The "Romeo and Juliet" case.

endakenny

Before last Christmas, a boy's challenge to the law under which he was charged with having unlawful sex and the girl was not, even though both were underage at the time, began with the High Court. I have come across no further developments in the case since then. Why is the High Court taking so long to decide on this case?

AugustusMinimus

Judge ruled today that the Legislation is not unconstitutional.

Can this be brought to Europe. I personally think its highly unconstitutional.

MagicSean

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Judge ruled today that the Legislation is not unconstitutional.

Can this be brought to Europe. I personally think its highly unconstitutional.

Yeah I can see this going all the way. It's all down to the irish legal definition of rape isn't it?

AugustusMinimus

No.

I believe the issue here is that in the case of two underage people having sex, the girl is always deemed to be innocent while the boy is deemed guilty.

Hence in this case, the boy in question is being prosecuted while the girl is not.

Cunsiderthis

I imagine that 90% of todays teenagers, and a substantial number of todays barriester, lawyers, politicians and priests, are all guilty of a similar offence or multiple offences.

You can't legislate for teenage boys getting erections or for teenage girls or boys wanting to experiment sexually, and to try to legislate to prevent them experimenting sexually seems to be the silliest thing I have heard.

It appears even more bizarre that a boy is deemed to have carried out a criminal act if he and a girl experiment sexually, but she is not?

Teenagers should be taught that sex is wonderful and beautiful and taught to use their sexuality wisely, and not told they are committing a criminal act punishable by law for doing what comes naturally.

It's all about education and discussion, and the attitude in Ireland of ignoring the issue of sexuality, and pretending it isn't there, and at the same time enacting silly laws, is not onyl ridiculous but also storing up problems for teenagers in later life.

MagicSean

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

No.

I believe the issue here is that in the case of two underage people having sex, the girl is always deemed to be innocent while the boy is deemed guilty.

Hence in this case, the boy in question is being prosecuted while the girl is not.

Yes but doesnt this law stem from the definition of a rape which, legally, a woman can't commit.

AugustusMinimus

k_mac wrote: »

Yes but doesnt this law stem from the definition of a rape which, legally, a woman can't commit.

Woman can commit rape.

The law states that in the case of two underage people having sex, the boy is deemed to be guilty and the girl to be innocent.

Its an absolutely ridiculous law and as Cunsiderthis has said, all it does is criminalise teenage boys who are only doing what by nature they are supposed to do.

lucernarian

This seems like a serious malfunctioning of criminal law, whatever about the spiel the Judge gave about protecting children and accounting for the extra consequences that a girl maysuffer (e.g. teenage pregnancy).

I can't stomach the idea that teenagers are committing a criminal offence if they have consentual intercourse while both parties are under 17. How could a judge uphold a law by claiming that society is "entitled to deter such activity"? What a bizarre comment. Using criminal punishment to deter what will inevitably happen between two people will just lead to risky behaviour, and I would be very interested to see how the public would feel about jailing teenagers for having sex with each other, if such a measure were put to a referendum.

NickDrake

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Woman can commit rape.

The law states that in the case of two underage people having sex, the boy is deemed to be guilty and the girl to be innocent.

Its an absolutely ridiculous law and as Cunsiderthis has said, all it does is criminalise teenage boys who are only doing what by nature they are supposed to do.

Women cannot commit rape, only sexual assault i'm afraid.

Manach

Offhand, the constitution has the premise of upholding public morality. These actions would be against that (an originalist interpretation) so the verdict could be valid under those circumstances.

gooch2k9

Just shows that equality only work sto the benfit of women. No problem with equal pay etc thats only right, but this is just taken the piss. If the lad gets jailed it just shows what clowns we have running this place.:mad:

endakenny

Manach wrote: »

Offhand, the constitution has the premise of upholding public morality. These actions would be against that (an originalist interpretation) so the verdict could be valid under those circumstances.

I think that the Supreme Court ruled against David Norris's challenge to the law banning homosexual acts for the same reason but the European Court of Human Rights ruled in his favour. The European Court may be the defendant's last hope, unless the DPP changes his mind and declares a 'nolle prosequi'.

MagicSean

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Woman can commit rape.

The law states that in the case of two underage people having sex, the boy is deemed to be guilty and the girl to be innocent.

Its an absolutely ridiculous law and as Cunsiderthis has said, all it does is criminalise teenage boys who are only doing what by nature they are supposed to do.

According to irish law a person commits rape by penetrating a vagina with a penis. Obviously a woman cant do this as she lacks the necessary equipment.

seamus

k_mac wrote: »

According to irish law a person commits rape by penetrating a vagina with a penis. Obviously a woman cant do this as she lacks the necessary equipment.

Actually it only requires penetration of the vagina by an object held by someone else or penetration of the mouth or anus by a penis.

The definition is loose enough that you could theoretically try a woman for rape - the definition does not specify that the offender must have used a penis, only that penetration of a vagina had occured in the course of the assault.

endakenny

k_mac wrote: »

According to irish law a person commits rape by penetrating a vagina with a penis. Obviously a woman cant do this as she lacks the necessary equipment.

Rape also involves penetration of the vagina or anus with an instrument, such as a broom handle or a dildo. Furthermore, a male's erection can be involuntary. Therefore, a female is capable of raping a male or another female.

MagicSean

endakenny wrote: »

Rape also involves penetration of the vagina or anus with an instrument, such as a broom handle or a dildo. Furthermore, a male's erection can be involuntary. Therefore, a female is capable of raping a male or another female.

Thats a rape under section 4. For common rape under section 2 only a male can rape a female.

Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

( a ) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it

Section 4 rape did show a step forward in the law but the law still precludes a woman raping a man or the anal rape of someone with an object.

Carawaystick

k_mac wrote: »

Thats a rape under section 4. For common rape under section 2 only a male can rape a female.

Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—
.

But wasn't there a Boy under age here? not a man.

MagicSean

Carawaystick wrote: »

But wasn't there a Boy under age here? not a man.

When it comes to rape I think a man means over 10 years old.

cushtac

Carawaystick wrote: »

But wasn't there a Boy under age here? not a man.

How would you define a man? The age of criminal responsibility is twelve.

Carawaystick

cushtac wrote: »

How would you define a man?

I wouldn't define a man, I'd change section 2(1) to read person twice.

cushtac wrote: »

The age of criminal responsibility is twelve.

Unless you're a girl in this case...

DERICKOO

am i to understand that this equates to an individual 15 years old and now 18.
my understanding is that this individual:eek: is now nearly 20.;)

DERICKOO

maybe we should let go grow up, live life, be as free. it's hard to do, maybe let's wait and see.

endakenny

Carawaystick wrote: »

Unless you're a girl in this case...

The law gave immunity to the girl because vaginal intercourse took place, which meant that the girl could become pregnant. If the boy and girl were involved in sexual activity falling short of vaginal penetration, they would both be guilty. If the girl had sex with a 12 year old boy, she would be the guilty party. Having said that, I disagree with the High Court decision and I do not believe that young people having sex below the age of consent should be criminalised. However, if a young person forces another person of whatever age to have sex with them, it is rape, pure and simple.

Cunsiderthis

endakenny wrote: »

The law gave immunity to the girl because vaginal intercourse took place, which meant that the girl could become pregnant. If the boy and girl were involved in sexual activity falling short of vaginal penetration, they would both be guilty. If the girl had sex with a 12 year old boy, she would be the guilty party. Having said that, I disagree with the High Court decision and I do not believe that young people having sex below the age of consent should be criminalised. However, if a young person forces another person of whatever age to have sex with them, it is rape, pure and simple.

But it's rarely pure and simple. Its ridiculous to criminalise teenagers for experimenting with sex, when their bodies are sexually mature.

To legislate for it is the height of stupidity, and you can't legislate for sexual urges, especially at such a young age.

endakenny

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Its ridiculous to criminalise teenagers for experimenting with sex, when their bodies are sexually mature.

I agree. Why is the government doing it? Surely the end of the Church's dominant position should have led to a more liberal attitude towards sexuality.

MagicSean

endakenny wrote: »

I agree. Why is the government doing it? Surely the end of the Church's dominant position should have led to a more liberal attitude towards sexuality.

Teenage pregnancy, single mothers, STDs. Most teenagers are too stupid to be allowed have sex. They don't understand the possible consequences.

Tom Young

You'll find there is a lot more to this than merely the influence if any, the Catholic Church has in relation to the age of consent and/or definition of a minor.

Seems we are just applying contemporaneous news splurges to inform ourselves without considering any other elements of the law.

Tom Young

We covered off the serious offences in re. Children here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055258546&highlight=incapax

endakenny

k_mac wrote: »

Teenage pregnancy, single mothers, STDs. Most teenagers are too stupid to be allowed have sex. They don't understand the possible consequences.

You don't need to be a gynaecologist to know that pregnancy and STDs are likely consequences of sex. Surely, teenagers learn about sexual reproduction in junior cert science.

XxMCRxBabyxX

endakenny wrote: »

You don't need to be a gynaecologist to know that pregnancy and STDs are likely consequences of sex. Surely, teenagers learn about sexual reproduction in junior cert science.

But does that mean they actually pay attention to the dangers? Statistics argue otherwise

drkpower

k_mac wrote: »

Teenage pregnancy, single mothers, STDs. Most teenagers are too stupid to be allowed have sex. They don't understand the possible consequences.

Criminalising them is not the answer to it. There is a place for the criminal law in protecting children from the predatory actions of adults, but to criminalise kids when they have sex is an incredibly poor solution. There are other avenues that have yet to be properly explored.

endakenny

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

But does that mean they actually pay attention to the dangers? Statistics argue otherwise

How can a girl not know that vaginal sexual intercourse can cause pregnancy? I cannot believe that any teenage girl would set out to become pregnant.

Tom Young

endakenny wrote: »

I cannot believe that any teenage girl would set out to become pregnant.

Well, I am hoping that is a typo. If you knew anything about the levels of social welfare babies in the city/country now at the moment, you might begin to believe it.

endakenny

Tom Young wrote: »

Well, I am hoping that is a typo. If you knew anything about the levels of social welfare babies in the city/country now at the moment, you might begin to believe it.

I did not make a typing error. I am aware that some women might want to get pregnant just to get social welfare but I find it hard to believe that any teenage girl would regard that as worth going through the pain of giving birth.

Tom Young

Yep - It is hard to believe, but reality says otherwise. Sad as it is.

XxMCRxBabyxX

endakenny wrote: »

How can a girl not know that vaginal sexual intercourse can cause pregnancy? I cannot believe that any teenage girl would set out to become pregnant.

That is not what I said. They know damn well, just don't care. They don't seem to realise the risk applies to them too

XxMCRxBabyxX

endakenny wrote: »

I did not make a typing error. I am aware that some women might want to get pregnant just to get social welfare but I find it hard to believe that any teenage girl would regard that as worth going through the pain of giving birth.

You would be very surprised. I see amongst girls I know every day. I graduated from 6th year last year and since at least 4th year many of the girls in my year were talking about how they wanted a baby, once specifically stated it was so she could get a free house.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Would anyone know the case citation for the case in question? Or would like to help me write a legal Challenge question regarding this case.

I write for my college's Law Newsletter and have been askedto write a challenge question regarding this case that readers can then write in their argument for it. Anyone willing to help?