16 year old boy faces charges for consensual sex with 16 year old girl

thattequilagirl

http://www.thejournal.ie/statutory-rape-boy-concern-2643527-Mar2016/

This law is a joke.

It should be the same age of consent, with limitations on the application of statutory rape charges if the teens are within a year or two of each other's age.

This is so unfair on the lad.

eviltwin

It reads like complete snobbery on the part of her parents reporting him like that. It's a complete waste of resources and makes normal teenage behaviour a crime. It's ridiculous it even got this far.

Sonics2k

I read about it last night.

Kid has consensual sex, but the parents press charges because he's not of their class. And the Judge looks to be pinning it on the lad, even though she agreed to it.

Stupid law.

SEPT 23 1989

I think that young lad will have bigger problems in his future life than this case reading that report

thattequilagirl

Sonics2k wrote: »

I read about it last night.

Kid has consensual sex, but the parents press charges because he's not of their class. And the Judge looks to be pinning it on the lad, even though she agreed to it.

Stupid law.

It read to me like the judges hands are tied - technically under the law as it stands the lad committed statutory rape. It's the law that's wrong, not the judge - he's very concerned about the lad by that account.

IvyTheTerrible

From reading the article, it seems like the boy is a lot more vulnerable than the girl in the case.
Ridiculous law.

Samaris

The law is cock-eyed in that regard. And I'd also have to point out that if it was the girl that had developmental difficulties as it's suggested the boy does, he'd definitely be in the soup. Why aren't Romeo&Juliet laws applying in some way in this? They're the same age!

Your Face

Meh

osarusan

This is an absolutely horrible part of Irish law. The argument that the Irish Romeo and Juliet Law is discriminatory based on gender was made in the High Court a few years ago but the case was dismissed.

The judge in that case ruled that because the consequences of underage consensual sex are unequal, in that the girl can get pregnant, while the law is discriminatory, that discrimination is not 'invidious, capricious or disproportionate.'

Horrible ruling, horrible law.

Little CuChulainn

Samaris wrote: »

The law is cock-eyed in that regard. And I'd also have to point out that if it was the girl that had developmental difficulties as it's suggested the boy does, he'd definitely be in the soup. Why aren't Romeo&Juliet laws applying in some way in this? They're the same age!

There is a Bill published that will introduce a proximity of age clause to this kind of act. Just needs to be signed brought into law by the next government.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod:

Case is ongoing. No discussion allowed.