Irish Courts Reject "Romeo & Juliet Law" Challenge

strobe

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0326/court.html

For people that don't click links:

A man who is charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl when he was 15, has lost his high court challenge to the law under which he is charged.

The man, who is now 18, had claimed that the section 2006 law - that allows him to be prosecuted, while no charges can be brought against the girl - was old fashioned gender-based discrimination for which the State had no justification.

He is charged under the so-called 'Romeo and Juliet' law - Criminal Law Offences Act 2006 and faces a maximum of five years in jail if convicted. Under the same act, a girl under 17 cannot be charged with the same offence.

AdvertisementThe case was heard last December, and in her ruling today Ms Justice Dunne said it was clear from studies that the adverse affect of underage sex - such as pregnancy, early parenthood and resulting lower educational and occupational attainment - fall to a greater extent on girls than boys.

Far from being an example of good old fashioned discrimination or a form of rough equalisation, as contented by lawyers for the young man, the law provided a limited immunity to girls in the one area of sexual activity that can result in pregnancy, she said.

She said the law was there to protect children from sexual abuse.

Girls and boys were equally liable to prosecution in respect of sexual activity, falling short of sexual intercourse. Section 5 only applies to sexual intercourse - thus the immunity only applied to the one area of sexual activity that can result in pregnancy. It is the one consequence of sexual activity that carries no risk for boys or men, she said.

Justice Dunne said society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences of such activity. She said the act goes no further than was necessary to achieve this object.

Last December Senior Counsel for the young man, Gerard Hogan, told the court that he legislation under which he is charged proceeded on the basis that the boy was the 'guilty party' and the girl was the 'comely maiden' whose virtue must be protected.

He said if convicted, the boy would face a conviction for a sexual offence with all the ignominy and distress associated with that. He said he faces the prospect of having his life destroyed and added that five years in prison and a conviction for a sexual offence for a boy of 15 who engaged in consensual sexual activity was a 'savage penalty'.

He said it was gender-based legislation and while no one would suggest that pregnancy in a young girl was something to be countenanced, there was no comparison between pregnancy and the prosecution for a sexual offence which would destroy a young life.

The legislation was enacted in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling that found that the laws governing statutory rape were unconstitutional because they did not allow for a defence of reasonable mistake about a girl's age.

The State had argued that the law was there to protect young people both male and female and was not paternalistic.

Lawyers for the state said the 2006 law was just one piece of legislation where gender discrimination was made as it had never been considered that females could perform the same sexual acts as males.

Similar gender specific laws applied in other jurisdictions and reflected a pattern repeated throughout out law making and dating back as far as AD 760, the court was told.

Ms Justice Dunne said the act as a whole was to protect children from sexual abuse. She said it deals with a wide range of sexual activities, circumstances and levels of culpability.

Careful consideration had been given to the sentencing regime for offenders. This was framework in which one must view the limited immunity conferred by Section 5. Girls and boys were equally liable to prosecution in respect of sexual activity, falling short of sexual intercourse.

Section 5 only applies to sexual intercourse - thus the immunity only applied to the one area of sexual activity that can result in pregnancy. It is the one consequence of sexual activity that carries no risk for boys or men.

I was just wondering what peoples opinions are on this? Personally I think it's an absolute fukking shambles, an old fashioned, predjudiced and extremely sexist law. An utter disgrace in this day and age of "equality and fairness".

Kristopherus

Simple answer. Keep your pecker in your trousers.

admiralofthefleet

waits for snyper

DrumSteve

As bernard manning would say:

"its a ****ing disgrace"

Biggins

It does seem a tad extreme for something he did when 15, to be honest.

strobe

Kristopherus wrote: »

Simple answer. Keep your pecker in your trousers.

Why not "keep your legs closed girls"?

GLaDOS

They're basically saying a girl couldn't possibly know about the dangers of underage sex, while a boy of similar age obviously knows what he's doing and must be punished

landsleaving

Paying child support is a risk to boys and men.

If they're both underage or of similar enough age on the borderline where one is older and the other younger there really should be no argument for anything wrong having been done.

OutlawPete

The law judge is an ass.

The law is sexual discrimination, simple as that.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Making it a crime to do what comes natural. Ridicolous

alwaysadub

It is a bit stupid, if he was over 18 or something,it might be different(well it would be different), but they were both the same age.

I always wonder how these cases come about, i don't have a kid, but i wouldn't be getting someone sent down for having sex.

mike65

This law promotes promiscuity among girls

Stercus Accidit

If the law says a person can't be charged with this offence under 17 years of age, that should be applied to all genders, the proviso that it must be a girl is discriminatory and probably illegal under EU law.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

In all likeliihood it will be found to contradict the European Convention of Human Rights
Thats provided it passes in the SC.
Writing controversial un-thought out legislation like this causes so many problems in the long run, its bloody typical

Dont be at yourself

It's ridiculous on so many levels. What about if they were using contraception? What if he was sterile? Would he then be innocent?

And it's not like the boy is not taking risks by having vaginal intercourse himself. He's liable to catch an STD - and unplanned fatherhood for a young teen isn't exactly a walk in the park either.

Biggins

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

If the law says a person can't be charged with this offence under 17 years of age, that should be applied to all genders, the proviso that it must be a girl is discriminatory and probably illegal under EU law.

Here's hoping they take the fight that far and help get the antiquated farts to up-date the actual Irish laws - that should have been done ages ago.
While they are at it, they can up-date fathers rights too! :mad:

OutlawPete

Biggins wrote: »

While they are at it, they can up-date fathers rights too! :mad:

Wouldn't hold your breath, the Equality Authority couldn't give a **** about discrimination against men in the family courts.

That Neil Crowley guy has a vagina, I'm convinced of it.

Also, Judge Dunne's decision today would suggest that she has discriminatory thinking and if so, is therefore not fit to be holding such an important position in the justice system.

Has this imbalanced view effected her sentencing over the years for instance?

strobe

This line really stood out for me "Justice Dunne said society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences of such activity." Do you think she even see's the irony that this law means that males by far stand to bear to most severe adverse consequences (being labelled a sex offender, and potentially facing 5 years in prison), not the least, directly because of this law?

So whats her solution there? Prosecute the guy because the girl could get pregnant and then prosecute the girl because the guy could get prosecuted?

Nodin

How the jaysus can a 15 year old can be labelled a sex offender for consentually shagging a 14 year old in any reasonable mind......

landsleaving

Nodin wrote: »

How the jaysus can a 15 year old can be labelled a sex offender for consentually shagging a 14 year old in any reasonable mind......

They can't. Reasonable is the key word here.

lugha

In the interest of fairness I think the OP might have included the next paragraph of the report where the judge justifies her decision.

The quoted report above finishes with this

Justice Dunne wrote:

Section 5 only applies to sexual intercourse - thus the immunity only applied to the one area of sexual activity that can result in pregnancy. It is the one consequence of sexual activity that carries no risk for boys or men.

The next paragraph goes ..

Justice Dunne wrote:

Justice Dunne said society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences of such activity. She said the act goes no further than was necessary to achieve this object

Not that I find the argument especially convincing, but FT.

strobe

lugha wrote: »

In the interest of fairness I think the OP might have included the next paragraph of the report where the judge justifies her decision.

The quoted report above finishes with this

The next paragraph goes ..


Not that I find the argument especially convincing, but FT.

Hey buddy, no fair. That is in the OP in the report I quoted. I even requoted it myself three posts ago if you aim your eyes thusly ^, and gave my thoughts on that particular argument.

Bolag_the_2nd

strobe wrote: »

Why not "keep your legs closed girls"?

that just high lights the pleasure

lugha

strobe wrote: »

Hey buddy, no fair. That is in the OP in the report I quoted. I even requoted it myself three posts ago if you aim your eyes thusly ^, and gave my thoughts on that particular argument.

Oops! So you did. Apologies.
The report is a but untidy, the last line is duplicated in the middle of the report which is why I thought you had truncated it.

consultech

No risk??? Try 50 grand's worth of risk.

Tigger

Kristopherus wrote: »

Simple answer. Keep your pecker in your trousers.

troll

Mr. Presentable

I think reference to a particular case is not relevant. This is a reinforcement of a legal position on the basis that the risk of consequence being higher for the female puts the onus on the male to be responsible.

Only a female judge could have come up with that rationale, and I, for one, think it's misjudged and will be challenged to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary

Tigger

this is the worst yet


i hate everything about this

dude if your out there bail-fled-mexico

Coriolanus

Justice Dunne said society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences of such activity. She said the act goes no further than was necessary to achieve this object.

That is bizarre logic.

dlofnep

Up to 5 years for something he did when he was 15?

Fucking ridiculous. This country is arse-backwards.

Nodin

...a law that marks a non-raping 15 year old a sex offender, thats simultaneously meant to "protect children"....my brain would snap at the knotting required there....

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Biggins wrote: »

It does seem a tad extreme for something he did when 15, to be honest.

It is very extreme. I would like to know the whole story though. Why is being brought to court over this? Did something happen in the relationship? Did it go sour and the girl used this law to get to him? Did the parents find out and bring the case against the boy? Lots of things I don't know about it so difficult to say anything other than the law needs to be looked at.

OutlawPete wrote: »

The law judge is an ass.

The law is sexual discrimination, simple as that.

Louie Tinkling Raise wrote: »

Making it a crime to do what comes natural. Ridicolous

Agree fully with the above posts.

mike65 wrote: »

This law promotes promiscuity among girls

It is a very dangerous weapon for a dangerous woman/girl. If both parties are underage, I don't think the male should get a criminal record and possible jail time while the girl gets pity...

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

It's ridiculous on so many levels. What about if they were using contraception? What if he was sterile? Would he then be innocent?

And it's not like the boy is not taking risks by having vaginal intercourse himself. He's liable to catch an STD - and unplanned fatherhood for a young teen isn't exactly a walk in the park either.

It's odd alright. The man will have to pay a maintenance fee to the girl for the child, so he has some responsibility. I also don't like the lack of rights fathers have. It's really really sad..

Tigger wrote: »

troll

Use the report button mate

Tigger

why'd ya quote me?

Bonito

What about me? I had underage sex but the girl I was with turned 18 six months before I did. What way does that one work? Sick of this "One rul for you and another one for me" bullshít. Backwards fúckin' country.

Coriolanus

Girls and boys were equally liable to prosecution in respect of sexual activity, falling short of sexual intercourse.

Just noticed this. So pretty much they can do oral, anal, handjobs, tittyfúcks, tie each other up and use toys, and they'll be equally liable under the law.

Damn, if I ever have a male kid I'll have to make clear the distinction. "If you do her ass, it's all good son. Just stay away from the vag or you might get 5 years in prison."

Sarn

The idea that the girl is an innocent while the boy is a predator is ridiculous. Based on the law, I take it the girl became pregnant as part of her sentence? If she didn't, then why is the man being sentenced?

In this case I would like to know all of the facts as I thought I heard something about her allegedly being forced. Whether that was true or not, it would have had a significant bearing on the sentencing.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Tigger wrote: »

why'd ya quote me?

Sorry dude I was distracted

I edited my original post

minidazzler

The brunt of the consequences apparently fall on the girl....how does the judge know that the guy wouldn't do what he should?

That judge is a sexist twat.

fulhamfanincork

I can't believe there hasn't been more uproar over this.

Is it the girls family suing?

epgc3fyqirnbsx

The DPP has the discretion to accept such cases. I would have hoped that this might ensure such a ridiculous would never make it to court but it did.
On the plus side it will bring and has brought it before a constitutional court, and maybe even European which hopefully will lead it to being repealed (leaving yet another gap probably to be filled with more bad legislation)
But it's a terrible risk for the poor young lad to have such a criminal record. But at least it isn't necessary that he be added to the sex offenders list if convicted.

monkey9

mike65 wrote: »

This law promotes promiscuity among girls

Lesbian orgies ftw!!!!!

consultech

I would be fully supportive of a public uproar on this. It's actually ridiculous. Fuckin sick double standards. Not at all surprising for this shithole.

L.Jenkins

Laws like this seriously promote continued gender inequalities. To say that a young teenage couple aged 14 and 15 have sex, and only the male is charged, potentially convicted and sent to prison is aload of shite. Regardless of the consequences, either both genders should get a rap on the knuckles and go down for it, or the thing should be dropped.

Pittens

Only a female judge could have come up with that rationale,

Hmm, I think she is following the actual law here, not just creating a precedent - although it is hard to say exactly from the report what the law actually says, or when it was passed ( 760? I doubt it).

That said: i think there may have been some feminist pressure on the law, I remember Myers ( who occasionally has some diamonds in his general rough) writing about this a year or so ago.

Wasnt a new law passed based on the supreme court decision that Statutory rape was unconstitutional as the law then stood?

Pittens

To answer myself, yes it was.

After the old law was overthrown, the new law allowed defence on the grounds that the age was unknown to the rapist, but introduced as far as I can ascertain these new provisions where the female is to be protected, otherwise pregnant teenagers get thrown into prison.

jill_valentine

This stupid law flies in the face of feminism. Don't blame this one on us.

Bonito

Pittens wrote: »

To answer myself, yes it was.

After the old law was overthrown, the new law allowed defence on the grounds that the age was unknown to the rapist, but introduced as far as I can ascertain these new provisions where the female is to be protected, otherwise pregnant teenagers get thrown into prison.

Here's where you went on wrong. He did not rape her. It was underage consensual sex and the only reason he has been charged is because of this countrys back arse stupidity for a justice system.

Seriously, what good is going to come of this? Put the fear of god in to teens "Oh no we better not have sex I don't want to be put down as a sex offender when I turn 18"

stepbar

How did this case come about? Was it led by the parents?

Pittens

Some more information here


Direct link to Act (pdf) here

Bonito

stepbar wrote: »

How did this case come about? Was it led by the parents?

I'd say so. Haven't read fully in to it but he has turned 18, she hasn't, her parents are most likely forcing her to press charges against him as they still represent her seeing as she's not 18.

It's complete bull.

Pittens

Here's where you went on wrong. He did not rape her. It was underage consensual sex and the only reason he has been charged is because of this countrys back arse stupidity for a justice system.

In law he is, and did. That said I agree that rape is the wrong term here.