Secret Criminal?

Ridire_Dubh

Are there large numbers of persons in our population who are secret criminals? People who have broken the law but have not been caught, and consequently, have not been labeled criminal (as resulting from a conviction)?

We could perhaps pick any one of the many laws that regulate our behaviour, but for the purpose of argument, let's pick the age of consent law that affects when you can have sexual relations. And for comparison purposes, let's look at two countries: Ireland and the United States.

The age of consent in Ireland is 17 years old. In the US it's 18 years old.

So what's the issue? Studies on sexual behaviour would suggest that there is a very large number of young persons who are engaging in this behaviour under 17 in Ireland and under 18 in the US. If so, are these youth "secret" criminals (if not caught and convicted)?

More importantly, if this is indeed the case, why are these laws not being uniformly and effectively enforced?

Secondly, if these laws were in fact enforced on all youth who broke them, what would be the consequences for Irish and US societies?

Thirdly, if a large number of the population are in fact breaking these laws, and enforcement is being withheld for some reason, then should the age of consent be changed? What should the new threshold age be? What criteria should be used to determine the age of consent?

In concluding, I find this legal (and social) issue very interesting, because when growing up, I assumed that my peers typically engaged in this behaviour before the age of consent, and those that did not were in the minority.

Thirdfox

I thought people would only be prosecuted if others complained and brought them to court... with your underage sex case in many cases I would assume that the intercourse would be mutual and there was no such complaint (or else it would be a rape case). Perhaps you may get a few fathers complaining to the guards if they find out that their underage daughter had been having intercourse with someone else...

It isn't really the role of the Government to go around and catch every "criminal" e.g. anyone who has dropped a piece of litter on the ground is a "secret criminal" by definition. To try and catch everyone who drops litter would be too expensive (as well as crippling to society) however the law is still there to dissuade people from committing the crime.

Secret criminals - of the murderous/paedophile/etc. etc. kind do exist and police know who they are... however they must first build a substantial case against them before arresting as the rule of double jeopardy applies (where one person cannot be tried for the same crime after being found not guilty). Our lecturer was saying that newspaper journalists often know the identity of murderers but have been prevented from publishing their names due to ongoing police investigations... I find that quite frightening in fact... to know that someone is a murderer and walking about free...

Sangre

Thirdfox wrote:

I thought people would only be prosecuted if others complained and brought them to court...

The DPP can bring a criminal case even if the victim doesn't want it to go to court.

Thirdfox

Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly... what I meant was that the DPP wouldn't know of underage sexual intercourse unless one party complained. I know that in general the DPP can prosecute without victim support (in fact victim involvement in quite low in criminal cases). But I was taking his/her example of underage sex in the "secret criminal" scenario.

hullaballoo

You have to ask yourself what the purpose of the law that is in place is. To my mind, the purpose of the age of consent is to stop paedophilia, which is a reflection on societal requirements. It wouldn't do to have someone of 45 sleeping with someone of 15 or 16, but it might be ok for two 16-year-olds to have sex.

That's reflected in sentencing; usually the closer in age the offendor is to the victim, the lighter the sentence.

padser

hullaballoo wrote:

You have to ask yourself what the purpose of the law that is in place is. To my mind, the purpose of the age of consent is to stop paedophilia, which is a reflection on societal requirements. It wouldn't do to have someone of 45 sleeping with someone of 15 or 16, but it might be ok for two 16-year-olds to have sex.
.

but the law doesnt reflect this. At the moment if a 13 year old boy has sex with a 15 yr old girl he is legally raping her as she is underage. Bizzare.

Also as of the last time I studied it (so last april approx) the law in Ireland which had recently been confirmed in a high court decision (and which I would hope was or is being appealed to the supreme court) was as follows.

~Ignorance of the girls true age if she was 16 or under is no defence
~An honest belief, as would be held by (my good friend) a reasonable man
~Evidence that you were aware of, showing her to be of consenting age, is no excuse.

Imagine the following senario: You are in a nightclub that is 21s and over only. You meet a girl. You, being suspicious and knowing the law, ask her to show her your id. She shows you her passport saying she is 21. The gardai raid the place and spot check peoples Ids also. They check hers and have no problem. She spends the night getting you drunk and takes you home and takes advantage of you. It turns out she is 16. Under irish (but recently not english) law you have committed statutory rape and have no defence.

Madness or what?

Ps if anyone wants to know where this nightclub is, pm me

rsynnott

Some countries (or in the US states) also have laws to make two under-age people having sex either non-serious or legal. In the US, these are often, rather amusingly, called "Romeo and Juliet" laws.

Reku

padser wrote:

but the law doesnt reflect this. At the moment if a 13 year old boy has sex with a 15 yr old girl he is legally raping her as she is underage. Bizzare.

One of the flaws in Irish law, the inherent gender discrimination that seems to exist throughout the sexual harasment and rape laws.

padser wrote:

Also as of the last time I studied it (so last april approx) the law in Ireland which had recently been confirmed in a high court decision (and which I would hope was or is being appealed to the supreme court) was as follows.

~Ignorance of the girls true age if she was 16 or under is no defence
~An honest belief, as would be held by (my good friend) a reasonable man
~Evidence that you were aware of, showing her to be of consenting age, is no excuse.

Imagine the following senario: You are in a nightclub that is 21s and over only. You meet a girl. You, being suspicious and knowing the law, ask her to show her your id. She shows you her passport saying she is 21. The gardai raid the place and spot check peoples Ids also. They check hers and have no problem. She spends the night getting you drunk and takes you home and takes advantage of you. It turns out she is 16. Under irish (but recently not english) law you have committed statutory rape and have no defence.

Madness or what?

Ps if anyone wants to know where this nightclub is, pm me

Regretably I do remember, a number of years ago, a caller in to a late night discussion, either 98FM or FM104, having claimed such happened to him;
He picked up a girl in a over 21s club, both got a bit drunk, went back to his place, had sex and spent the night together, found out later that she was actually under 16 and he was being brought up on charges for statutory rape.

Wonder if anyone has ever argued that by being present in such an establishment the girl was attempting to obtain goods (drink) and services (use your imagination) by fraudulant means (lying about their age, usually necessitating the use of a fake ID/ID which is not their own, in other words; presenting erroneous documentation)? lol

Gurgle

Ridire_Dubh wrote:

In concluding, I find this legal (and social) issue very interesting, because when growing up, I assumed that my peers typically engaged in this behaviour before the age of consent, and those that did not were in the minority.

Many laws in Ireland aren't rules, they're suggestions for people and useful tools for the gardai and DPP.
Some examples:
Provisional license holders can't drive on their own, can't drive on motorways means provisional license holders had bloody well better drive very carefully and not do anything to attract the attention of the cops.
Possesion of cannabis is illegal means people with cannabis in their pockets shouldn't call a garda a fat ignorant pig to his face.
Speeding is illegal means speeding fines are lucrative. Its kinda just a 'getting there faster' tax.

Theres a plethora of laws ignored on a daily basis, we all do it.

Reku

Gurgle wrote:

Theres a plethora of laws ignored on a daily basis, we all do it.

By law possession any firearm requires a licence, yet the Gardaí do not enforce this as regards the possession of either a Recurve or Compound bow, only Crossbows, even though, according to the legislation all are in fact firearms. Though Crossbows can easily be bought without having a licence anyway.

Blowpipes are illegal (as in to buy, sell, make, give or possess) in both Britain and Ireland yet you still get, otherwise reputable, on-line sellers offering them.

vector

padser wrote:

but the law doesnt reflect this. At the moment if a 13 year old boy has sex with a 15 yr old girl he is legally raping her as she is underage. ...

Both are underage, if one party is to be found guilty then which one?
The male? because he is male,
OR
maybe the older party? which happends to be the female in this hypothetical case

vector

Gurgle wrote:

...speeding fines... just a 'getting there faster' tax...

Excellent Minister Atax speed

padser

vector wrote:

Both are underage, if one party is to be found guilty then which one?
The male? because he is male,
OR
maybe the older party? which happends to be the female in this hypothetical case

Legal definition of rape means man and woman having sex, can only be rape of the woman by the man. Not the other way around.

farohar wrote:

Wonder if anyone has ever argued that by being present in such an establishment the girl was attempting to obtain goods (drink) and services (use your imagination) by fraudulant means (lying about their age, usually necessitating the use of a fake ID/ID which is not their own, in other words; presenting erroneous documentation)? lol

Yeah the girl is undoubtably committing a multitude of crimes. And what would be interesting would be to see if by providing false documentation eg passport she could be charged either as an accomplace in the crime, or with inducing the crime to be committed. Either way its strict liabilty ergo no defence.

Thirdfox

Rape (under s.4) can only be committed with a penis in the mouth or anus or an object in the vagina therefore technically a woman can rape a woman (using some kind of handheld object - use your imagination!) but a woman cannot rape a man... relevant provision included below:

(1) In this Act "rape under section 4" means a sexual assault that includes—

( a ) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

( b ) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

(2) A person guilty of rape under section 4 shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(3) Rape under section 4 shall be a felony.


But in a gang rape a woman can still be prosecuted if acting with common design (can't remember what case this came up in).

It seems that the worst women can do to men is sexual assault (up to 5 years imprisonment) or perhaps aggravated sexual assault (up to life)... highly inconceivable that it'll happen though...

Reku

Isn't equality wonderful...
I would hope that with "the fairer sex" slowly becoming just as aggressive as males ALL laws will be changed so as to have no connection to either gender, either in terms of the victim or the purpitrator.

So a lesbian rapist can never in fact be convicted of rape under current Irish law if she only inserts her tool of choice in the other female's anus?:eek: That's a loophole that although unlikely to occur should be closed.

hullaballoo

Let's get this back on topic please.

Victor

Ridire_Dubh wrote:

Are there large numbers of persons in our population who are secret criminals? People who have broken the law but have not been caught, and consequently, have not been labeled criminal (as resulting from a conviction)?

I iamgine everyone has at some stage committed an offence, a fairly high number will also be criminals.

The age of consent in Ireland is 17 years old. In the US it's 18 years old.

In the USA, its on a state by state basis, it is 18 only in cases with federal jurisdiction (interstate activity, military, etc.)

Ridire_Dubh

Victor wrote:

I iamgine everyone has at some stage committed an offence, a fairly high number will also be criminals.

If this is true, then how can members of society justify the stigmatisation of convicted felons, while they themselves are secret criminals (per OP definition)? If I recall correctly, in ancient Sparta there were many laws that were enforced on their male citizen youths (who were training to be soldiers), prosecuting them not for the original offense, but rather for getting caught. Do we have a de facto Spartan law, not in words, but in effect (i.e., in terms of some of the consequences)?

Gurgle

Ridire_Dubh wrote:

If this is true, then how can members of society justify the stigmatisation of convicted felons, while they themselves are secret criminals

True, we should find out what people were convicted of before attaching a stigma!