Gransnet forums

Legal, pensions and money

Marriage age

(82 Posts)
Ladyleftfieldlover Wed 27-Apr-22 14:43:22

I have just read that the legal age for marriage in England and Wales is to be raised imminently to 18! I think that’s great news, especially for arranged marriages.

halfpint1 Mon 02-May-22 05:53:53

As a mother of 4 my lot were still getting the school bus at
16. I wouldn't have wished marriage for any of them at that
age, neither they nor myself (at 16) was mature enough to
cope.

Callistemon21 Mon 02-May-22 10:25:52

Blondiescot

Elizabeth27

Marriage is a legal contract, in that there are laws when it come to divorce,I have never understood how under 18s can make a legal contract.

You can join the army at 16...

But cannot be deployed to an area of conflict until 18.

Callistemon21 Mon 02-May-22 10:28:50

You can join the army at 16 ...
But only with parental consent.

Ladyleftfieldlover Mon 02-May-22 11:05:16

Callistemon21

^You can join the army at 16^ ...
But only with parental consent.

Our son wanted to join the Royal Marines. Both parents signatures were required. Neither of us signed. He stayed at school, took and passed 3 A-levels and joined the Marines at 19.

Blondiescot Mon 02-May-22 11:15:35

Callistemon21

Blondiescot

Elizabeth27

Marriage is a legal contract, in that there are laws when it come to divorce,I have never understood how under 18s can make a legal contract.

You can join the army at 16...

But cannot be deployed to an area of conflict until 18.

Only too well aware of that - my son was deployed to Afghanistan at 18.

Elegran Mon 02-May-22 11:43:13

4allweknow

Scotland is age 16. Though still regarded as a child for any misdemeanour until 18 and that is proposed to be raised to 24 as apparently until then people are not able to understand consequences of their actions. How does that fit in with age of consent for sex; marriage; voting; joining forces and goodness knows what else. I can see the need for trying to tackle forced marriages in raising age but aren't the parents often involved in those actions. Will the young be brave enough not to conform to parents wishes?

I believe that if the defendant is under 25, the court is supposed to consider their background and history when sentencing, and determine whether prison might increase their future criminality rather than cure it, as young offenders are more likely to be both "going through a phase" and influenced by the people they will meet in prison. That is not quite the same as not being able to understand the consequences of their actions, and is a sensible way of finding the best way to treat a young offender without automatically exposing him/her to the company and example of "old lags".

"Some mistakenly thought we were proposing that no one under 25 should receive a custodial sentence or that those aged 18 to 24 should be dealt with by the children’s hearings system rather than the courts.

The guideline which we will soon submit to the High Court has been restructured to make it clearer at which point the courts should consider separate matters and why. It also gives more clarity on how the impact on victims is to be taken in account and provides clearer guidance on how the assessment of a young person’s maturity bears on culpability

In other key respects we have decided against making changes to the guideline. It will continue to require courts to take an individualised approach when sentencing a young person, taking into account their personal circumstances; it will state that rehabilitation should be a primary consideration when sentencing a young person; and it will apply to all people under the age of 25"
Rt Hon Lady Dorrian, Lord Justice Clerk and Chair of the Scottish Sentencing Council
www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/2142/final-ssc-report-on-sentencing-young-people-public-consultation.pdf