Sexual Crimes against children are unforgivable. 

The Sexual Offences Act (2009) modernised large portions of the law and created a Sex Offender Registry, while the Child Care and Protection Act (2004) affirmed the State’s duty to act in the best interests of children. The nation has made measurable progress in addressing this grotesque crime. Yet the recent highly publicised case of sexual violence against a child committed by a known individual exposes a troubling reality that our legislation is incongruous with a modern definition of rape, balanced transparency in incest proceedings, and meaningful public protection through the Sex Offender Registry.

The most glaring deficiency lies in how rape is defined. Jamaica’s definition is dangerously archaic and inconsistent with contemporary understandings of sexual violence. Under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act, rape occurs only when “a man” engages in penile‑vaginal intercourse with “a woman” without consent. Children are not explicitly protected under a consent‑based rape framework, since they are not understood to give consent. This necessitates new provisions through amendments, to reflect rape of a child rather than the default of grievous sexual assault. This is not a semantic issue since legal classification would invariably affect sentencing, survivor recognition, and how serious offences are prosecuted. 

By contrast, Barbados, Canada, and the United Kingdom define rape by the absence of consent and the presence of sexual penetration regardless of gender or anatomy. These laws reflect a fundamental truth: children cannot consent, and bodily harm does not depend on the victim’s sex. Jamaica’s law fails both survivors and society by refusing to acknowledge this reality.

Incest, Privacy, and Transparency

Incest represents one of the most egregious violations of trust. Recent allegations involving child victims have highlighted tensions between protecting survivors and ensuring accountability. Jamaican courts rightly hold sexual offence trials in camera to prevent secondary trauma, but this has sometimes created the impression that offender privacy eclipses public scrutiny. Other jurisdictions like the UK and Canada provide a clearer balance for their courts, routinely shielding identifying information about child victims while allowing public reporting of charges, convictions, and sentences. The offence is visible but only the child’s identity is protected. This prevents re-victimising individuals, while ensuring the existence of the crime itself is not obscured. The balancing act revolves around the principle that Justice must not only be done but seen to be done.

 Clear guidance, therefore, is desirable for the media, which are often fixated on breaking news, and the police, who would better serve by keeping some information away from the court of public opinion. Since public protection and constitutional rights are not mutually exclusive, there should be no contemplation for prioritising offender privacy over community safety. The United Kingdom’s “Sarah’s Law” permits controlled disclosure as proportionate and compatible with privacy rights because child protection is a compelling public interest. Canada employs targeted disclosure on similar grounds.

So, when will Jamaica get it right? Jamaica has ratified several key international conventions on the rights of the child and the obligation of the state to protect them while ensuring equality before the law. Incremental adjustments are no longer enough. The question is no longer whether Jamaica can modernise its laws; our Caribbean neighbours and Commonwealth partners have shown us how. The real question is whether we have the will to put children first.

Clinton Rattray is a graduate of the UWI with a bachelor’s degree in international relations and a MSc Governance and Public Policy candidate at Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social & Economic Studies (SALISES).