what you freely decided, she/he's going down for five or whatever years - end of'. AAMOI, could a jury actually decide that 'child-abduction'; had not taken place in such circs and return a 'not guilty' verdict? And if so, would that not drive a coach and horses by precedent through the law?

[Pabmusic]

...could a jury actually decide that 'child-abduction'; had not taken place in such circs and return a 'not guilty' verdict? And if so, would that not drive a coach and horses by precedent through the law?

Yes. That's what the jury did in the Clive Ponting case, mentioned on another thread. It would set no precedent (since juries can't set precedents) but it can happen. It's a phenomenon Rumpole understood well.

As to your main point. I suspect that the law would have been interpreted more differently in the 1970s. (Mind you, a teacher is in a psition of authority over a pupil.) But our society has become more 'Puritan'. Look at the Jimmy Savile business - he was a sexual predator, but that was (almost) acceptable then - you 'pulled the birds' of almost any (teen) age every night because of who you were. It's not acceptable now.

I would certainly hate for things to get to the state they are in parts of the USA, with offences such as 'statutory rape'. If I understand this correctly, the idea is that an underage person cannot consent to sex (even if they do say 'yes', they haven't the legal capacity) and so the offence is without consent - namely, rape. In Californa, for instance, the age of consent is 18 and sex under that age can amount to statutory rape. This, I believe, is what Roman Polanski got into trouble over.

[french frank]

As the OP correctly points out 'abduction' implies an unwilling victim being kidnapped.

Implies to whom? Abduction can certainly have a willing 'victim' because that isn't in the clear definition of abduction.

And surely there is no grading system at all as to the age of majority (as distinct from the age of consent). It is 18 in the UK, isn't it?


The age of majority is the threshold of adulthood as it is conceptualized (and recognized or declared) in law. It is the chronological moment when minors cease to legally be considered children and assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over and for them.

[amateur51]

Yes. That's what the jury did in the Clive Ponting case, mentioned on another thread. It would set no precedent (since juries can't set precedents) but it can happen. It's a phenomenon Rumpole understood well.

As to your main point. I suspect that the law would have been interpreted more differently in the 1970s. (Mind you, a teacher is in a psition of authority over a pupil.) But our society has become more 'Puritan'. Look at the Jimmy Savile business - he was a sexual predator, but that was (almost) acceptable then - you 'pulled the birds' of almost any (teen) age every night because of who you were. It's not acceptable now.

I would certainly hate for things to get to the state they are in parts of the USA, with offences such as 'statutory rape'. If I understand this correctly, the idea is that an underage person cannot consent to sex (even if they do say 'yes', they haven't the legal capacity) and so the offence is without consent - namely, rape. In Californa, for instance, the age of consent is 18 and sex under that age can amount to statutory rape. This, I believe, is what Roman Polanski got into trouble over.

I'm not sure that it was acceptable in Savile's time pabs but people in the BBC did not feel able to blow the whistle in part because the sexual liberation ethos of the time might have frowned at it. Had we been prepared to listen to and support the victims then I guess that we might have taken a different view. but the sexist attitude of the time distorted our view. It has not yet completely gone away I find but it is in retreat.

[Pabmusic]

I'm not sure that it was acceptable in Savile's time pabs but people in the BBC did not feel able to blow the whistle in part because the sexual liberation ethos of the time might have frowned at it. Had we been prepared to listen to and support the victims then I guess that we might have taken a different view. but the sexist attitude of the time distorted our view. It has not yet completely gone away I find but it is in retreat.

No, you're right. Trouble is, we don't have the power of absolute recall, do we? Savile wasn't a good example, of course, since he was clearly so far gone. But there were many of that era who were not in the same league and just did what they were able to get away with ("what you did if you were a TV star"). The culture of the day allowed it to happen, and people who didn't agree no doubt felt powerless. Now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, which means (at least in part) that we interpret things differently.

I'm not trying to come down on one side or the other - just to point out that, to an extent, interpretation of the law can change with changing mores.

[amateur51]

No, you're right. Trouble is, we don't have the power of absolute recall, do we? Savile wasn't a good example, of course, since he was clearly so far gone. But there were many of that era who were not in the same league and just did what they were able to get away with ("what you did if you were a TV star"). The culture of the day allowed it to happen, and people who didn't agree no doubt felt powerless. Now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, which means (at least in part) that we interpret things differently.

I'm not trying to come down on one side or the other - just to point out that, to an extent, interpretation of the law can change with changing mores.

Flux is the name of the game, I agree Pabs