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

GLaDOS · 16-12-2009 9:19pm

There should be a 2 year gap either side of the males(because they're the one deemed guilty :rolleyes:) age in which statutory rape doesn't count. I believe many other countries have this in place?

I don't think it is a criminal matter if two people of the same age have sex, but there is such a thing as too young.

Ruining someones life certainly isnt the answer anyway

TobyZiegler · 16-12-2009 9:19pm

It must have been her parents who reported him. Assuming it was its one thing to be angry at him for having sex with their daughter but to put him through this and potentially ruin his life was awful.

And I agree its hard to fathom what legislators were thinking when making this law.

o1s1n · 16-12-2009 9:20pm

Overheal wrote: »

Well, I know this will never happen, but if youre a minor and if you find yourself to be "Guilty" of the same offence as this Lad:

Come forth.

If truly there are Thousands of offending Teens, if they all came forward at once, the Courts would have two choices: Ammend the Law, or Imprison Thousands of Teens.

I vote imprison thousands of teens. If anything, it'll stop them playing their **** music on the bus.

Overheal · 16-12-2009 9:21pm

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

Surely Cum first and then hand yourself in !

I was waiting for someone to step on that trap card. Congratulations. Youve helped prove Boards is read by children.

FarmerGreen · 16-12-2009 9:22pm

They were just trying out the wedding tackle.

sceptre · 16-12-2009 9:22pm

TobyZiegler wrote: »

And I agree its hard to fathom what legislators were thinking when making this law.

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.

Oddly enough he also argued that this was nuts.

Novella · 16-12-2009 9:23pm

I think this is a bit mad!

When I was fourteen (NEARLY fifteen!) I had sex with a guy who was sixteen. It was both of our first times and yeah, sure, we were probably too young or whatever but we both knew what we were doing and it definitely isn't something he should be worried about "getting caught" and jailed for! I think it's ridiculous.

Pacing Mule · 16-12-2009 9:24pm

Overheal wrote: »

I was waiting for someone to step on that trap card. Congratulations. Youve helped prove Boards is read by children.

Yes and here I am in the most relevant thread for children in AH - why are you here

dr.bollocko · 16-12-2009 9:25pm

Overheal wrote: »

I was waiting for someone to step on that trap card. Congratulations. Youve helped prove Boards is read by children.

Watch it young fella. Ease up on the personal stuff.

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.

Mike 1972 · 16-12-2009 9:28pm

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.

Havent they heard of contraception ?

According to http://www.iglyo.com/content/article.php?id=QA000143

If a 16yo girl performs oral sex on a 16yo boy, they are both guilty of a serious offence. If the boy performs oral sex on the girl, then neither of them is guilty of anything.

Which means Gay 16 yo's cant have oral sex but Lesbian 16yo's apparently can

and from the same site

Sources said that in addition to public submissions, a further factor weighing the committee in favour of 17 was the need for a common age of consent North and South. In Northern Ireland, the age of consent currently stands at 17. It is understood that Fine Gael, which has persistently argued that 17 should be the age of consent for boys and girls, pointed out the need for a common age of consent with Northern Ireland at last Thursday's meeting.

Not that the age of consent in another country is actually in any way relevent but in Northern Ireland it has since been reduced to 16 .

Canard · 16-12-2009 9:30pm

She is certainly a comely maiden.

There's a lot worse things to be caught like, rape? Its a bit of a waste of time if they both consented, and if they're not after everyone who does it, which is a lot of people.

Time Magazine · 16-12-2009 9:32pm

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.

Nerd question: isn't the intent of the legislature (mostly witnessed through the Dáil record) to be ignored for the purposes of statutory interpretation in Ireland?

Oddly enough he also argued that this was nuts.

Was he prosecution? If so, why argue it's nuts? Ted, what's going on?

FarmerGreen · 16-12-2009 9:33pm

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.

For me at least, I need a look in the eye and permisssion to proceed.

Hazys · 16-12-2009 9:33pm

This is even sadder:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=wilson

A 17yr old serving a 10 year sentence for having consensual oral sex not intercourse with a 15yr old. "because of an archaic Georgia law, it was a misdemeanor for teenagers less than three years apart to have sexual intercourse, but a felony for the same kids to have oral sex. "

The law was changed because of this case...
"Afterward, the state legislature changed the law to include an oral sex clause, but that doesn't help Wilson. In yet another baffling twist, the law was written to not apply to cases retroactively"
but he still remains in prison because it was the law at the time, ridiculous.

julien05 · 16-12-2009 9:33pm

fook that i was 19 when i got offered a chance to loose my virginity(she was 15, i only physically looked 16) and i had to refuse because it was against the law.

hang the bastard he broke the law:D

Ebbs · 16-12-2009 9:38pm

I always fail to see how consentual sex can be punished, regardless of the age (of course their is a limit). With social maturity being changed by a number of factors that influenced a persons development, it is hard to blanket all "kids" the same.

I would love to see the statistics of cases where roles were reversed and the girl was the older party.

File:Judge_Snyder.jpg

Released on the account, boys will be boys

Overheal · 16-12-2009 9:39pm

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.

And yet, that argument fails to defend female child molesters. Nor should it. There have been enough accounts of a victim's sexual arousal during rape to maintain that its not a purely voluntary action Male or Female. When a woman wants to rape a pubescent young boy, she can.

I also dont respect the Pregnancy clause. Theyre both Parents. As far as the Labour and the 9 months ago, Im sorry ladies, thats an Act of God/Evolution/Circumstance. We dont cripple Male athletes so they compete directly against women, either. Equivocating Pregnancy to 5 years of Incarceration is misguided and absurd.

sparkling sea · 16-12-2009 9:40pm

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 is leading to the
criminalisation of young men because the DPP on behalf of the state meaning us, is acting outside the spirit of the legislation and the intended purpose of it.

In a climate were worries of corruption in the government are rampant, will
we now have to call for an independent enquiry in to the actions of the
DPP - is this even possible.

How and why are these cases getting to court, these are not private
prosecutions, families or anyone else should not be able to influence the
DPP's decision to prosecute cases but yet this appears to be happening,
who's interests are these cases really serving.

Tis shocking

FarmerGreen · 16-12-2009 9:47pm

Jeeeesus.
Did they fancy each other and have fun.
Was it some kind of bullying?
Did he rape her?
Come on its not that technical, its a part of growing up.

Warfi · 16-12-2009 9:49pm

Vanhalla wrote: »

I wish i was shaggin at 15!

I wish I was shaggin' 15, full stop

.

Fair dues to him for standing up to the law, it's only when somebody stands up to unfair laws that change comes about

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!

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

Comments