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

Options
13567…12

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    Can someone tell me who is bring the case to court?


  • Options
    #63
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    The DPP
    sparkling sea wrote: »
    The only defence is if you honestly believed that the girl or boy was 17 or over.

    Of course if the proposed (ridiculously titled) referendum on "the rights of the child" goes through this defence will probably be no longer available either.

    And it probably will since nobody wants to be seen voting against "Childrens rights"

    Wont somebody think of the 16 year old male children :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #64
    Professey Chin
    Registered Users Posts: 51,054 ✭✭✭✭Professey Chin


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    I reckon the reason why the bloke is punished is that he needs a physical response in order to have sex whereas the girl... well.... doesn't. It's not necessarily something I agree with but I have seen this argument before and that's usually the point that's made about cases like this.
    Drink enough and this can be proved pretty wrong.Therell be no physical response no matter how much its wanted..........so do it anyway.


  • Options
    #65
    Killaqueen!!!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭Killaqueen!!!


    mars bar wrote: »
    Ugh, that's complicated...

    If it's not consensual, it's rape.

    If it's consensual, it's not rape.

    Should be as simple as that.

    Except it's not as simple as that. The case the OP is talking about is ridiclous and I hope the young lad wins his appeal

    To say "if it's consensual, it's not rape" may seem logical and I agree but do you think, say, if a 50year old man convinced a 12 year old girl to have sex, the man should go uncharged? There is a point where you have to say "No, she's too young and the man should've known better"


  • Options
    #66
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    Sorry should clarify - The 2006 Act, allows the defence of honest belief, that the person concerned was 17 or over. A defendant's subjective claim of such belief constitutes the defence. The defendant bears the legal burden of establishing this defence on a balance of probabilities.

    The court will consider this as a possible defence but will look to see if there were any good reasons or reasonable grounds for the accused person to have thought this at the time when the alleged offence took place.

    With regard to the Sex Offenders Registar -if a person is convicted of this offence, and is no more than 2 years older than the child in question, they will not be considered a “sex offender” under the Sex Offenders Act 2001 or be subject to the provisions of that Act, so they won't go on the registar.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    stepbar wrote: »
    Can someone tell me who is bring the case to court?

    The DPP on behalf of the state - you and me


  • Options
    #68
    Jay P
    Registered Users Posts: 4,944 ✭✭✭Jay P


    This really gets on my tits. Itz actually ZOMG like, unfair?

    FFS, this is the 21st century. It's time they woke up to the fact that this kind of thing happens. the fact that the lad will always be the "guilty" party is a pile of crap. Both of them had their pants down. If there was an actual problem, she would have called rape. She wanted it, he wanted it, so no harm, no foul.

    :rolleyes: <- That sums up my feelings.


  • Options
    #69
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Is two years really a sufficent gap. I mean one could have a 16 year old and a 19 yo or "Just seventeen" and "Almost fifteen"


  • Options
    #70
    Mars Bar
    Registered Users Posts: 31,817 ✭✭✭✭Mars Bar


    Killaqueen!!! wrote: »
    Except it's not as simple as that. The case the OP is talking about is ridiclous and I hope the young lad wins his appeal

    To say "if it's consensual, it's not rape" may seem logical and I agree but do you think, say, if a 50year old man convinced a 12 year old girl to have sex, the man should go uncharged? There is a point where you have to say "No, she's too young and the man should've known better"

    True I suppose...


  • Options
    #71
    FarmerGreen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,134 ✭✭✭FarmerGreen


    Life is just too sodding complicated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    smoochie06
    Registered Users Posts: 268 ✭✭smoochie06


    Thats just ridiculous if they both agreed then whats the problem. It means that i should be up there with a hell of a lot more people too. This country is feckin mad.


  • Options
    #73
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Is two years really a sufficent gap. I mean one could have a 16 year old and a 19 yo or "Just seventeen" and "Almost fifteen"

    No its not I think if a person is 16 there should be a 5 year gap, my reason being when I was a 16 - 17 year old girl most of the guys my friends and I fancied, etc were in the 19, 20 or even 21 age bracket. Also we regular lied about our age if the guy was more two years older then us.
    Things haven't really changed from what I can tell

    There was a case a few months back were a 19 year old boy was sentenced to 11 months imprisonment for having consensual sex with his girlfriend who was 3 months shy of her 17 birthday.
    It would appear that this case was pushed and pushed by the girl's parents until the DPP prosecuted and would make one wonder how the parents had so clout that they managed to bring this about. I don't think he has actually been imprisoned yet, a probation report is to be presented to the court in January.

    This is really bad, it would wreck your life for ever, people really need to email the Dept of Justice, TDs, etc. Come on help these poor lads out , there are alot of people browsing these boards who are guilty of this so called "crime" but were just lucky not to get caught.

    Another point is that the 2006 Act offers more protection to young girls then it does to young boys. Section 5 provides that a girl under 17 will not be guilty of an offence merely because she engaged in an act of sexual intercourse, this is not the case for a 17 year old boy


  • Options
    #74
    Kynareth
    Registered Users Posts: 43 ✭Kynareth


    Killaqueen!!! wrote: »
    Except it's not as simple as that. The case the OP is talking about is ridiclous and I hope the young lad wins his appeal

    To say "if it's consensual, it's not rape" may seem logical and I agree but do you think, say, if a 50year old man convinced a 12 year old girl to have sex, the man should go uncharged? There is a point where you have to say "No, she's too young and the man should've known better"

    You just said it in your own words there though "convinced" it wasnt consent, the girl didnt just decide that it was going to happen the man had a word in it.

    And that's pedophilia anyways, I dont see why if both parties consent to it why the male should be punished, as Jay P said.
    Jay P wrote: »
    "Both of them had their pants down. If there was an actual problem, she would have called rape."

    Took the words right out of my mouth.


  • Options
    #75
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    Jay P wrote: »
    This really gets on my tits. Itz actually ZOMG like, unfair?

    FFS, this is the 21st century. It's time they woke up to the fact that this kind of thing happens. the fact that the lad will always be the "guilty" party is a pile of crap. Both of them had their pants down. If there was an actual problem, she would have called rape. She wanted it, he wanted it, so no harm, no foul.

    :rolleyes: <- That sums up my feelings.

    This law was originally based on two principles. Firstly, that a girl of 16 or under is insufficiently mature to make a considered decision to have intercourse and may need to be protected from herself and/her desire and the possible consequences - pregnancy. This is understandable really because it is the girl who bears the heavy load if any mistakes happen. Secondly, we are obliged to protect girls and it was reasonable to require adults to ensure their sexual partners were at least 17. This to protect girls against grooming, etc. Those who don't ensure that the girl is 17, voluntarily and recklessly risked criminal prosecution and imprisonment.

    But this law was not intended to be used to prosecute young couples.


  • Options
    #76
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    the 2006 Act offers more protection to young girls then it does to young boys. Section 5 provides that a girl under 17 will not be guilty of an offence merely because she engaged in an act of sexual intercourse, this is not the case for a 17 year old boy

    Surely this falls fowl of European Union laws on gender equality.
    it was reasonable to require adults to ensure their sexual partners were at least 17

    To what extent is it "reasonable". Having established that
    1) she is on the pill
    2) he is using condoms,
    3) Both of them are ready and want to do it
    4) Yes theyre really sure
    5) No theyre not too drunk
    Are they then supposed to check the date of birth on each others passport or driving licence ?
    But this law was not intended to be used to prosecute young couples.
    But the way it was worded meant it would be


  • Options
    #77
    cashel girl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 48 ✭cashel girl


    i cant get my head aroud this- 15yr old boy can get 5yrs for consensual sex with a 14yr old girl

    yet a priest in wicklow was sentenced to 3yrs with the last 12months suspended for sexually abusing an altar boy. also had more than 20 people report abuse against him.:confused:


  • Options
    #78
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Surely this falls fowl of European Union laws on gender equality

    Surely it does, we'll have to see how the court rules


  • Options
    #79
    callaway92
    Registered Users Posts: 14,326 ✭✭✭✭callaway92


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hdbns1Xdk0


  • Options
    #80
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    But the way it was worded meant it would be

    You might know this but just in case; it was emergency legislation, rushed through following the outcome of the 2006 CC case. Up until then any male who had sex with a girl under 17 was automatically guilty of statutory rape. No defence - if it happened you were guilty not matter what.

    You really needed to see a birth cert . Yep


  • Options
    #81
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    cashel girl wrote: »
    i cant get my head aroud this- 15yr old boy can get 5yrs for consensual sex with a 14yr old girl

    yet a priest in wicklow was sentenced to 3yrs with the last 12months suspended for sexually abusing an altar boy. also had more than 20 people report abuse against him.:confused:

    Its all about who has who you know or connected too - or maybe it just appears this way (NO)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    The DPP on behalf of the state - you and me

    Well if it was rape that's one matter but concentual sex? I no.... age of concent and all that but surely there's a defence against this?


  • Options
    #83
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    sparkling sea wrote: »
    it was emergency legislation, rushed through following the outcome of the 2006 CC

    We really need a constitutional amendment restricting Emergency legislation to remaining in force for a maximum of one year so that properly thought out and debated legislation can be introduced to replace it


  • Options
    #84
    citizen_p
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭citizen_p


    she may have suduced him...is she a sex offnder.....

    the law is in place to stop a 30 40 year old having sex with a 15 year old...not this ffs


  • Options
    #85
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    If they were both under 17 at the time, then they can't consent to sex. In effect, this means that they were both victims, and cannot be held responsible as perpetrators.

    You cannot be a victim and the criminal at the same time...

    There is a lot of talk about lowering the age of consent, but it doesn't solve the problem. If you lower the age to 14, then what happens if a 13 year old gets it on with his 12 year old girlfriend?

    The problem is the limit being set at a specific age. Age-based laws will never be fair. I know many 18 year olds who really aren't mature enough to vote or consume alcohol, yet they can. And I know some 15 year olds who are very mature and could probably vote/drink responsibly.

    The current laws are there because it's hard to measure maturity. Finding an alternative is difficult though...


  • Options
    #86
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    If they were both under 16 at the time

    17 ????


  • Options
    #87
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    CrazyRabbit wrote: »
    If they were both under 16 at the time, then they can't consent to sex. In effect, this means that they were both victims, and cannot be held responsible as perpetrators.

    You cannot be a victim and the criminal at the same time...

    You are right, so why did the DPP allow for a prosecution to go forward


  • Options
    #88
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    cashel girl wrote: »
    i cant get my head aroud this- 15yr old boy can get 5yrs for consensual sex with a 14yr old girl

    yet a priest in wicklow was sentenced to 3yrs with the last 12months suspended for sexually abusing an altar boy. also had more than 20 people report abuse against him.:confused:

    5yrs is the MAXIMUM he could face.

    The MAXIMUM the priest far longer than 3yrs.

    Most likely the boy will get a suspended sentence.


  • Options
    #89
    ToniTuddle
    Registered Users Posts: 8,964 ✭✭✭ToniTuddle


    dioltas wrote: »
    Oh and this reminds me of this story where a russian hairdresser disarms a would be robber, keeps him captive, force feeds him viagra and rapes him for two days!

    I remember hearing about that too! Crazzzzzy stuff.

    Surely if the lad could get the female and the females family to speak to the courts/lawyers/whoever and ask for this matter to be dropped it could help in some way??:confused:


  • Options
    #90
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    The_Minister wrote: »
    5yrs is the MAXIMUM he could face.

    The MAXIMUM the priest far longer than 3yrs.

    Most likely the boy will get a suspended sentence.

    What do you base this on.

    The maximum for Sec 2, if a person is found guilty is that they can be sent to prison for a period of time or may get a life sentence. As the girl is under 15 the charge would be a section 2.

    The 19 year old lad found guilty under section 3 a few months ago was sentenced to 11 months although the maximum in under this section is 3 years.

    I hope this boy wins his challenge - its discrimination pure and simple. At 15 he is also a victim - he is definitely being victimized by the Irish state


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    ToniTuddle
    Registered Users Posts: 8,964 ✭✭✭ToniTuddle


    dioltas wrote: »
    An 18-year-old charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl when he was 15 has begun a legal challenge to the legislation under which he is charged.
    He is accused of having sex with the girl in August 2006.

    He aint 15 right now....he's 18 now.

    Just to clarify for some folks who think he is 15 right now!


Advertisement