Age of consent confusion

Biscuit17

If a 17 year old has sex with a 16 year old is it still against the law.

GarIT

Yes, 17 is the age in Ireland and that's it, it doesn't matter if its one persons 17th birthday and the other person is one day away from 17.

EoghanIRL

Gets pop corn

blahfckingblah

biscuit17... 17

Cookie_Monster

depends on who is 16 and 17, male or female.

anoda_username

Yes, why would u think it wasn't?

brummytom

If the 17 year old is a boy and the 16 year old a girl - NO, IT'S TERRIBLE. STRING HIM UP.

If the 17 year old is a girl and the 16 year old a boy - niiiiiiiice.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Don't do it Biscuit!

Sin City

Your going to jail
There isn't any consent.in there

admiralofthefleet

if a 17 year old lad has sex with a 16 year old he can go to jail

if a 17 year old girl has sex with a 13 year old lad she gets away with it?

SCOOP 64

Biscuit17 wrote: »

If a 17 year old has sex with a 16 year old is it still against the law.

ya ,but if you got the boat over to the uk you would be ok!

lkionm

Aboy biscuit. I hoped you wrapped your willy.


Hopefully you werent that bad and she wont bring you to court.

Dwork

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

ya ,but if you got the boat over to the uk you would be ok!

Book a ferry with a cabin Biscuit, and just do heavy petting till ye're past half way.Then fire ahead. So's to speak. Or not. Depending.

Biscuit17

Would they not turn a blind to it or something.

orestes

Yup, Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 , Section 3

If you honestly believed the person was 17 or over you have a defence, if you knew they were under 17 it doesn't matter if they gave consent or not, but charges can only be brought by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions. So if you can convince them it's no biggie I guess you're off the hook.

Interestingly, it say's a girl under 17 can't get prosecuted for an offence on the grounds of having sex, but it say's nothing about a guy, so it looks like if two 16 year olds go for it the guy can still get done for it but the girl can't.

Seachmall

Biscuit17 wrote: »

Would they not turn a blind to it or something.

Maybe, but sex with minors tends to be frowned upon these days.

Mal-Adjusted

Biscuit17 wrote: »

Would they not turn a blind to it or something.

as hypocritical as it is, they turn a blind eye to the girl but the lad gets both barrels from the judge...

it doesn't matter how close she is to 17, if caught, you'll be marked down as a pedophile and get yourself on the sex offenders register, just wait a few months man.

1ZRed

Ah to be having sex at 17 again!

SCOOP 64

Don't be panicking or worry to much, properly come to nothing.

IM0

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

as hypocritical as it is, they turn a blind eye to the girl but the lad gets both barrels from the judge...

is that innuendo

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Always ask for a valid passport or drivers licence and get a photocopy. Xtravision cards are no use.

orestes

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

as hypocritical as it is, they turn a blind eye to the girl but the lad gets both barrels from the judge...

it doesn't matter how close she is to 17, if caught, you'll be marked down as a pedophile and get yourself on the sex offenders register, just wait a few months man.

No you don't. Even if you're found guilty, if you aren't more than 2 years older than the other person you still won't be subjected to the Sex Offenders Act of 2001, so their name doesn't go on the sex offenders register.

And having sex with someone who is under 17 doesn't make you a pedophile by the way, by any definition legal or otherwise, but that's a different subject.

NoQuarter

I posted this in legal discussion a few months ago, thought I'd reproduce it here for clarity:



ANY person who engages in a sexual act (or attempts to) with a person under 17 is guilty of an offence.(5 years) Honest belief they were 17 is a defence, consent is not.

ANY person who engages in a sexual act (or attempts to) with a person under 15 is guilty of an offence. (Life sentence) Honest belief is a defence, consent is not. Honest belief is in relation to the child being 15 so if the honest belief was that the child was 15, they could still be liable under the previos offence.

Now the provision that causes all the hassle: 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.

So this means the following:

If the girl is over 17, she can be convicted of any of the above 2 offenced depending on the boys age.

If the girl is under 17, she cannot be convicted of any of the above offences.

If the boy is over 17, he can be convicted of any of the above offences depending on the girls age.

If the boy is under 17, he can only be convicted of the above offences if he is above the age of 12. And even if he is, if he is under 14, the DPP's consent is needed to bring the charges. So technically from 14 to 17 the boy is liable while the girl is not.



Doesnt really make sense to anyone but parliament drafted the legislation and the courts upheld it twice now so there must be something I'm missing! The pregnancy justification just doesnt sit well with me.

As a female, I say it should be the same law for males and females.

But give us our cheaper car insurance back please. I liked that.

orestes

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

As a female, I say it should be the same law for males and females over 17.

It already is, it's when they are both under 17 that things are different for males and females.

lkionm

How are they even to prove they made the sex though?


If the girls says her 17 year boyfriend had sex with her when she was 16, how does she prove it? Same as if the family walked in on them?

Surely its all a bit too hard to enforce?

orestes

orestes wrote: »

It already is, it's when they are both under 17 that things are different for boys and girls.

Mine edited. Didn't read the post above mine till after

Mal-Adjusted

orestes wrote: »

No you don't. Even if you're found guilty, if you aren't more than 2 years older than the other person you still won't be subjected to the Sex Offenders Act of 2001, so their name doesn't go on the sex offenders register.

that's a good thing. i'll defer to someone who knows better.

orestes wrote: »

And having sex with someone who is under 17 doesn't make you a pedophile by the way, by any definition legal or otherwise, but that's a different subject.

i meant by wider society

orestes

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

that's a good thing. i'll defer to someone who knows better.

i meant by wider society

I don't know better, I know nothing about the law, I just saw this thread and spent 5 seconds typing "Irish Age of Sexual Consent" into Google and 2 minutes reading the relevant information and applied a tiny bit of rational thought (when it says a girl under 17 can't be prosecuted, then it follows that a guy can).

The only difference between me and a member of "wider society" who would consider a 17 year old who had sex with a 16 year old a pedophile who is on the sex offenders register is using 3 minutes of time and a few braincells. Well, that and using a couple of more minutes to learn what "pedophile" actually means.

Dotsie~tmp

Shíte. I was hoping this was a New Order thread.

Where To

1ZRed wrote: »

Ah to be having sex at 17 again!

Ah to be having sex at all.

brummytom

1ZRed wrote: »

Ah to be having sex at 17 again!

Aren't you 18?


How much have things changed in a year?...

suicide_circus

I interfered with a 15 year old schoolgirl












When i was 15

biko

Absoluvely

Nobody has mentioned underage lesbian couples yet



'Cause I know that's what you're all thinking of (dreaming of).

1ZRed

Where To wrote: »

Ah to be having sex at all.

I second that, I'm cutting glass over here atm!

brummytom wrote: »

Aren't you 18?


How much have things changed in a year?...

I am, and they've changed many multiple times since

fasttalkerchat

Absoluvely wrote: »

Nobody has mentioned underage lesbian couples yet



'Cause I know that's what you're all thinking of (dreaming of).

Teenage lesbians are weird emo girls. There are no hot blonde ones until mid 20's.

1777

The whole age of consent thing really is absurd.

How is having sex with a 15 year old wrong? At least, any more wrong than having sex with an 18 year old?

In the liberal age, laws are needed for this kind of a thing, and it ends up as a load of nonsense. Back in the day, COMMUNITIES comprised of REAL MEN set the sexual mores. Without this solid foundation, societies turn to dirt.

im invisible

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Shíte. I was hoping this was a New Order thread.

no, we had that on the 21st of January,

Hasmunch

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

Don't be panicking or worry to much, properly come to nothing.

At 17 he'll probably come over everything!!

Seaneh

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

if a 17 year old girl has sex with a 13 year old lad she gets away with it?

I don't think so, as she'd be above the age of consent while he would be under, thus she's breaking the law.


However, if a girl is 16 years and 11 months and 3 weeks old, and she has sex with a boy who has just turned 13 (so, really, the same as your question admiralofthefleet) the girl cannot be charged but the boy can be and can even end up in jail. It's called a "Romeo and Juliet" Law and it's retarded in the extreme.

smash

1ZRed wrote: »

Ah to be having sex at 17 again!

Wasn't that last year for you?

1ZRed

smash wrote: »

Wasn't that last year for you?

2011 actually :pac:

I was taking the piss as tho I were an auld lad. Jesus

RUSTEDCORE

Guys and girls have different emotional levels.. although it is believed that girls mature mentally quicker than guys it is known that guys will make a choice based on what they want whereas girls can give consent and not really want to its kinda just how we are designed for lack of more accurate wording as ive been up all night I would say guys are aggressive and girls defensive.

and of course drink heightens these qualities.

munchkin_utd

Seaneh wrote: »

I don't think so, as she'd be above the age of consent while he would be under, thus she's breaking the law.


However, if a girl is 16 years and 11 months and 3 weeks old, and she has sex with a boy who has just turned 13 (so, really, the same as your question admiralofthefleet) the girl cannot be charged but the boy can be and can even end up in jail. It's called a "Romeo and Juliet" Law and it's retarded in the extreme.

yup, and a challenge to it in the high court failed there a few months back with the reasoning that the consequences for the female (possible pregnancy) waranted a corresponding consequence (entry in the sex register that will haunt you for life) for the male

Seriously, two 16 year olds get jiggy and its more than possible that the male side of the jiggyness ends up in court with a prosecution, jail time and an entry in the sex register that is flagged every time he later in life looks to train a football team.

How in the f+ck can a 16year old who is interested in a 16year old be considered a paedophile or in the same bracket and on the same register as some scumbag who breaks into a grannys house and rapes her in a violent hammer attack?

the groutch

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

Guys and girls have different emotional levels.. although it is believed that girls mature mentally quicker than guys it is known that guys will make a choice based on what they want whereas girls can give consent and not really want to its kinda just how we are designed for lack of more accurate wording as ive been up all night I would say guys are aggressive and girls defensive.

and of course drink heightens these qualities.

sounds like you're struggling to make excuses for a sexist law

smash

munchkin_utd wrote: »

How in the f+ck can a 16year old who is interested in a 16year old be considered a paedophile or in the same bracket and on the same register as some scumbag who breaks into a grannys house and rapes her in a violent hammer attack?

And even though legally allowed to have sex, if someone who's 17 sends a dirty picture to their partner of the same age the recipient can be done for possession of child pornography and the sender can be done for distribution.

Pumpkinseeds

A friend of mine was telling me recently that her 13 year old son is being pursued by a 17 year old girl. I was kind of shocked by it as when I was her age it was older guys that I and my friends would've been interested in. I can't really see why a 17 year old girl would be drawn to a 13 year old boy though. It just seems a bit creepy to me.

smash

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

A friend of mine was telling me recently that her 13 year old son is being pursued by a 17 year old girl. I was kind of shocked by it as when I was her age it was older guys that I and my friends would've been interested in. I can't really see why a 17 year old girl would be drawn to a 13 year old boy though. It just seems a bit creepy to me.

Have you seen this?

1ZRed

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

A friend of mine was telling me recently that her 13 year old son is being pursued by a 17 year old girl. I was kind of shocked by it as when I was her age it was older guys that I and my friends would've been interested in. I can't really see why a 17 year old girl would be drawn to a 13 year old boy though. It just seems a bit creepy to me.

It must be the Justin Bieber effect taking hold at long last :eek:


He's just a singer they said. He'll do no harm they said!

munchkin_utd

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

A friend of mine was telling me recently that her 13 year old son is being pursued by a 17 year old girl. I was kind of shocked by it as when I was her age it was older guys that I and my friends would've been interested in. I can't really see why a 17 year old girl would be drawn to a 13 year old boy though. It just seems a bit creepy to me.

at least he is fine (legally) since she is 17.

Now....
Should she have been 16 and force herself on him only 13 then that would be a matter for the guards and that 13year old boy would have caused an offence to the girl that is actively persuing him, so great that he would have his name on the sex offenders register for life.

Whereever he moves he will need to update his where about to the guards.
Should he have kids down the line he will not be able to help train their football/ soccer team etc as the garda vetting procedures now will flag him as a (statutory) rapist and paedo for having relations with an over forceful older girl.

It really is the most idiotic law still in the irish law books since stuff like the ban on catholics owning large horses was removed a couple of years back (amongst other crazy stuff that beggars belief)