Rape legislation discrimination

Doctor Fell

From today's Irish Times:
"In what is an otherwise "gender neutral" Bill, one section makes clear that if an underage boy and girl have sexual intercourse with each other, the boy commits an offence but the girl does not.

Minister for Justice Michael McDowell told reporters last night that the Government had decided on this so as not to "stigmatise single motherhood". He said that without this provision, every 16- year-old who had a baby or was pregnant would be either a victim of a rape or would have committed an offence."

What do people think about this - imo the reason given isn't a good enough reason to make a criminal out of the male for having consensual sex. I mean if it was the other way around and girls were to be criminalised, there would be outrage about the discrimination of it (and rightly so). Why should boys be guilty and girls not? :mad:

Kimbot

Typical of the Government!! Blame young males for everything!! And they say that females are more mature, if thats the case then they should know better etc!!!

Doctor Fell

I think the problem is that they have set the new of age of consent at 17!! :eek:
If they lowered the age of consent to say 15 (as was suggested in the other thread), then this problem wouldn't seem as ridiculous.

fly_agaric

Doctor Fell wrote:

From today's Irish Times:
"In what is an otherwise "gender neutral" Bill, one section makes clear that if an underage boy and girl have sexual intercourse with each other, the boy commits an offence but the girl does not.

A bit depressing if true [haven't read the paper today yet]. I thought one good thing about this whole statutory rape debacle would be that the new consent laws would be more gender neutral.

However, this is only the emergency legislation isn't it - so maybe there's a hope people will get on their asses about it. Why does one party still have to be criminalised if they are both underage and there is minimal age-gap? The obvious answer is I suppose morality or something like that demands it - can't be seen condoning underage sex so someone, somewhere has to be committing an offence! And if you can't pin any blame on the girl because that is too, like, judgemental for our happy-clappy society, who else is left?

Anyway, at least the new laws will extend equal protection to all children, and are not unfair in that regard.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2006/0602/breaking7.htm

Doctor Fell

Here's the link:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/0602/4168062722HM1RAPEBILL.html

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Doctor Fell

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I agree 100%, its the hysteria that has caused this rushed and imo flawed legislation. But its very annoying that this is so obviously discriminatory, and MMD's attitude is "well you come up with something better then" (I'm paraphrasing his response in the Dail to the opposition, but that was the gist of it.) Surely it is his responsibility as Min. for Justice (ha ha!!) to come up with the improvement, and not bring in legislation that he knows is flawed. It seems crazy that he'll bring this in knowing it has problems. Grrrrr:mad:

Sleepy

I don't this this is as much a symptom of rushed legislation as it is of incompetent legislators tbh.

I mean, I know English isn't officially our first language but in practice it is and I would expect anyone charged with writing legislation to be sufficiently equipped with an ability to write in it.

Banana Republicanism at it's finest.

aidan_walsh

Doctor Fell wrote:

From today's Irish Times:
"In what is an otherwise "gender neutral" Bill, one section makes clear that if an underage boy and girl have sexual intercourse with each other, the boy commits an offence but the girl does not.

Minister for Justice Michael McDowell told reporters last night that the Government had decided on this so as not to "stigmatise single motherhood". He said that without this provision, every 16- year-old who had a baby or was pregnant would be either a victim of a rape or would have committed an offence."

Basically its the exact same law, with the difference being that if it comes to court the girl can now be questioned about their demeanour and dress at the time. Thats the only difference as far as I can see.

Doctor Fell wrote:

What do people think about this - imo the reason given isn't a good enough reason to make a criminal out of the male for having consensual sex. I mean if it was the other way around and girls were to be criminalised, there would be outrage about the discrimination of it (and rightly so). Why should boys be guilty and girls not?

The reason is a bit of a crock, but I presume that it stems from a definition of rape as penetrative intercourse, as opposed to any other action which would probably be classed as sexual abuse if taken to court (I haven't seen the text to either this bill or the previous, so I am only working on assumptions here). Using this as a guide, you can understand how its a lot easier to put the blame on the male.

What i can't get is if they have to blame someone to keep these pregnancies down, why don't they blame the older party? I mean if a 15 year old boy has sex with a 16 year old girl, most of the time the boy is held to blame. :rolleyes:

aidan_walsh

Deleted User wrote:

why don't they blame the older party?

Why should they?

Why should they?

Well most things in society are age related. You need to be 18 to drink. 18 to drive (technically). etc. We count the maturity of people mostly by their age, with their actions coming a close second.

Seems a better way of judging the responsible party than just picking the boy/man straightaway.

Afterall when I lost my virginity it was the girl that lead me to the old squash court, and directed my actions. I sure as hell didn't have much of a clue of what I was doing. And we both were under the legal age of consent. So i am of course guilty of statutory rape simply by having sex, despite her being older than me (and her not being a virgin, when I was). Perfectly logical. :rolleyes:

Doctor Fell

aidan_walsh wrote:

The reason is a bit of a crock, but I presume that it stems from a definition of rape as penetrative intercourse, as opposed to any other action which would probably be classed as sexual abuse if taken to court (I haven't seen the text to either this bill or the previous, so I am only working on assumptions here). Using this as a guide, you can understand how its a lot easier to put the blame on the male.

No I don't agree its easier to put the blame on the male, not at all. We are talking about consentual sex here i.e both parties willingly take part. So its ridiculous to criminalise one person, but not the other. The reason he gives is that he doesn't want to stigmatise young mothers, fair enough. But he's stigmatising young fathers! Like I said, ridiculous.

simu

Doctor Fell wrote:

The reason he gives is that he doesn't want to stigmatise young mothers, fair enough. But he's stigmatising young fathers! Like I said, ridiculous.

Aye. Makes no sense really!

humbert

How often do you think 16 year old girls force people into sex?

simu

humbert wrote:

How often do you think 16 year old girls force people into sex?

Well, it's pretty common for 16 year old girls to persuade their boyfriends of the same age to have sex. So, if that happens, why is the guy comitting an offense and the girl not?

Its been said before that this is about consentual sex. Nothing about forcing... But even that aside, many girls have an equal sex drive to boys at any age... or are you another one of these people that think that women don't enjoy sex...?

humbert

simu wrote:

Well, it's pretty common for 16 year old girls to persuade their boyfriends of the same age to have sex. So, if that happens, why is the guy comitting an offense and the girl not?

I'm struggling to imagine the girl trying to persuade the unwilling boy to have sex, if they are both underage is the charge of rape pressed whether they want it to be or not?

humbert

humbert wrote:

I'm struggling to imagine the girl trying to persuade the unwilling boy to have sex, if they are both underage is the charge of rape pressed whether they want it to be or not?

A female can be awfully convincing when she wants something. Its a mass generalisation/stereotype to believe all boys want sex all the time. (my belief of this is that guys tend to want sex all the time, because they're not actually getting any... lol) [another generalisation, of course]

My understanding of this was that the crime is misleading. there's no actual rape involved. Its just that the parents haven't given permission, and that one or more of the parties involved are below the legal age of consent. Had one party been forced into sex, then it would be an actual rape charge, rather than statutory....

Maybe I've been misunderstanding it all these years....

The_Minister

Doctor Fell wrote:

I think the problem is that they have set the new of age of consent at 17!! :eek:
If they lowered the age of consent to say 15 (as was suggested in the other thread), then this problem wouldn't seem as ridiculous.

MMD was going to lower the age limit but then all the Joe Duffy crowd started shouting.

zuma

The age of consent is now 17 for both sexes?
Am I the only one having trouble with this given that it was on the news a couple of days ago that it would be put at 16.

When I was younger we all assumed that the age of consent for both sexes was 16....but it was actually 15 for boys and 17 for girls?

Why they didnt equalise it to 16, as we all assumed it was originally, I really dont know!

What really amusees me is that if a 16yo boy and girl have sex and she gets pregnant...the boy gets charged with rape and the girl is 100% innocent as she was of course coersed.....girls must be pretty damn dim according to McDowell.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

fly_agaric

Doctor Fell wrote:

No I don't agree its easier to put the blame on the male, not at all.

Well, it obviously is if the government feels that somebody must be culpable for the evils of consensual sex between two people who are underage but can't stomach pinning any of the rap on girls!

Stark

This is rediculous. They're enshrining stereotypes/generalisations about boys, girls and their respective attitudes towards sex into law. Whatever happened to fair trial and a hearing of all the facts involved. This is like "tick these 4 boxes, if you get 2 out 4, you're a rapist".

Firespinner wrote:

MMD was going to lower the age limit but then all the Joe Duffy crowd started shouting.

For the childrens' "protection" of course.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Doctor Fell

fly_agaric wrote:

Well, it obviously is if the government feels that somebody must be culpable for the evils of consensual sex between two people who are underage but can't stomach pinning any of the rap on girls!

No, I said it wasn't easy to understand in the context of aidan_walsh's point, and its not. My point is it is unfair to blame one party for taking part in a mutually consentual act - that is difficult to understand, I think.
Hubert no offence, but to suggest girls can't be persuasive when it comes to sex is laughable! And when you say how many 16 year old girls force people to have sex, are you insinuating that many 16 year old boys do???

Sleepy

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It'd be the first time MMD gave a crap about what the public thought when bringing in laws if that's why he's done it. And if he did do it because of the knickers-in-a-twist Catholics why the fcvk can't he realise that there's as many sane voters as there are repressed ones. We just don't go screaming our heads off on Joe Duffy every time someone else's life is effected in a way that doesn't adhere to our moral codes.

Or in a word: Grrr...

YeAh!

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Theres no rationality for it alright, but still I agree with Stark. Under a fair trial, and after hearing all the facts etc, the individual committing the cime (child sex) would be dealt with accordingly and sent to jail

Doctor Fell

Also bear in mind that sex with a person between the age of 15 and 17 now carries a 5 year sentence, 10 years if it was an "authority" figure.
So if two 16 year olds have sex, the girl gets off scot free (as she should really), but the bloke gets 5 years (potentially)!! That is very difficult to understand.
I'm not sure this should be called child sex, I mean 15 and 16 year olds having sexual relationships with their peers is different than much younger kids doing the same. And why should such a hefty penalty be imposed for such a "crime", and in such a discriminatory and unfair manner?
Edit: I'm only talking about two 16 year-olds here, not the case of an older adult and 15 year old etc.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

simu

And what about not stigmatising young fathers? This is harldy going to encourage them to stand by their kids.

metrovelvet

Does anyone know the reasoning behind this?

What about when applied to homosexual or lesbian situations?

Im confused..... if two people under the age of 17 have consensual sex, one boy and one girl,where the boy is older, the boy is a rapist? Is this what the law is saying?

Please explain someone.

simu

metrovelvet wrote:

Does anyone know the reasoning behind this?

What about when applied to homosexual or lesbian situations?

Im confused..... if two people under the age of 17 have consensual sex, one boy and one girl,where the boy is older, the boy is a rapist? Is this what the law is saying?

Please explain someone.

Hmm, as far as I can make out:

It doesn't matter whether the boy is older or younger than the girl - if they're both under 17, he's committed and offense, she hasn't.

If it's two males under 17, they're both committing offenses and I'm not sure how it works for two girls under 17 but I think they're not offending.

As for reason - ha! It seems to be a rushed job to keep the foaming masses at bay.

zuma

simu wrote:

Hmm, as far as I can make out:

It doesn't matter whether the boy is older or younger than the girl - if they're both under 17, he's committed and offense, she hasn't.

If it's two males under 17, they're both committing offenses and I'm not sure how it works for two girls under 17 but I think they're not offending.

As for reason - ha! It seems to be a rushed job to keep the foaming masses at bay.

I cant see this rushed law lasting for long before its overhauled....the Supreme court will tear it to bits when someone forces it upon them.

16yo should be the univeral age of consent with mabye a 2 year age difference allowed if one(genderless remember) is 14/15....ie girl aged 14 and boy at 16 should be allright and the same with 15yo and 17yo.

As it stands Im pretty sure this law is againstEuropean Law and must be changed due to the very evident gender inequality!

fly_agaric

zuma wrote:

I cant see this rushed law lasting for long before its overhauled....the Supreme court will tear it to bits when someone forces it upon them.

...

As it stands Im pretty sure this law is againstEuropean Law and must be changed due to the very evident gender inequality!

I don't know. It seems fairer than the original laws. Was there any sign of the EU complaining about them, or anyone taking a case over gender bias? (I don't know - honestly asking?)

From what I have read, the problems with the law which lead to all the fuss were not related to gender/sex anyway.

The fact that people (and politicians) are very aware of the issues at present may mean it will be revised quickly.

Or maybe the whole thing will now drop off the political issue radar once the loophole for adults to prey on the underage is closed up.

17 isn't the new age of consent, it's been that way for a long time...

Nevyn

All they are doing in reinstating the old laws with the old ages but changing the fact that the defense of not knowing the age of the victum can be entered.

zuma

bluewolf wrote:

17 isn't the new age of consent, it's been that way for a long time...

Actually it been 15 for boys for a long time....

Lemming

Just a thought ...

what if two persons of the same sex, and underage, have sex with each other .....

Hmmmm, tough one eh? :rolleyes:

simu

Lemming wrote:

Just a thought ...

what if two underage girls have sex with each other .....

Hmmmm, tough one eh? :rolleyes:

Wouldn't be a crime afaiksies. But everyone knows that just doesn't happen!

Doctor Fell

fly_agaric wrote:

I don't know. It seems fairer than the original laws. .

How is it "fairer"? It has introduced a new bias against young males. That is not "fair" in any way.

fly_agaric

Doctor Fell wrote:

How is it "fairer"? It has introduced a new bias against young males. That is not "fair" in any way.

Maybe I misunderstand (I'm not an expert), but that same bias was in the original law, was it not?
Together with additional male/female biases (different ages of consent for the sexes and only girls protected by the statutory rape law).

constitutionus

actually from my reading the only ones to get off scott free is pregnant underage girls. so the lesbians go down im afraid (sorry couldnt resist) basically ANY sexual activity by people under 17 is now a crime with a jail sentencs attached. so technically you could probably be done for sexual assault if you mooch your girlfriend and an adult reports you.

oh and one more thing, apparently now theres a good chance that if a GP prescribes the pill for an underage girl he or she can be done for being complicit in a criminal act. isnt modern ireland wonderfull.

and as regards to the constitutionality of the bill isnt it wonderfull once again to have mary mac pass up her duty to refer it to the supreme court for testing. this now means its left up to joe soap to go all the way throught the courts systems , spending millions all the way to the impoverished barristers and solicitors of this country, untill its shot down for the joke it is. i mean come on where the hell is the equality authority on this thing, its BLATANT sexual discrimination

metrovelvet

hi consti-

It seems to be beyond discrimination and into pure insanity.

1. blatant gender discrimination

2. Heterocentric

3. A health hazard

4. The courts will get clogged up with this BS. And the real child rapists wont get attended to.

5.How are the fathers supposed to support the mothers if they are in prison and be a father to their kids? In one way it exempts men from a whole other responsibility: fatherhood.

Nevyn

ok ok really you lot you are forgetting that not all reported cases result in a person being charged nor doed mean being charged mean that the Dept of Public Procuction will take on the case and prosecute.

If the teen is over 15 the matter is reported is investigated the statments from the people involed and taken into consideration and the age gaps and in the cases
of where it is for the most part two teens and there is not more then a 3 year age gap and if the younger party says that they consented and would be a hostile witness then the DPP will not pursue the case.

This has always been the case.

constitutionus

sounds to me like your depending on the character of the DPP to ensure fair treatment and im sorry but thats just bad. what happens if we end up with some religious nutter for a DPP , after all we dont select em. he or she could go on a witch hunt with this leglislation. locking up boys and girls for beings sexaual deviants, and lets remember we do have a prescendent for that in this country (magdalen laundries anyone?). all we'd need is the cushy in camera situation like they have in the family law courts and its open season on our constitutional rights.

i will admit to there being a lot of hysteria around this issue but thats only because we've been witness to a truely horrible vista. and the governments solution is to institute a law that many of em have admitted wont hold up. put simply its bad law and god knows what could come of it in the long term

kiffer

constitutionus wrote:

actually from my reading the only ones to get off scott free is pregnant underage girls. so the lesbians go down im afraid (sorry couldnt resist) basically ANY sexual activity by people under 17 is now a crime with a jail sentencs attached. so technically you could probably be done for sexual assault if you mooch your girlfriend and an adult reports you.

The Law states 5.—A female child under the age of 17 years shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse.

It doesn't need her to get pregnant to be not guilty of an offence...
Thus underage lesbians are off scott free (unlike their male counterparts)
HOWEVER! it says by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse.
and lesbian sex might be covered not under intercourse but by buggery.

As according to dictionary.com
Buggery = Sodomy, Sex between people of the same gender,
But oral sex, anal sex and other noncoital activities between members of the opposite sex are also sodomy.
Thus damning teenage girls that give head.

Now I'm not sure what the legal meaning of buggery is so lesbians could be introuble or not.
As buggery could be just homosexual sex between Males in the eyes of our legal system.

constitutionus wrote:

oh and one more thing, apparently now theres a good chance that if a GP prescribes the pill for an underage girl he or she can be done for being complicit in a criminal act. isnt modern ireland wonderfull.

He can claim it was to regulate painfull periods, and that no one told him that the teenager was sexualy active.

kiffer

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 as passed by Dáil &#201 wrote: »

3-(9) No proceedings for an offence under this section against a child
under the age of 17 years shall be brought except by, or with the
consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions.

pdf

On further reading of the law it seems that this bit means that the Director of Public Prosecutions can choose not to bring proceedings against two 15 or 16 year olds. If both of them claim it was consenting then it doesn't have to go to court.

I'm much happier about this law now that I've spotted this... I'm not happy about the Imunity give to teenage girls, this paragraph should have covered them...

Nevyn

kiffer wrote:

pdf

On further reading of the law it seems that this bit means that the Director of Public Prosecutions can choose not to bring proceedings against two 15 or 16 year olds. If both of them claim it was consenting then it doesn't have to go to court.

I'm much happier about this law now that I've spotted this... I'm not happy about the Imunity give to teenage girls, this paragraph should have covered them...

This has been pretty much the case, there are many laws ( as the recent stricking out) that have not been enforced do to thier being outdated or that
the application of common sense says they are not enforcible.

kiffer

Thaedydal wrote:

... or that
the application of common sense says they are not enforcible.

If common sense can tell them that a law is unenforcible then that law is pretty silly. Why make a law that they know is unenforcible.
Shouldn't that common sense be used to make laws that make sense and are enforcible as well as fair.

Nevyn

The law and life are two differing things.
The law should be about ideals,
The law and the justice system and what prosecutions can be pushed for and upheld are too very very different things.

in the case of two 16 year olds how on earth is it to be 'proven' that they had sex with each other ?
are they to testify against each other in court that they were raped/sexually assulted and did rape and sexually assulted thier bf/gf ?
The dept of public prosecutions will simple not waste time money and expertise in pursing such cases.