Another romeo and juliet incident

7sr2z3fely84g5

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0414/supremecourt.html

The Supreme Court has been urged to overturn the so-called 'Romeo and Juliet' laws which allow the prosecution of teenage boys for having sex with teenage girls but prevent the prosecution of the girls.

The five-judge court is hearing an appeal arising from a 15-year-old boy being charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl in the Donegal Gaeltacht.

The boy is also charged with buggery and his trial is on hold pending the outcome of the appeal. It opened today and will resume on a date to be fixed.

Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 created an offence of defilement of a child under 17 and provided for a sentence of up to five years imprisonment. Section 5 of the Act stated a girl under 17 cannot be guilty of such an offence.

The Act arose in response to the Supreme Court's 'CC' judgment overturning as unconstitutional a 1935 law on underage sex on grounds of the absence of a defence of 'reasonable mistake' as to the victim's age.

In the High Court in March 2010, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne ruled, while the law did amount to gender discrimination, that discrimination was not invidious, capricious or disproportionate.

As the risk of pregnancy as a result of underage sex was borne by girls only, not boys, society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those 'who bear the least adverse consequences' of it, she said.

The State opposed the appeal and argued the High Court decision should stand. The disputed provision was a proportionate measure on grounds of pregnancy, the Court was told.

Bless them hormones...

bonerm

Much Ado About Nothing.

El Weirdo

The boy is also charged with buggery.

Brown wings at 15? Nice.

swordofislam

put him in jail and throw away the key

OutlawPete

The silence from the Equality Authority is deafening still, as it is with of the so called "equality" organisations and lobby groups is this country and beyond when males are the ones being discriminated against.

In fact, this law was framed this way in 2006 on the back of sanctimonious sexist lobbying FROM these groups that claimed that if girls were to be prosecuted for having sexual penetrative sex (no immunity for other sex acts) then the girl might be afraid to report sexual assaults when they were raped.

Any law that would make criminals of females for committing a crime that males would be immune from, would never be passed, as society would not tolerate such legislation for so much as one day, let alone five fucking years.

Knasher

In the High Court in March 2010, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne ruled, while the law did amount to gender discrimination, that discrimination was not invidious, capricious or disproportionate.
As the risk of pregnancy as a result of underage sex was borne by girls only, not boys, society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those “who bear the least adverse consequences” of it, she said.

Seems fair to me, after all we all know that boys under the age of 17 are responsible individuals who are able to measure the risks of their actions and make mature decisions and that girls are only able to when they turn 17. :rolleyes:

Teddy_Picker

Buggery? Is that an offence? Or just for underage?

Pauleta

Whats Buggery? Im afraid to google it :pac:

Yakult

Five judges? What a waste of money.

strobe

Idiocy.

Aren't girls the ones “who bear the least adverse consequences” now? Being pregnant is not as adverse as being imprisoned for five years Justice Dunne, you incompetent fukwit.

Biggins

Pauleta wrote: »

Whats Buggery? Im afraid to google it :pac:

Its a pain in the arse of a crime.

PeakOutput

Teddy_Picker wrote: »

Buggery? Is that an offence? Or just for underage?

as far as I know buggery means forced anal not necessarily just anal so not much for you to worry about, unless she is under age

admiralofthefleet

Pauleta wrote: »

Whats Buggery? Im afraid to google it :pac:

i think its a shot up the bonus tunnel. dirty little feckers

Knasher

Teddy_Picker wrote: »

Buggery? Is that an offence? Or just for underage?

It's what gay men used to be charged with AFAIK, so it's an offence in the decade that Justice Dunne is from but I don't think so any more.

EDIT: Looked it up on wikipedia. Buggery was an offence until 1993, then it was reduced to just being an offence when you are under 17. The 2006 act which he is being charged with got rid of it entirely as something you can be specifically charged for. So I'm guessing that the reason he is charged with it specifically is because the court wants us to know that not only did they have sex but they were also having kinky sex. Fecking gossipy courts.

craggles

swordofislam wrote: »

put him in jail and throw away the key

Nice name. That's funny. You're funny.

drunkmonkey

This whole thing is daft, boy meets girl, they fcuk. Who's business is it of anyone else's. Grand parents can be upset but that's for the parents to deal with not the courts.

You can't drive, drink, get high at 15 what else is there to do besides chase girls.

admiralofthefleet

if a 17 year old girl has sex with a 16 year old boy does it make her a paedo?

Kadongy

PeakOutput wrote: »

as far as I know buggery means forced anal not necessarily just anal so not much for you to worry about, unless she is under age

No it's just anal. Forced anal is anal rape.

It doesn't indicate what penalty was handed out, does it. Odd.

Not sure what they seek to accomplish by putting a kid through an expensive and distressing trial over this. Wonder who her parents are.

holystungun9

Biggins wrote: »

Its a pain in the arse of a crime.

it's a pain in the arse that it's a crime.

El Weirdo

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

if a 17 year old girl has sex with a 16 year old boy does it make her a paedo?

No. Paedophiles are sexually attracted to pre-pubescents.

RichieC

Pauleta wrote: »

Whats Buggery? Im afraid to google it :pac:

how's the weather under that rock?

Wolfe Tone

Ahh, the Gaeltacht.


14 is a bit young, if I was the Da I would be getting the shotgun

admiralofthefleet

El Weirdo wrote: »

No. Paedophiles are sexually attracted to pre-pubescents.

sorry, i should have worded it differently. if a 17 year old girl has sex with a 16 year old boy can she be charged with rape of a minor

strobe

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Ahh, the Gaeltacht.


14 is a bit young, if I was the Da I would be getting the shotgun

So is 15. Maybe the Da of the girl should get his shotgun, the Ma of the boy should get her shotgun and they can face off at high noon...

...but then come to their senses and both shoot whoever drafted this law in their stupid retard face instead.

pockets3d

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

sorry, i should have worded it differently. if a 17 year old girl has sex with a 16 year old boy can she be charged with rape of a minor

http://i45.tinypic.com/2psoyhc.jpg

hatrickpatrick

This kind of sh!te REALLY pisses me off. Where are the hoards of feminists demanding "equality" here?! Are we not supposed to be all equal under the eyes of the law? It's an absolute outrage in this day and age that guys are still considered 100% responsible for an act which requires two people

As the risk of pregnancy as a result of underage sex was borne by girls only, not boys

Wow, that's a laugh. I guess the idea of being saddled with child support payments while having no rights to equal access to your own child doesn't count as a risk?

For all feminists complaining about our society (some of which is perfectly reasonable), women have their fair share of favourable double standards and you never hear a peep out of them complaining about it.

kjl

Right, So I am 31 and have only like had my bellend in a girls ass and this guy is schooling me at age 15. Tell you irish college has changed a lot since my days.

Knasher

So, IANAL, but if I understand this correctly, doesn't it mean that there is no age of consent for lesbians?

swordofislam

strobe wrote: »

So is 15. Maybe the Da of the girl should get his shotgun, the Ma of the boy should get her shotgun and they can face off at high noon...

...but then come to their senses and both shoot whoever drafted this law in their stupid retard face instead.

I'd shoot the boy myself and do the five years (suspended).

RichieC

swordofislam wrote: »

I'd shoot the boy myself and do the five years (suspended).

Troll light flashing..

Dudess

Buggery
Risk of pregnancy

Does not compute...

themadchef

kjl wrote: »

Right, So I am 31 and have only like had my bellend in a girls ass and this guy is schooling me at age 15. Tell you irish college has changed a lot since my days.

For the worse if that's the case. Anal sex at 14/15 and people are almost congratulating him?

FFS, i dunno lads, i'd like my kids to have a childhood of some sort...and im far from prudish.

Mike 1972

El Weirdo wrote: »

No. Paedophiles are sexually attracted to pre-pubescents.

But under Irish law there is no distinction between this and actual paedophillia.

Dudess wrote: »

Buggery
Risk of pregnancy

Does not compute...

Unless he gets a bit lost down there ?

Dudess

themadchef wrote: »

For the worse if that's the case. Anal sex at 14/15 and people are almost congratulating him?

FFS, i dunno lads, i'd like my kids to have a childhood of some sort

I'm in two minds about that - on the one hand, yeah, anal sex at that age does seem a bit much. On the other hand though, childhood is artificially prolonged - lots of people are sexually developed at that age.

Knasher

OutlawPete wrote: »

... if girls were to be prosecuted for having sexual penetrative sex (no immunity for other sex acts)

Please tell me this is a mistake, because otherwise what we seem to be saying to under-age girls is that they are criminals unless they go all the way.

easyeason3

Three pages in & no one has posted Dire Straits 'Romeo & Juliet'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tim4VzHUUyQ

up for anything

strobe wrote: »

Idiocy.

Aren't girls the ones “who bear the least adverse consequences” now? Being pregnant is not as adverse as being imprisoned for five years Justice Dunne, you incompetent fukwit.

Pregnancy ends up with a sentence that's a hell of a lot longer than five years.

Dudess wrote: »

I'm in two minds about that - on the one hand, yeah, anal sex at that age does seem a bit much. On the other hand though, childhood is artificially prolonged - lots of people are sexually developed at that age.

Lots of children of that age may be sexually developed but are emotionally immature with no idea of the consequences of many of their actions. I would imagine that they are trying to protect them against that.

It makes me 'laugh' that so many people here are against this law but on other threads would be bitching and whining about young ones living off social welfare with their umpteen brats by different fathers. What fourteen year old has the slightest idea about proper contraception!

Dudess

This law, while completely unjust, has its roots in the notion of the male as aggressor, the female as victim - and that notion is somewhat propagated, to be realistic, by attitudes like "I'd slice his balls off if it were my daughter :mad:" versus "If my son did it, I'd buy the little legend a pint ".

El Weirdo

up for anything wrote: »

What fourteen year old has the slightest idea about proper contraception!

Maybe that's why she was taking it up the Gary?

themadchef

easyeason3 wrote: »

Three pages in & no one has posted Dire Straits 'Romeo & Juliet'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tim4VzHUUyQ

Probably my favourite song....

up for anything

El Weirdo wrote: »

Maybe that's why she was taking it up the Gary?

I think there was probably a bit more to the story than the papers revealed because that is what I was thinking, but then thinking about most 14 year olds I know, they would be disgusted at the thought of anal sex and wouldn't go there. I wonder if she was someone easily taken advantage of and that's why the buggery charge was added on to make it more serious and less easy him to get out of.... I just couldn't find a way to end that sentence... I was considering back out, slip out of, slide out of - a bit like saying don't mention the war.

Ghost Train

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrDK0UoAkfY

strobe

up for anything wrote: »

Pregnancy ends up with a sentence that's a hell of a lot longer than five years.

"Five years Judge? Ouchy, that's pretty harsh, but ok. Now... will I abort my sentence or choose to let someone else that would be infinitely grateful adopt it for me? Hmmm , choices, choices, choices..."

up for anything

strobe wrote: »

"Five years Judge? Ouchy, that's pretty harsh, but ok. Now... will I abort my sentence or choose to let someone else that would be infinitely grateful adopt it for me? Hmmm , choices, choices, choices..."

Ah yes... really easy to make choices!




ETA: I'm not saying that any sentence let alone a jail term of five years is right. I was just pointing out that the girl may not get off scot free either.

OutlawPete

Knasher wrote: »

Please tell me this is a mistake, because otherwise what we seem to be saying to under-age girls is that they are criminals unless they go all the way.

Wish I could but that is how the legislation is framed. Girls can still be prosecuted for sexual activity; just not sexual intercourse. In fact a 16 year old girl could have sex with a 13 year old boy and still be immune from prosecution, the boy could be charged though. As said above, the "rationale" is that if girls were raped, they could fail to report it out of fear of being disbelieved and then prosecuted for engaging in under-age sexual intercourse.

HoneyRyder

themadchef wrote: »

Anal sex at 14/15 and people are almost congratulating him? FFS, i dunno lads, i'd like my kids to have a childhood of some sort...and im far from prudish.

Consensual sexual experimentation as a teenager is having a childhood, being trialled in court for it is not

strobe

up for anything wrote: »

Ah yes... really easy to make choices!




ETA: I'm not saying that any sentence let alone a jail term of five years is right. I was just pointing out that the girl may not get off scot free either.

Emphasis mine.




{Either: as well; Both}

7sr2z3fely84g5

Think the article got it wrong on act,says here-
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 makes it a criminal offence to engage or attempt to engage in a sexual act with a child under the age of 15 years. This is what is meant by the term ‘defilement’. The maximum sentence for this offence is life imprisonment. A sexual act for the purposes of the law includes sexual intercourse and buggery between people who are not married to each other and any sexual act which could constitute aggravated sexual assault.
The 2006 Act provides that the accused may argue they honestly believed the child was aged 15 years or over. The court must then consider whether or not that belief was reasonable. It is not a defence to show that the child consented to the sexual act.

I dont think this would apply given his age,

i did read somewhere a girl can be prosecuted if the boy is under age 17-

http://www.b4udecide.ie/the_facts/age_of_consent.html

If a girl is 17 and the boy is 16, will she get prosecuted? In this case, the girl may be prosecuted by the Gardai as she is 17. Whether the guards decide to prosecute a criminal offence or not always depends on a number of factors however, such as the circumstances of the case and the evidence at hand.

hatrickpatrick

As far as sex and pregnancy goes in the modern world, women have rights and choices.

Men on the other hand, only have responsibilities.

up for anything

strobe wrote: »

Emphasis mine.




{Either: as well; Both}

Pignola!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Wow, that's a laugh. I guess the idea of being saddled with child support payments while having no rights to equal access to your own child doesn't count as a risk?

I note the use of the word saddled. It says it all.

There are a lot of men out there who manage to evade paying child support, even of the court ordered sort, because they don't want to see that bitch getting a penny of their money even if their children suffer because of it.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as sex and pregnancy goes in the modern world, women have rights and choices.

Men on the other hand, only have responsibilities.

If you stop and think that it has only really been the modern world for 20 odd years and that it took a long, long time for women to achieve those rights and choices and for men to be forced to take on their responsibilities. It may take another twenty years for men to regain some of their rights and choices. Not fair maybe but changing the social order of things does take time, patience and perseverance. It's not right for the men who are suffering under changed laws but maybe they need to become more active and vocal in their protesting and attempts to gain equality, not just cribbing on internet forums.

zirazira

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as sex and pregnancy goes in the modern world, women have rights and choices.

Men on the other hand, only have responsibilities.

women should have enough choices.