Age Of Consent Confusion...

spicy tuna ninja

Hello
Before I start I will say I have read the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 section three.

So If there were two 14-year-olds, in a heterosexual relationship, were to do any of the following actions : 'fingering' 'handjob' or oral sex, all with full 'consent' as in nobody was forced and both were willing.
Would it be Illegal

Pro Hoc Vice

simonkellly wrote: »

Hello
Before I start I will say I have read the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 section three.

So If there were two 14-year-olds, in a heterosexual relationship, were to do any of the following actions : 'fingering' 'handjob' or oral sex, all with full 'consent' as in nobody was forced and both were willing.
Would it be Illegal

As both under 15 then any possible defence to certain acts would not apply as set out in the 1935 Act, that being any act of Sexaul assault. So as section 5of the 2006 Act sets out that the female can not be guilty of any offence and that has been upheld by the SC then the male commits any offence.

Sleeper12

As for if it is against the law or who might be at fault, I can't answer but there is the law & the intent of the law. In a case like this the authorities or a judge would look at why we have the law & what the law is intended to do. The law here is to protect young teens. The only way I could see issues would be if one teenager was at a bigger disadvantage to make a decision. Let's say special needs or something.

Mrs OBumble

Can children that young really give consent though? Do they understand the potential consequences of their actions?

The law exists to protect them at ages when they are not mature enough to protect themselves?

Pro Hoc Vice

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Can children that young really give consent though? Do they understand the potential consequences of their actions?

The law exists to protect them at ages when they are not mature enough to protect themselves?

Well the stupid thing about the law as it currently stands is that two 14 year old son only the male commits any offence. So by definition the law finds he consents yet a girl of same age does not.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sleeper12 wrote: »

As for if it is against the law or who might be at fault, I can't answer but there is the law & the intent of the law. In a case like this the authorities or a judge would look at why we have the law & what the law is intended to do. The law here is to protect young teens. The only way I could see issues would be if one teenager was at a bigger disadvantage to make a decision. Let's say special needs or something.

If that was the case then this http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/supreme-court-upholds-law-allowing-prosecution-of-boys-and-not-girls-for-underage-sex-540989.html would not have gone to court.

goz83

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Well the stupid thing about the law as it currently stands is that two 14 year old son only the male commits any offence. So by definition the law finds he consents yet a girl of same age does not.

Quite insane tbh. I was 15 and my then gf was 16 when we did the act. Interesting that I was the criminal taking advantage in the eyes of the law :rolleyes:

Pro Hoc Vice

goz83 wrote: »

Quite insane tbh. I was 15 and my then gf was 16 when we did the act. Interesting that I was the criminal taking advantage in the eyes of the law :rolleyes:

There was if I remember in 2006 talk about a 2 year gap law, but the Talk To Joe mammies of Ireland had a **** fit.

Sleeper12

Pro Hoc Vice wrote:

would not have gone to court.

I hear you. Now I don't know the outcome of the case itself against the boy but I'm assuming that he wasn't actually found guilty of anything?

exaisle

The law on this topic is an ass. <<Mod. This part of post deleted. Pls keep it civil

spicy tuna ninja

exaisle wrote: »

The law on this topic is an ass. << Mod deletion>>

if this was reddit you would get gold for that reply

Pro Hoc Vice

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I hear you. Now I don't know the outcome of the case itself against the boy but I'm assuming that he wasn't actually found guilty of anything?

The SC allowed the prosecution and I think this may have been the case http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/boy-15-guilty-of-raping-girl-14-at-donegal-disco-1.2498359

Marcusm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The SC allowed the prosecution and I think this may have been the case http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/boy-15-guilty-of-raping-girl-14-at-donegal-disco-1.2498359

I guess that the legislature has been convinced that making rape a strict liability offence for males under the age of consent might mean that underage girls are not subject to the same level of cross examination regarding consent as would an adult female. While this might seem a noble cause, and the number of cases extremely low, it is, in my opinion, an undue intrusion into equality principles. All the ,ore so when you consider that the "boys" in this scenario are likely among the least informed group as regards legal matters.

Samaris

I'm not a legal person myself, just an interested lurker, so my comments are layperson and to be taken with a grain of salt :P

But from what I gather from this, the idea is that the boy can be held liable but not the girl " because girls risk pregnancy and the law is entitled to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences." (High Court ruling in 2010). But doesn't this sort of approach just mean that the boy's "adverse consequences" are being worsened to even things up a bit?

This seems unfair, and I'm usually pretty inclined to see the reasoning behind a law as fairly legitimate in concept. If the girl is too young to fully understand the potential consequences of sex, then surely the boy is too?

Can anyone give an example of other situations where punishment is administered on the basis of one group being more at risk where it doesn't change varying degrees of consent to a potentially illegal act? (So not including adults having sex with children or mental disabilities).

Sleeper12

Samaris wrote:

But from what I gather from this, the idea is that the boy can be held liable but not the girl " because girls risk pregnancy and the law is entitled to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences." (High Court ruling in 2010). But doesn't this sort of approach just mean that the boy's "adverse consequences" are being worsened to even things up a bit?

I'm a lay person myself. Could a defence barrister seek tests on the boy & girl to make sure both are fertile if the boy assumes the blame because of pregnancy? supposing it's proven that one of them weren't fertile who is to blame then?

Pro Hoc Vice

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm a lay person myself. Could a defence barrister seek tests on the boy & girl to make sure both are fertile if the boy assumes the blame because of pregnancy? supposing it's proven that one of them weren't fertile who is to blame then?

No.

Sleeper12

Pro Hoc Vice wrote:

No.

Seems unfair but this particular law seems unfair.

Matt Murdock

A family member was having a sexual relationship with a slightly underage girl. She got pregnant and had a healthy child.
Our family solicitor gave advice recommending that she did not name the father due to the fact that the registrar would report the father to the Gardaí.

He had to wait over 5 years before he came forward and had his name added to the birth cert. Both are married now and have further children.

But I will reiterate that the law is an ass in this situation.

Samaris

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm a lay person myself. Could a defence barrister seek tests on the boy & girl to make sure both are fertile if the boy assumes the blame because of pregnancy? supposing it's proven that one of them weren't fertile who is to blame then?

Hang on though, if one of the pair isn't fertile, no pregnancy can possibly result :P

spicy tuna ninja

Samaris wrote: »

Hang on though, if one of the pairs isn't fertile, no pregnancy can possibly result :P

yes but the test would occur some time after the incident so it would eb inaccurate

Pat Mustard

The question in the OP has been answered.

This thread has gone off topic, discussing the possibility of requests for fertility tests in relation to children. Weird stuff.

Thread closed.