Rape legislation discrimination

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.

coffee_cake

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.

Stark

I only partially agree with that. I know you need a system of people to bridge the gap between the letter of the law and common sense. And I think most people have had encounters with law enforcement where they were given a warning and no action was taken as it wasn't worth taking action. I still don't think it's right to pass a rediculous law for the sake of it though. If you're never going to prosecute 16 year olds for having sex with each other, why make it illegal in the first place?

The age gap suggestion sounds like a very obvious and sensible suggestion. For the grey areas below the age gap cutoff, deal with cases under the standard rape laws rather than the statutory rape law.

New_Departure06

Does the 17 year old father of the 16 year old's child now face a jail-sentence, in a context where the sex was consensual? The public wanted a quick fix but what they now have seems to me to go far beyond what they wanted - such is the outcome when parties play politics with such a sensitive issue - when what should have instead happened was for all of the parties to put pointscoring aside for the good of the nation and work out legislation that was needed to reconcile the need to protect children from predators while also not criminalising 16 year olds.

I hope the upcoming Oireachtas review of this flawed piece of legislation sets the age of consent at 16. It is the only sensible age to set. This is 2006 not De Valera's Ireland, and studies have shown around 40% lose their virginity at this age anyway.

constitutionus

this is what makes me laugh. that bunch of prudes in the dail cant face the fact most people lose their virginity well before the legal age. hell according to the new leglislation a survey in donegal has proved recently that half the population under the age of 17 are rapists in the eye of the law. when you think the law in holland is 13 our lot really need to cop on and leglislate for reality, christ knows theyre paid enough for it:rolleyes:

Shellie13

kiffer wrote:

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

While were goin on bout eqaulity here...doctors are all men now?! lol!;)

its stupid really the issue here is protecting kids from older prditors or whatever...
The 3 year age gap and mutual consent makes more sense here. Girls are more mature why blame the lads?!
Is blame involved here at all?!

Nevyn

Becuase it is still that stupid archaic idea that boys/youngmen will do anything pressure up to not clearly consensual acts to get sex and girls/young women aren't intrested and are reluctant to have sex and have to be protected.

Heavens forbid a young emerging female would want to be sexually active and sure they would never pressure a guy into having sex with them.
And showing up witn no kickers is putting pressure on.

constitutionus

Thaedydal wrote:

Becuase it is still that stupid archaic idea that boys/youngmen will do anything pressure up to not clearly consensual acts to get sex and girls/young women aren't intrested and are reluctant to have sex and have to be protected.

Heavens forbid a young emerging female would want to be sexually active and sure they would never pressure a guy into having sex with them.
And showing up witn no kickers is putting pressure on.

this is what makes me laugh, fiana gael were on the radio today claiming 54% of people polled said they want the age of consent to be 17. obviously didnt do that in donegal