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

christina_x · 16-12-2009 9:53pm

sceptre wrote: »

Gerard Hogan SC argued today in court that the point of view of the legislators when passing the 2006 Act (yes folks, 2006, not 1588) was that the threat of pregnancy was the punishment for girls.

stuuuuupid! Sure, the risk of pregnancy doesnt stop once you hit 17!

Mars Bar · 16-12-2009 9:55pm

This is ridiculous, do the courts not know the meaning of consensual?!
If it was the girl aged 15 and the lad was 14, there wouldn't be two words said about it. Even as a girl myself, I don't get it. I would view it as discrimination against the male species.

Overheal · 16-12-2009 10:03pm

"The Male Species"

Mike 1972 · 16-12-2009 10:05pm

mars bar wrote: »

do the courts not know the meaning of consensual?! .

The problem is more to do with the law (i.e. the Oireachtas) than the courts.

If a 16 yo has consensual sex with a 15 yo it is classed as rape (and paedophilia) regardless of the fact that is was consentual

If a 17 yo has consensual sex with a 16 yo it is classed as rape (and paedophilia) even if the 16yo had lied about their age

If a 18 yo has consensual sex with a 16 yo it is classed as rape (and paedophilia) even if the 16yo had lied about their age and they met in an over 18's nightclub.

A 17 yo can have consentual sex with another 17+ yo but have to wait until theyre 18 go to the cinema to watch other people having sex (on the screen anyway) and while it is legal for anyone (over 17) to have consentual sex with a 17 year old it is illegal to have naked images of them. Its even illegal for anyone under 18 to have naked images of themselves (whether this law extends to mirrors has yet to be decided by the courts) If an 18 year old receives an email attachment/picture message of a naked 17 year old (even unsolicited) they are sex offenders

Warfi · 16-12-2009 10:05pm

Overheal wrote: »

"The Male Species"

Yes your point being?:p

Mars Bar · 16-12-2009 10:08pm

Overheal wrote: »

"The Male Species"

We can call animal groups "species", we're related to animals, so we can be called species too.

Although men tend to look more like animals than women do!

sparkling sea · 16-12-2009 10:08pm

Sec 2 of the 2006 Act, provides that any person who engages or attempts to engage in a sexual act with a child under 15 shall be guilty of an offence. A sexual act includes intercourse, buggary sexual assault and rape under Sec 4 If the person is found guilty they can be sent to prison for a period of time or may get a life sentence.

Section 3 of the Act 2006 provides that any person who engages or attempts to engage in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence. If the person is found guilty, they can be sent to prison for up to 5 years, or if he or she is a person in authority, for example a parent or teacher, etc, up to 10 years.

If the person who is convicted has a previous conviction under the same section, they can be sent to prison for up to 10 years, or if he or she is a person in authority then it can be up to 15 years

All young boys need to be aware its not just for having sex that you can be prosecuted- its also if you attempt to engage in a sexual act.

Consent is not an issue under this act because consent is never a defence.
The only defence is if you honestly believed that the girl or boy was 17 or over.

Mars Bar · 16-12-2009 10:09pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The problem is more to do with the law (i.e. the Oireachtas) than the courts.

If a 16 yo has consensual sex with a 15 yo it is classed as rape (and paedophilia) regardless of the fact that is was consentual

If a 17 yo has consensual sex with a 16 yo it is classed as rape (and paedophilia) even if the 16yo had lied about their age

If a 18 yo has consensual sex with a 16 yo it is classed as rape (and paedophilia) even if the 16yo had lied about their age and they met in an over 18's nightclub

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.

mawk · 16-12-2009 10:18pm

i was under the impression that ireland had a peer limitation

dioltas · 16-12-2009 10:19pm

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.

I don't know about that. Even if the man doesn't want to have sex if there's a naked woman in front of you there's a good chance you'd get excited, I mean you do hear about men having sex against their will from time to time.

Also, I think a physical response is kind of required from the female too. I mean if she's not that in to it it's not always that easy / pleasurable imo. A bit of foreplay is often needed.

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!

stepbar · 16-12-2009 10:20pm

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

Mike 1972 · 16-12-2009 10:20pm

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:

Professey Chin · 16-12-2009 10:24pm

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.

Killaqueen!!! · 16-12-2009 10:29pm

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"

sparkling sea · 16-12-2009 10:30pm

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.

sparkling sea · 16-12-2009 10:32pm

stepbar wrote: »

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

The DPP on behalf of the state - you and me

Jay P · 16-12-2009 10:34pm

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.

Mike 1972 · 16-12-2009 10:34pm

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"

Mars Bar · 16-12-2009 10:36pm

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...

FarmerGreen · 16-12-2009 10:43pm

Life is just too sodding complicated.

smoochie06 · 16-12-2009 10:47pm

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.

sparkling sea · 16-12-2009 10:48pm

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

Kynareth · 16-12-2009 10:51pm

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.

sparkling sea · 16-12-2009 10:55pm

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.

Mike 1972 · 16-12-2009 10:57pm

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

cashel girl · 16-12-2009 10:59pm

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.

sparkling sea · 16-12-2009 11:00pm

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

callaway92 · 16-12-2009 11:04pm

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

sparkling sea · 16-12-2009 11:06pm

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

sparkling sea · 16-12-2009 11:09pm

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.

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

stepbar · 16-12-2009 11:10pm

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?

Mike 1972 · 16-12-2009 11:11pm

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

citizen_p · 16-12-2009 11:11pm

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

CrazyRabbit · 16-12-2009 11:11pm

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...

Mike 1972 · 16-12-2009 11:14pm

If they were both under 16 at the time

17 ????

sparkling sea · 16-12-2009 11:14pm

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

The_Minister · 16-12-2009 11:20pm

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.

5yrs is the MAXIMUM he could face.

The MAXIMUM the priest far longer than 3yrs.

Most likely the boy will get a suspended sentence.

ToniTuddle · 16-12-2009 11:30pm

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??

sparkling sea · 16-12-2009 11:32pm

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

ToniTuddle · 16-12-2009 11:40pm

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!

dioltas · 16-12-2009 11:44pm

ToniTuddle wrote: »

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??

I'd imagine that the girl's parents were the ones who pushed for the boy to be prosecuted. Just guessing but I think the most likely explanation would be that the girl's parents caught them having sex and flipped, which is understandable I suppose, but this is over the top.

4leto · 16-12-2009 11:45pm

The kid has a case, there is a definite gender discrimination, how come Ireland can get none of these moral type laws right. The abortion law, divorce, civil partnership. If I was to believe in conspiracy theory, I think the briefs write these laws, flawed, to secure future legal work. The challenges to the abortion laws has to have cost this state millions and millions.

ToniTuddle · 16-12-2009 11:47pm

dioltas wrote: »

I'd imagine that the girl's parents were the ones who pushed for the boy to be prosecuted. Just guessing but I think the most likely explanation would be that the girl's parents caught them having sex and flipped...

Yeah but after 3 years you would think they might have mellowed out a bit. Some people just have blinkers on and can't think in any other way.
They have probably completely turned the girl against the poor lad as well. That crap happens alot of the time too. Which doesn't help cases.

ride-the-spiral · 16-12-2009 11:49pm

The fact that he could be put on the sex offender registry is ridiculous in itself. It's an absolutely ridiculous law. I saw a cause on Facebook that was trying to get it so that anybody on the sex offender registry won't be allowed to use it. All of the comments were things like "I agree, keep our children safe" and stuff.

If your on the sex offender registry then everybody thinks you're a child abusing pedophile when you can be put on for statutory rape, and even mooning.

How is this going to help people? They have to spend their whole lives with people thinking there pedophiles and rapists, which is just going to isolate them and embitter them. There is no assault registry, or robbery registry. In the eyes of the law, you are absolved once you have done prison time yet not with any of these so called sexual offences.

sparkling sea · 17-12-2009 12:06am

ride-the-spiral wrote: »

The fact that he could be put on the sex offender registry is ridiculous in itself. It's an absolutely ridiculous law. I saw a cause on Facebook that was trying to get it so that anybody on the sex offender registry won't be allowed to use it. All of the comments were things like "I agree, keep our children safe" and stuff.

If your on the sex offender registry then everybody thinks you're a child abusing pedophile when you can be put on for statutory rape, and even mooning.

How is this going to help people? They have to spend their whole lives with people thinking there pedophiles and rapists, which is just going to isolate them and embitter them. There is no assault registry, or robbery registry. In the eyes of the law, you are absolved once you have done prison time yet not with any of these so called sexual offences.

He cant be put on the registar, there is less then a 2 year age gap

sparkling sea · 17-12-2009 12:10am

ToniTuddle wrote: »

Yeah but after 3 years you would think they might have mellowed out a bit. Some people just have blinkers on and can't think in any other way.
They have probably completely turned the girl against the poor lad as well. That crap happens alot of the time too. Which doesn't help cases.

This is purely a DPP decision at this stage. Its a criminal not a civil case - but it does seem strange that a charge was brought in the first place.

This boy is not claiming that he thought the girl was 17, as far as I am aware but then hopefully it won't come to trial anyway

speedboatchase · 17-12-2009 12:12am

ToniTuddle wrote: »

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

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

My mate had sex with a girl that used to be 12 years old, absolute sicko

Dudess · 17-12-2009 12:16am

spitfireIRL wrote: »

it's a stupid law anyway if they both consented there should be no problem!! PC gone mad

But it's "PC gone mad" when it's deemed ok for underage kids to have sex... so... gah, the confuzzlement!

Jay P · 17-12-2009 12:18am

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...

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...

That's exactly it. I remember around the time of the Mr. X case, there was talk of introducing a two-year lage gap betweent people who are underage, or something along those lines. But even somthing like that would cause problems because, as you said, not everybody has the same level of maturity at 18, or whatever.

Such a law is fraught with difficulties and could happens and maybes, so whatever change does happen, if any, there will be problems relating to it.

But like I said, this is fairly ridiculous. The fact that it's the guy being charged is out and out sexual discrimination. If he was 14 and she was 15 then he'd still be charged.

ToniTuddle · 17-12-2009 12:19am

sparkling sea wrote: »

This is purely a DPP decision at this stage. Its a criminal not a civil case - but it does seem strange that a charge was brought in the first place.

Yeah I realised about the whole DPP thing which was why I said in an earlier post if maybe the girl and her family could at least voice their feelings on the matter(hopefully in a good way and tell them to drop it!)...it could help the lads case? Would look good at least.

speedboatchase wrote: »

My mate had sex with a girl that used to be 12 years old, absolute sicko

12 is definitely too young.
Hell 14 is far too young. Everyone thinks they really and truely are mature at that age but they seriously are not.

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

Comments