Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

15 year old boy who had consensual sex with 14 year old girl faces 5 years in prison

1…678911

Comments

  • #302
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    tigger123 wrote: »
    But that's assuming she will approach a doctor in the first place, which she may not if she thinks she's broken the law.

    BTW, I'm not defending it, just passing on a point of view. I'd love to know how other EU States handle this.

    Most have a lot lower age of consent then 17 and have a clause for consenting with someone who is under the age of 18 and a difference for those over. For example two 14 year olds having sex is ok but a 20 year old and 14 year old is not.
    Demonique wrote: »
    What happens if a 16 year old girl has sex with a 14 year old boy?

    Well she couldn't be done for rape to begin with, best they could try and press for would be sexual assault and again it depends on if his parents press for a case and if he will testify.


  • #303
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Demonique wrote: »
    What happens if a 16 year old girl has sex with a 14 year old boy?

    Same deal. The boy can be prosecuted and the girl can not.


  • #304
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    strobe wrote: »
    Same deal. The boy can be prosecuted and the girl can not.

    Was just about to post this.


  • #305
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    What happens if a 16 year old girl rapes a 14 year old boy?

    She wont' be charged with rape, legally she is incapable of rape and the boy may still end up being charged with having sex with a minor. :mad:


  • #306
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    Cannot believe they have not change it, it's fooked up


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    stupidusername
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,762 ✭✭✭✭stupidusername


    Sharrow wrote: »
    What happens if a 16 year old girl rapes a 14 year old boy?

    She wont' be charged with rape, legally she is incapable of rape and the boy may still end up being charged with having sex with a minor. :mad:

    that is actually messed up.


  • #308
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Funny thing is women are incapable of rape other than with an implement fullstop. In underage stuff the girl can do no "wrong".


  • #309
    Fenian Army
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,483 ✭✭✭Fenian Army


    Sharrow wrote: »
    What happens if a 16 year old girl rapes a 14 year old boy?

    She wont' be charged with rape, legally she is incapable of rape and the boy may still end up being charged with having sex with a minor. :mad:
    Thats not true.


  • #310
    up for anything
    Registered Users Posts: 5,776 ✭✭✭up for anything


    Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »
    I can't. The woman has locked me up at home where I'm forced to undergo degrading sexually objectifying acts.

    Ha! Putting up shelves night...


  • #311
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    It strikes me that there is a certain consistency about this law with our other laws, though I would add that there is possible something perverse about this consistency.

    As I understand the SC ruling, the distinction being made between boys and girls is that the potential impact on girls is greater (i.e. unplanned pregnancies). Thus the law takes consequences, and not just intent, into consideration when determining the seriousness of an offence.

    But this is what they do already in other areas. For example, there is a magnitude of difference between murder and attempted murder or a case of dangerous/careless/drink driving that results in a death compared to a case that doesn’t.

    Surely consequences are irrelevant to assessing the magnitude of a wrong, only intent should matter? And if you disagree, then on what basis do you criticise the SC decision?

    (Granted, this is an unusual, possibly unique case, where different consequences are completely partitioned by the two sexes, hence the cries of sexism. But the decision stems from different consequences, not from different sex)


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights#Applications_by_individuals

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights#Article_14_-_discrimination

    He could appeal under article 14 on grounds of the right to a fair trial.
    I sincerely hope he does.


  • #313
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    lugha wrote: »
    It strikes me that there is a certain consistency about this law with our other laws, though I would add that there is possible something perverse about this consistency.

    As I understand the SC ruling, the distinction being made between boys and girls is that the potential impact on girls is greater (i.e. unplanned pregnancies). Thus the law takes consequences, and not just intent, into consideration when determining the seriousness of an offence.

    But this is what they do already in other areas. For example, there is a magnitude of difference between murder and attempted murder or a case of dangerous/careless/drink driving that results in a death compared to a case that doesn’t.

    Surely consequences are irrelevant to assessing the magnitude of a wrong, only intent should matter? And if you disagree, then on what basis do you criticise the SC decision?

    (Granted, this is an unusual, possibly unique case, where different consequences are completely partitioned by the two sexes, hence the cries of sexism. But the decision stems from different consequences, not from different sex)

    Unplanned fatherhood is a consequence.
    In fact, the entire reason this law is able to cite "consequences" as only applying to the girl, is because Irish law doesn't recognize unmarried fathers' rights.

    This whole area of law is built on a foundation off deep misandry.


  • #314
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    amacachi wrote: »
    Funny thing is women are incapable of rape other than with an implement fullstop. In underage stuff the girl can do no "wrong".


    That's because rape is idiotically based on non consensual "penetration" rather than "intercourse".

    Seriously though, how do we go about challenging this? With the mess the economy is in, it's unlikely an activist campaign would do much. Any other ideas, apart from going to the ECHR?


  • #315
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Sharrow wrote: »
    She wont' be charged with rape, legally she is incapable of rape and the boy may still end up being charged with having sex with a minor. :mad:

    Eh no. Have you ever heard of a woman (above the age of consent) who was raped by a male (below the age of consent) being charged for having sex with him? I doubt it. Does the possibility that she may still be charged with having sex with a minor fill you with :mad: or do you acknowledge that genuine rape victims do not get charged for the act?


  • #316
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    That's because rape is idiotically based on non consensual "penetration" rather than "intercourse".

    Basing our legal understanding of rape on intercourse would be just as idiotic. Rape can be carried out in many forms. Intercourse doesn't cover many of them.


  • #317
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Unplanned fatherhood is a consequence.
    But do you argue that the consequences of teenage parenthood are the same for boys and girls? I am not sure I would agree that they are.

    In any case, I think much of the dismay at this decision is based on the perception that it is sexist, and not the argument that there are differing consequences of teen parenthood for males and females.


  • #318
    kowloon
    Registered Users Posts: 13,275 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I don't honestly see why girls should be any less responsible than boys for their choices.

    It's all about the way society sees the genders differently. Women/girls are vulnerable and need to be protected. Gender needs to be purged from the law. The same crime, the same time.


  • #319
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    lugha wrote: »
    But do you argue that the consequences of teenage parenthood are the same for boys and girls? I am not sure I would agree that they are..

    A lot of people claiming that the punishment should be the same would be up in arms at the thought of a pregnant teen girl being convicted and/or threatened with imprisonment.


  • #320
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    prinz wrote: »
    A lot of people claiming that the punishment should be the same would be up in arms at the thought of a pregnant teen girl being convicted and/or threatened with imprisonment.
    I think many of them would argue that the boy should be treated like the girl and not the girl like the boy.

    Whatever about differing consequences, criminal law is probably not the best way to deal with these matters.


  • #321
    Scanlas The 2nd
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,144 ✭✭✭Scanlas The 2nd


    prinz wrote: »
    lugha wrote: »
    But do you argue that the consequences of teenage parenthood are the same for boys and girls? I am not sure I would agree that they are..

    A lot of people claiming that the punishment should be the same would be up in arms at the thought of a pregnant teen girl being convicted and/or threatened with imprisonment.

    Neither should be sent to prison, a slap on the wrist for both should suffice.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    newport2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭newport2


    lugha wrote: »
    It strikes me that there is a certain consistency about this law with our other laws, though I would add that there is possible something perverse about this consistency.

    As I understand the SC ruling, the distinction being made between boys and girls is that the potential impact on girls is greater (i.e. unplanned pregnancies). Thus the law takes consequences, and not just intent, into consideration when determining the seriousness of an offence.

    But this is what they do already in other areas. For example, there is a magnitude of difference between murder and attempted murder or a case of dangerous/careless/drink driving that results in a death compared to a case that doesn’t.

    Surely consequences are irrelevant to assessing the magnitude of a wrong, only intent should matter? And if you disagree, then on what basis do you criticise the SC decision?

    (Granted, this is an unusual, possibly unique case, where different consequences are completely partitioned by the two sexes, hence the cries of sexism. But the decision stems from different consequences, not from different sex)

    The most perverse thing about the consistancy of this law is that supposedly when you are underage, you are not deemed old enough to make a decision of consent for yourself, hence there's laws against it.

    Scenario 1: 18 year old girl has consensual sex with 15 year old boy. She has committed statutory rape, because legally the 15 year old boy is not deemed old enough to give consent.

    Scenario 2: 16 year old girl has consensual sex with 15 year old boy. Now he's committed the offence, implying he was well aware of what he was doing and thus old enough to give consent.


  • #323
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    lugha wrote: »
    But do you argue that the consequences of teenage parenthood are the same for boys and girls? I am not sure I would agree that they are.

    In any case, I think much of the dismay at this decision is based on the perception that it is sexist, and not the argument that there are differing consequences of teen parenthood for males and females.

    I was listening to I think RTE News and they said that he would be put on the national sex offenders list. I cannot see how that is not a very serious and disturbing consequence.


  • #324
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    I've just listened to another RTE extract and it states that the case will now go a head for a hearing after the appeal failed. I did not realise that the case was set aside until the appeal was heard. He is now 20 (6 years for an appeal is outrageous). It will be very interesting if this will be appealed to the European Courts.

    Never mind the merits of this particular case it is discriminates against men. And should be overturned.


  • #325
    jackal
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jackal


    Criminalising consensual under-age sex between two minors is idiotic, and the DPP has said as much in the past. They unofficially do not prosecute those cases (I guess ones that are instigated by an angry parent) where consent is not disputed.

    The outcome of being charged with this is not slap on the wrist stuff, this is one of the most heinous convictions somebody could have made against them - being branded a sex offender, the same as a paedophile or rapist for having sex with your girlfriend.

    I guess the whole area is murky due to the fact that the law says minor's cannot give consent, which is ridiculous. The world has moved on, teenage sex is a reality and teenagers are becoming sexually active at a much younger age, like it or not.


  • #326
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    lugha wrote: »
    I think many of them would argue that the boy should be treated like the girl and not the girl like the boy.
    Whatever about differing consequences, criminal law is probably not the best way to deal with these matters.

    That's as may be, and it's hard to argue against when it involves two 15 or 16 year olds. But what happens when a case crops up and it's a 16 year old and a 9 year old? Do we still say 'well as long as he/she consented, sure slap on the wrist (if even that as some seem to be suggesting that's going too far) and off ye go...


  • #327
    newport2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭newport2


    prinz wrote: »
    That's as may be, and it's hard to argue against when it involves two 15 or 16 year olds. But what happens when a case crops up and it's a 16 year old and a 9 year old? Do we still say 'well as long as he/she consented, sure slap on the wrist (if even that as some seem to be suggesting that's going too far) and off ye go...

    Currently, the 9 year old boy would be deemed a sex offender, no?


  • #328
    jackal
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jackal


    prinz wrote: »
    That's as may be, and it's hard to argue against when it involves two 15 or 16 year olds. But what happens when a case crops up and it's a 16 year old and a 9 year old? Do we still say 'well as long as he/she consented, sure slap on the wrist (if even that as some seem to be suggesting that's going too far) and off ye go...

    Change the law to "of broadly similar age" and leave it up to the judge to make that call on an individual basis, rather than having arbitrary demarcations. I trust a judge to know the difference between teenagers having fun and a teenager abusing a child.


  • #329
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    jackal wrote: »
    Change the law to "of broadly similar age" and leave it up to the judge to make that call on an individual basis, rather than having arbitrary demarcations. I trust a judge to know the difference between teenagers having fun and a teenager abusing a child.

    ...and have every single case appealled ad nauseum? Sounds like a great plan. Leaving it up to an individual judge to make his mind up on the legality of your actions from one case to the next? What is that if not arbitrary?


  • #330
    jackal
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭jackal


    prinz wrote: »
    jackal wrote: »
    Change the law to "of broadly similar age" and leave it up to the judge to make that call on an individual basis, rather than having arbitrary demarcations. I trust a judge to know the difference between teenagers having fun and a teenager abusing a child.

    ...and have every single case appealled ad nauseum? Sounds like a great plan. Leaving it up to an individual judge to make his mind up on the legality of your actions from one case to the next? What is that if not arbitrary?

    The DPP would not pursue a case to court where it's obvious the judge will make the call that they are of similar age. It would never get to court, is my point.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    prinz wrote: »
    That's as may be, and it's hard to argue against when it involves two 15 or 16 year olds. But what happens when a case crops up and it's a 16 year old and a 9 year old? Do we still say 'well as long as he/she consented, sure slap on the wrist (if even that as some seem to be suggesting that's going too far) and off ye go...

    Some States address this in the way that Jackal points out above.

    For example (From wiki):
    Finland:
    "A person who has sexual intercourse with a child younger than sixteen years of age ... shall be sentenced for sexual abuse of a child to imprisonment for at most four years."
    The sexual act may not be punishable if "there is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved    ".
    Sweden:
    (Chapter 6, Section 14) "...not sentenced if it is obvious that the act is no violation of the child considered the small difference in age between the person who carries out the act and the child and other circumstances."

    Basically I'd just like to see a bit of fucking common sense to the whole thing Prinz.

    Two minors who have had, according to both, free and consensual sexual intercourse and are judged to have a relatively equal appreciation for what it means to consent to sexual intercourse. Well... leave them both alone. What public good is served by criminalising and punishing either?


Advertisement