Should Ireland lower it's age of consent?

nesf

Source for the below

Ireland has the highest age of consent in Europe. The lowest, at present, is in Malta at 12. I'm curious as to whether people would agree that our age of consent seems to be high when compared to the rest of Europe. Does it make sense to maintain such a high limit? Is it even realistic when we look at today's culture? Is the age of consent even enforced on 16 year olds here?

I realise that there are some physiological reasons for the much lower age of consent seen in spain & malta et al. But would something like 15/16 be reasonable here? Would it really make that much of a difference?


Or would people prefer something like the Latvian system? Where the age of concent is 14 where the other person is under 18, and 16 for all others? It still offers some protection to young teenagers from older adults, but it does mean that two 15 year olds going at it aren't "mutually raping" each other.

Victor

nesf wrote:

I realise that there are some physiological reasons for the much lower age of consent seen in spain & malta et al.

What do you mean by this?

Sleepy

I'd be for the Latvian style of system, something whereby to have sex with someone over 18 you must be at least 17 but under that it'd be legal from 15/16. I'd also like to see these laws legislated for in terms that include no definitions of sex or sexuality being included.

How does one enforce an age of consent though? I don't think it could ever be effectively policed by the state.

nesf

Victor wrote:

What do you mean by this?

I read something a few months ago saying that the average age of menustration in the Mediterrean countries was lower due to environmental and diet factors. It seemed to make sense with the marked lower numbers put forward by those countries. It's not something that I've looked much into tbh.

Nevyn

It should be lowered and still have the provision to protect young adults from being preyed upon but it should be done in conjuction with proper sexual health education and free/cheap contraception program.

simu

nesf wrote:

Ireland has the highest age of consent in Europe. The lowest, at present, is in Malta at 12.

Giggity!

But seriously, yeah, the Latvian system seems pretty sensible.

azezil

Ah here, 12's a bit rediculous, I don't care if they're both the same age!

Sleepy and Thaed summed it up nicely, with proper education persons between 15 - 17 should be allowed, while anyone wishing to sleep with someone 18+ would have to be at least 17.

Dudess

Lower it, I say. I think the idea of kids having sex under the age of 18 (certainly under 17) is horrific. I don't care how "normal" it has become for 16-year-olds to have sex. It's too bloody young. I really wonder whether half the kids actually want to have sex at that age. I know I certainly didn't. I wouldn't usually subscribe to the peer pressure theory - teens aren't robots. However, when it comes to sex, it would seem to have some currency.
But since the age at which one becomes sexually active is getting lower and lower (where will it actually stop? Eight?!), the age of consent needs to be lowered accordingly, in my opinion. These kids are going to have sex. Nobody can stop them. Therefore, lowering the age of consent at least means they can purchase condoms and practise safe sex. As for the actual age to which I think it should be lowered - 15. Maybe younger.

Shellie13

Spoke to a law student here... And as i though its wrong...
Guys are legal at 15 whereas girls must be 17...
Ye i no ridiculous!
And the thinking behind it?!
So that a 16 yearold guy who has sex with his 16 year old girlfriend can be done for statutory...

I think ye, fair enough have it like Latvia...I mean, teenagers mature at very different rates, although some 15 year olds are essentially adults it'd be horrific to think of the more naiive ones being preyed upon by adults!

Dudess- i don't think they do prevent you buying condoms when you're under age...Not sure on that though!!!

Don't think it's a rule thats strictly enforced often anyhow...I mean i knoiw plenty of girls who had babies at 15 or 16 with older guys who stood by them, going into the hospital and all- didn't see them getting arrested- wouldn't have been fair if they had been yet would've been legal!

Shellie13

Other hilarious fact we FINALLY got sex ed...in 5th year...ye thats right there are 18 year olds sitting in a class being told bout sex...ridculous!!!

More shocking some of my friends scholls didnt get it at all...
Knew of a lad of about 16 who was sexually active and thought only gay lad scould get STIs!!!

DOLEMAN

I think the imbalance between the age for men and women is because women can get pregnant. There is a HUGE difference between a 15 year old boy having unprotected sex and a 15 year old girl having unprotected sex.

And lets be honest here. 15 year old are completely retarded when it comes to sex.

simu

Nah, tis just sexism tbh. Few people are in favour of 15 year old fathers.

shure

check the button "scource for the below"

I think it is in the best interests of all who read these posts to correct the original post. The age of consent in Malta is not 12 but 18, so you might get yourself into a wee bit of trouble if you holiday in Malta, have sex and you are under that age or end up having sex with someone there under that age.

Ironically the age of consent in Vatican State is 12.

smelltheglove

I was thinking 12 what the hell, I'm never bringing my girls to Malta but the Vatican is a different stroy. Sure do people even have sex in the Vatican city without being married? I mean you have to be 18 to be married!

Phototoxin

you can be married at 16 with consent from your parents.

mutually raping

I like that turn of phrase, its wrong on so many levels.

Or would people prefer something like the Latvian system? Where the age of concent is 14 where the other person is under 18, and 16 for all others? It still offers some protection to young teenagers from older adults, but it does mean that two 15 year olds going at it aren't "mutually raping" each other.

seems more sensible

It should be lowered and still have the provision to protect young adults from being preyed upon but it should be done in conjuction with proper sexual health education and free/cheap contraception program.

studies have shown that saturation of people with contraception leads to an increase in pregnancies /STD as people tend to think 'oh its safer' so have more of it. Check out thiland and the phillipeans.

SimpleSam06

Phototoxin wrote: »

and the phillipeans.

Contraception in the Philippines is not widely available, it being a very old school Christian country, although some of the practises there might be closer to voodoo. Can you link to some of these studies please, I find the concept suspicious to put it mildly.

brianthebard

I definitely think it should be lowered, if it is accompanied by better sex ed. In developed countries there is a strong correlation between high teen pregnancy/birth rates and high age of consent. Bringing the age of consent down ( a mere formality really considering that teenagers will have sex if they want to anyways) means the government is forced to give more sex education it would seem to me at least.

AARRRGH

They should higher it.

17 year olds are children. Not only do they not have a clue about life and sex, but any adult who wants to bang a 17 year old is a pervert.

Do you ever notice the people protesting for lower ages of consent are never 14/15/16 year olds? I wonder why.

Tom10

Well I don't really think about it, I've no intention of ever having sex with abody under 18, but kids 15+ are going to have sex, so to discriminate male and female of the same age is wrong and it has to violate equal rights laws!

But if you lower age of consent, you have to lower the age of teaching sex education (oh and actually bringing in a nationwide plan of teaching sex education to kids having sex isn't exactly the worst idea).

brianthebard

AARRRGH wrote: »

They should higher it.

17 year olds are children. Not only do they not have a clue about life and sex, but any adult who wants to bang a 17 year old is a pervert.

Do you ever notice the people protesting for lower ages of consent are never 14/15/16 year olds? I wonder why.

Too busy breaking the law by having sex under the age of consent maybe?

AARRRGH

Tom10 wrote: »

Well I don't really think about it, I've no intention of ever having sex with abody under 18, but kids 15+ are going to have sex, so to discriminate male and female of the same age is wrong and it has to violate equal rights laws!

The age of consent does not exist to criminalise children who have sex; it is there to stop adults having sex with children.

Overheal

mutual rape? I love it.

But looking around the US Registry you see so many hits per square mile of Child Offenders - in all classification this can be as mundane as a 16 year old sleeping with a 19 year old. The laws should probably be remedied around these cases, while still protecting against adult offenders (eg. over 21/23)

Drinking, Ireland has enough drinking culture as it is doesnt it? Why lower it? Loathe as I am to the 21 rule in the US it does keep alchohol on the backburner of society for the most part. Except in Epcot. Don't take your kids to Epcot.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JohnK

AARRRGH wrote: »

The age of consent does not exist to criminalise children who have sex; it is there to stop adults having sex with children.

Well in that case its kinda funny how it doesnt seem to be stopping adults having sex with kids but does criminalise kids who have sex with other kids. What a cool law :cool: :rolleyes:

AARRRGH

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, I did say they should higher it.

Personally, I do not believe most 18 year olds are mentally ready for sex.

I certainly don't think an adult (e.g. a 30 year old) should be having sex with teenagers. The mental divide is too big.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's my point. Why is it adults who want the age of consent lowered? Could it be possible that they want to have sex with younger teenagers...? :eek:

JohnK wrote: »

Well in that case its kinda funny how it doesnt seem to be stopping adults having sex with kids but does criminalise kids who have sex with other kids. What a cool law :cool: :rolleyes:

No law will stop paedophiles, but a low age of consent will guarantee there is more adult-teenager sex.

The law doesn't criminalise teenagers who have sex. No 13 year old has ever been arrested for having sex.

acorntoast

In order to criminalise paedophilia, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

I would be interested in a law where the age differential is taken into account, for example a differential in age greater than 3 years would be considered statuatory rape between the ages of 15 and 17.

JohnK

AARRRGH wrote: »

No law will stop paedophiles, but a low age of consent will guarantee there is more adult-teenager sex.

If someone really wants to have sex with a teenager do you seriously think a law is going to make any difference? One thing I've noticed about Irish society is we seem to have this notion that laws apply to other people not us and even if they do, well we wont get caught cause we're too smart.

AARRRGH wrote: »

The law doesn't criminalise teenagers who have sex. No 13 year old has ever been arrested for having sex.

Just because it hasnt happened yet (and I'm assuming you're correct in that it hasnt) doesnt mean it wont. The law as it is allows for it and sooner or later someone is going get pissed that their teenage daughter is getting shagged from all angles by her teenage boyfriend and then the cops will be called. Its happened more time than I could count in the states and its only a matter of time before it happens here.

acorntoast wrote: »

I would be interested in a law where the age differential is taken into account, for example a differential in age greater than 3 years would be considered statuatory rape between the ages of 15 and 17.

I believe some place have something like this were there are exemptions for peer-group ages but were do you draw the line? What if theres an overlap where a couple have exactly 3 years between them but one has a birthday and for a period of months they're criminals again? How can that be considered just and fair?

acorntoast

JohnK wrote: »

I believe some place have something like this were there are exemptions for peer-group ages but were do you draw the line? What if theres an overlap where a couple have exactly 3 years between them but one has a birthday and for a period of months they're criminals again? How can that be considered just and fair?

As I said, in order to criminalise paedophilia, you have to draw the line somewhere. A lot of laws are not 100% fair - they are made to fit a generic purpose, not tailored to every individual situation. They are there to plausibly serve in the majority of cases.

brianthebard

AARRRGH wrote: »

No law will stop paedophiles, but a low age of consent will guarantee there is more adult-teenager sex.

The law doesn't criminalise teenagers who have sex. No 13 year old has ever been arrested for having sex.

Statutory rape?

JohnK

acorntoast wrote: »

As I said, in order to criminalise paedophilia, you have to draw the line somewhere. A lot of laws are not 100% fair - they are made to fit a generic purpose, not tailored to every individual situation. They are there to plausibly serve in the majority of cases.

Fair point I suppose but in that case then why 3 years? Why not 2 years? Why not 4? How about 1? How exactly does one go about picking an allowable number of years before someone is a paedophile rather than simply a horny teenager? Lets not forget here that we’re talking about something which can have a devastating and life altering effect on someones future that will following them around until the day they die.

acorntoast

JohnK wrote: »

Fair point I suppose but in that case then why 3 years? Why not 2 years? Why not 4? How about 1? How exactly does one go about picking an allowable number of years before someone is a paedophile rather than simply a horny teenager? Lets not forget here that we’re talking about something which can have a devastating and life altering effect on someones future that will following them around until the day they die.

One goes about picking the numbers based on what society knows about child psychology at the time.

So - the question is I guess - what am I basing my opinion on? From what I know of developmental psychology, teenagers go through a huge amount of biological, emotional and psychological change in a very short amount of time, and the discrepencies in experience and accuity become very pronounced outside the immediate peer group.

So 3 years would be my uppermost limit on it, but I could support you if you argued for 1 or 2.

johnnyskeleton

JohnK wrote: »

Well in that case its kinda funny how it doesnt seem to be stopping adults having sex with kids but does criminalise kids who have sex with other kids. What a cool law :cool: :rolleyes:

That to my mind is the biggest problem; the government were asked by the opposition to include a "romeo & juliet" clause in the 2006 Act to prevent this from happening. McDowell, then minister for justice, said that the DPP would use his discretion to ensure that no prosecutions were taken arising from sex between kids of similar ages. However, this is not the case and the DPP seems perfectly happy to prosecute a 17 year old boy who had sex with a 15 year old girl. This to me seems patently wrong and at odds with the morality of many if not most young people.

The age of consent at 17 is fine, but we should have an exemption for young people of similar ages.

Victor

JohnK wrote: »

I believe some place have something like this were there are exemptions for peer-group ages but were do you draw the line? What if theres an overlap where a couple have exactly 3 years between them but one has a birthday and for a period of months they're criminals again? How can that be considered just and fair?

Hoe do people come up with such stupid suggestions? Subtract one date from another and it will always be a fixed number of days (OK, I admit, check for leap years).

JohnK wrote: »

Fair point I suppose but in that case then why 3 years? Why not 2 years? Why not 4? How about 1? Thats a matter for society to decide, via the Oireachtas.

JohnK wrote: »

How exactly does one go about picking an allowable number of years before someone is a paedophile rather than simply a horny teenager? Lets not forget here that we’re talking about something which can have a devastating and life altering effect on someones future that will following them around until the day they die.

Well thats why there is generally proportionality in the law. Legal - summary offence - inditement office. You might see someone who committed an illegal act gettting a suspended sentence instead of imprisonment.

JohnK

Victor wrote: »

Hoe do people come up with such stupid suggestions? Subtract one date from another and it will always be a fixed number of days (OK, I admit, check for leap years).

But do you really think people are going to count days? What'll happen is people will look at the age of someone as being a whole number so they'll be 15 years old not 15 years and 137 days old.

Victor wrote: »

Well thats why there is generally proportionality in the law. Legal - summary offence - inditement office. You might see someone who committed an illegal act gettting a suspended sentence instead of imprisonment.

Even with a suspended sentence you're almost certainly going to end up on the sex offenders registry which is enough to destroy a persons life. Try getting a good job when that comes up in the background check.

Victor

JohnK wrote: »

Even with a suspended sentence you're almost certainly going to end up on the sex offenders registry which is enough to destroy a persons life. Try getting a good job when that comes up in the background check.

As it stands, AFAIK teenagers don't go on the sex offenders list for consentual, but illegal sex.

acorntoast

JohnK wrote: »

Even with a suspended sentence you're almost certainly going to end up on the sex offenders registry which is enough to destroy a persons life. Try getting a good job when that comes up in the background check.

The reality is that the law is applied whether a person disagrees with it or not, or thinks it is fair or not. If someone feels that their entire future could be at stake, it's their free choice to reject potentially risky activities, or else take the consequences if caught and prosecuted. These are the realities of living in a society regulated by laws. No one agrees with all of the laws, but we understand it's either abide by them, or receive your punishment if caught breaking them.

towel401

i say leave the damn thing alone. any decrease will only encourage the wannabe slappers. but then so will raising it

philologos

If we roll back the age any further surely it will just cause people younger to think that they can try it out. I think leaving the age as it is is best. I'm pretty surprised at Malta as it's one of the most religious countries in Europe (Catholicism).

brianthebard

Evidence that a lower age of consent leads to higher levels of teen sex?

AARRRGH

brianthebard wrote: »

Evidence that a lower age of consent leads to higher levels of teen sex?

I agree teens will have sex whether or not they want to, but I would think having a lower age of consent would give them impression younger teenagers are mentally ready for sex, when obviously this is not the case for nearly every teenager.

I also think, as previously stated, it would lead to more OLDER people having sex with younger teenagers.

The reality is a lot of older guys have a boner for teenagers, so we need laws to deal with this.

pwd

according to wikipedia:

The age of consent in Ireland is 17 for carnal contact, with non-carnal contact being allowed at 15, regardless of sexual orientation and/or gender (although this relies on an interpretation of what "carnal contact" and "non-carnal contact" refers to). Sex with a minor over the age of 15 carries a lower sentence than that for when the minor is below 15, although the punishments were raised in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006.

I'm pretty certain it is 17 for boys as well as girls and not 15.

I think the best situation would be 16 being the age of consent for sex between teenagers and 18 being the age of consent for sex where one party is over 20.

philologos

I'd say a more consistent stance on it would be more clear, as if we start messing around with stuff like this which is highly morally sensitive, people will think that if certain people want to have things their own way in respect to the law, they will eventually get it. I personally think that if it were levelled to the age of adulthood it would be more consistent.

brianthebard

AARRRGH wrote: »

I agree teens will have sex whether or not they want to, but I would think having a lower age of consent would give them impression younger teenagers are mentally ready for sex, when obviously this is not the case for nearly every teenager.

I also think, as previously stated, it would lead to more OLDER people having sex with younger teenagers.

The reality is a lot of older guys have a boner for teenagers, so we need laws to deal with this.

jakkass made a statement of fact. Yours is a statement of opinion. While flawed, it is not quite as flawed as jakkass's fact. Neither of you have evidence to support your claims though.

Zulu

AARRRGH wrote: »

The age of consent does not exist to criminalise children who have sex; it is there to stop adults having sex with children.

Exactly. Nail on the head there.
Has there ever been a 16y/o convicted of statuary raping a 15y/o where the sex was consensual? I'm guessing you'll have a hard time finding a case.

The simple fact of the matter is, the law simply isn't enforced unless there is something wrong ie: a child being preyed on.

(Clearly I'm open to correction here)

Dudess

Gah... I've seen my post here from 2006 - IGNORE!!

I agree there is the issue of sex among very young teens being normalised if the age of consent is lowered, however I consider STDs and teen pregnancies FAR more of a concern.
Even very young teens are sexual beings and have desires (remember, we were them once upon a time - some people posting here possibly not all that long ago). The idea of sexual behaviour among them as so terribly wrong is purely societal/cultural. A lot of people are having sex at a very young age whether we like it or not - rigorous sex education (leaving religion/morality out of it) and availability of contraceptives should be the focus.

Whatever about relationship sex between teens, promiscuity among them ain't a great thing, but even if the age of consent were lowered and the above programme implemented... well it's better than the age of consent remaining at 17, and 14-year-olds who are uneducated about sex shagging away without protection - or even enough knowledge.

philologos

Well Dudess, surely the most effective way to stop teen pregnancies is to encourage waiting until a later age when the people concerned are more capable of dealing with it.

Consistency sends a clearer message, even if the law isn't well enforced.

Dudess

Jakkass wrote: »

Well Dudess, surely the most effective way to stop teen pregnancies is to encourage waiting until a later age when the people concerned are more capable of dealing with it.

I don't believe that's possible.

AARRRGH

brianthebard wrote: »

jakkass made a statement of fact. Yours is a statement of opinion. While flawed, it is not quite as flawed as jakkass's fact. Neither of you have evidence to support your claims though.

You are very pro-lower age of consent.

Why is this?

pwd

I think contraception should be available to people under the age of consent

towel401

pwd wrote: »

I think contraception should be available to people under the age of consent

it is. a 7 year old can buy a pack of johnnies if he wants. no limit

AARRRGH

Dudess wrote: »

I agree there is the issue of sex among very young teens being normalised if the age of consent is lowered, however I consider STDs and teen pregnancies FAR more of a concern.

The two are linked though - the younger the teenager the less likely she is to know about STDs and how important condoms are.

Dudess wrote: »

A lot of people are having sex at a very young age whether we like it or not - rigorous sex education (leaving religion/morality out of it) and availability of contraceptives should be the focus.

I agree, but this topic makes no mention of lowering the age of consent AND improving sex education. It is simply "should we lower the age of consent?"

Regardless of whatever the age of consent is, I agree it makes sense to teach children everything about sex. For example, Holland (good sex education) has the lowest rate of teen pregnancies, and UK (crap sex education) has the highest rate...

PS I'm not attacking you Dudess, please don't attack me in response!