Romeo and Juliet case

sonicthebadger*

Leaving aside the details of the case in question where there appears to be a lack of evidence and different explanations from each party so there may be a genuine case of rape to be heard, how can anyone think upholding this particular point of law was a good idea?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0223/court.html

This in just stuns me:

"The High Court ruled that while the law did amount to gender discrimination, that discrimination was not disproportionate because the risk of pregnancy is born by girls only." (spelling error by RTE... not stunning)

So babies are punishment for sex now? Sick ****s.

Let's look at the actual result here for the girl:

a)Is pregnant, boy doesn't want to go to jail, denies everything. She's raising a kid without his support or that of his family, hopefully with the help of her parent(s).

b)Is pregnant, boy is man enough to take an active responsibility in the life of his child... he goes to jail for up to 5 years, the father of her child has a criminal record and could be on the sex offenders register. Good start.

Actual result for the boy:

a)Deny everything.

b)Keep denying everything.

This law is just an anti sex law that fails completely in its job to protect children from adult sexual predators. How they cannot see that this will be the outcome I do not know.

Thoughts?

Delirium

so what if the girl involved is infertile?

And is there a reason I'm missing as to why you started the thread in this forum?

strobe

koth wrote: »

And is there a reason I'm missing as to why you started the thread in this forum?

I was wondering that myself. I think maybe the implication in the OP is that the law is a throw back to a 'Catholic Ireland/ no sex before marriage' mindset and influenced by that...

I do think it would be interesting to see if there is a difference of opinion between how the religious and non-religious would view the law, support it or not, though.

(Hmmm, maybe I could poll the lads over yonder...)

Galvasean

strobe wrote: »

(Hmmm, maybe I could poll the lads over yonder...)

I thought they were against homosexuality? :pac:

Peregrinus

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Leaving aside the details of the case in question where there appears to be a lack of evidence and different explanations from each party so there may be a genuine case of rape to be heard, how can anyone think upholding this particular point of law was a good idea?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0223/court.html

This in just stuns me:

"The High Court ruled that while the law did amount to gender discrimination, that discrimination was not disproportionate because the risk of pregnancy is born by girls only." (spelling error by RTE... not stunning)

So babies are punishment for sex now? Sick ****s. . . .

No, no, no. That’s not the implication at all. Take a step back.

The basic rule here is that sex with someone under 17 is an offence. Now, you could quibble with the precise age of 17, but the general idea there is an age below which sex is likely to be injurious and/or exploitative and should be legally restricted is, I think, widely accepted. So far, so good.

Our stereotype of someone who has sex with an underage partner is of an older man having sex with a young girl. But, of course, at lot of the time when a young person has sex, it’s with another young person. Are they each to be regarded as committing the offence of sex with a young person?

No, is the answer that Irish law has taken; the boy may be, but the girl is not.

I suspect that, when this law was framed (in the 1930s, if I’m not mistake) that provision was based not so much on attitudes to pregnancy but on stereotypical views about who it is that takes the initiative in male/female sexual encounters, and whose will is likely to be overborn by whose insistence. “Boys seduce girls”, basically, since girls, as we all know, are pure creatures whose time and interests are entirely taken up with being a Child of Mary, and polishing their brothers’ shoes.

This attitude won’t fly in 2012, but the law has never been amended. So, the question is, regardless of the reasons behind the original adoption of the law, will it now pass constitutional muster? Can this obvious discrimination against males be justified?

And, the court says, yes, it can, since the injury to girls from early sex is very much greater than the injury to boys, since the girls have the babies.

We might deplore this as sexist, but we have to acknowledge that it’s true. Single motherhood, and particularly early single motherhood, is closely correlated with poverty (for both mother and child); early single fatherhood, much less so. The burdens and costs of teenage pregnancy are simply not shared in an egalitarian way. And, while we might wish they were, until that happy day comes about girls are much more vulnerable than boys, and correspondingly a higher degree of legal protection for them can be justified. It’s plain from the report that the Supreme Court wasn’t thrilled with this approach, but they couldn’t say it was unconstitutional.

Boys are not always (or often) prosecuted in this situation. The fact that the girl was 14 here, rather than, say, 16, may have been a factor. Plus, I see that he was charged with buggery as well. I’m thinking that maybe this was not entirely consensual.

If I’m right, why wasn’t he charged with rape? I’m guessing, but I suspect they preferred the underage sex charge because it’s much easier to prove, and the trial would be much less traumatic for the victim. It attracts a lower sentence, of course, but when you’re dealing with a 15-year-old defendant that might be less of a consideration.

Peregrinus

PS: I read in a thread over on the Legal Discussion board . . .

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056558266

. . . that on the girl's evidence the sexual intercourse and the act of buggery were not consensual. There was also an act of oral sex which was consensual and which did not form the basis of any charge.

So, yes, I think this does provide some context for the decision. The "Romeo and Juliet" terminology in the headlines may not be entirely accurate.