18 year old sex with 16 year old

kd12345

Hi, I'd like to gather some information about underage sex. So many people have underage sex nowadays and I just want to ask some questions.

Male is 18 years old, female is 16 years old.

1) If male has intercourse with female where both want to have it and with both parents knowing and allowing it, what problems may arise?

2) If this happens, then for some reason female wants to report male, and makes up lies that she was forced, what will happen?

3) Is it fine for male to sleep with female, without having intercourse?

4) Is it really true that male can become a sex offender if they both have sex, but both wanted to have it? Or is it a little more complicated than that?

Thank you in advance!

judeboy101

kd12345 wrote: »

Hi, I'd like to gather some information about underage sex. So many people have underage sex nowadays and I just want to ask some questions.

Male is 18 years old, female is 16 years old.

1) If male has intercourse with female where both want to have it and with both parents knowing and allowing it, what problems may arise?

2) If this happens, then for some reason female wants to report male, and makes up lies that she was forced, what will happen?

3) Is it fine for male to sleep with female, without having intercourse?

4) Is it really true that male can become a sex offender if they both have sex, but both wanted to have it? Or is it a little more complicated than that?

Thank you in advance!

You can marry her, then you can legally do it but you'll have to get a court exemption order to get married.

kd12345

judeboy101 wrote: »

You can marry her, then you can legally do it but you'll have to get a court exemption order to get married.

That answers none of my questions. but thanks

Greybottle

Age of Consent in Ireland is 17, so to answer your questions..

1. It's an offence no matter who consents so 18 year old could be done for underage sex.

2. If she was 16 then he's guilty of sex with a minor no matter if she lied about being forced or not.

3. Yes, normally it's OK.

4. Yes it's true, though it's up to a court to judge.

The questions sound very specific. If this is a real case rather than hypothetical then I'd suggest you contact a solicitor. In the meantime look up Age of Consent.

Indricotherium

kd12345 wrote: »

2) makes up lies that she was forced

Children can't consent.

kd12345

Greybottle wrote: »

Age of Consent in Ireland is 17, so to answer your questions..

1. It's an offence no matter who consents so 18 year old could be done for underage sex.

2. If she was 16 then he's guilty of sex with a minor no matter if she lied about being forced or not.

3. Yes, normally it's OK.

4. Yes it's true, though it's up to a court to judge.

The questions sound very specific. If this is a real case rather than hypothetical then I'd suggest you contact a solicitor. In the meantime look up Age of Consent.

Thank you.

Also the questions are specific indeed, probably because I like to gather the most information I can. They are most certainly hypothetical, but thank you for your concern!

kd12345

Indricotherium wrote: »

Children can't consent.

just because she can't consent doesn't mean she was forced though.

Peregrinus

If she "makes up a lie" that she didn't consent, then it's possible that the 18-year-old will be charged with rape, rather than merely with defilement of a child under the age of 17 years.

Possible, but perhaps not certain. A conviction would be much easier to secure on the defilement of a child charge, and the trial process would be much less traumatic for the victim. So even if she did say that she didn't consent, the authorities might decide to prosecute for the lesser offence anyway.

As for "what if they sleep together without having intercourse?", if it's literally just sleeping together you should be OK. But any kind of sexual touching or sexual activity, even if it doesn't amount to intercourse, could still amount to one of the offences dealing with sexual activity with a child.

tedpan

Welcome to boards. Very strange first post.

Peregrinus

Indricotherium wrote: »

Children can't consent.

They can, if they have the mental/emotional capacity/maturity. It's just that consent is irrelevant to a charge of defilement of a child under the age of 17. But if the 18-year old were charged with rape, then the question of whether the 16-year old had consented would be a central issue in the trial.

kd12345

Peregrinus wrote: »

If she "makes up a lie" that she didn't consent, then it's possible that the 18-year-old will be charged with rape, rather than merely with defilement of a child under the age of 17 years.

Possible, but perhaps not certain. A conviction would be much easier to secure on the defilement of a child charge, and the trial process would be much less traumatic for the victim. So even if she did say that she didn't consent, the authorities might decide to prosecute for the lesser offence anyway.

As for "what if they sleep together without having intercourse?", if it's literally just sleeping together you should be OK. But any kind of sexual touching or sexual activity, even if it doesn't amount to intercourse, could still amount to one of the offences dealing with sexual activity with a child.

Thanks for the info.

But making out in bed is fine, correct?

kd12345

tedpan wrote: »

Welcome to boards. Very strange first post.

Indeed it is, but I don't mean to use you all for information! haha. It seemed that this place was full of knowledgeable people so I said I'd go ahead and make an account and ask some questions that were small concerns of mine.

Sleeper12

kd12345 wrote:

just because she can't consent doesn't mean she was forced though.

It's rape according to the law. Doesn't matter if she lies or not

Peregrinus

Is this one of these "how far can you go?" conversations?

"Making out in bed" is not necessarily fine, though much depends on what you understand by "making out". Any sexual activity in the presence of a child is an offence, and that necessarily covers any sexual activity with a child. A "child" is anyone under 17.

I think what you'd be relying on is not showing that there was no offence, but rather showing that there was a good defence. If the age gap is less than 2 years, and if the older party is not a "person in authority" with respect to the child, then you have a defence if if the relationship between the couple is not "intimidatory or exploitative of the child." But note that this is a defence, which means that the defendant has to prove it. So it's not up to the state to show that the relationship was intimidatory or exploitative; it's up to the defendant to show that it wasn't.

Plus, I'd point out, the "intimidatory or exploitative' test looks at things from the point of the child, not the older person. So if the child experiences the relationship as intimidatory or exploitatative, the fact that the older person didn't see it that way, and/or didn't grasp that the child did, isn't necessarily going to get the older person off.

Peregrinus

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's rape according to the law. Doesn't matter if she lies or not

The issue with rape is consent, not force. If she didn't consent, it's rape. It doesn't matter whether her consent was overborne by force or by some other factor, e.g. fraud, her unconsciousness, etc.

But for a rape conviction, the prosecution does have to prove that the victim did not consent. It's not enough to prove that she was under 17. Sex with a person under 17 is the offence of sexual activity with a child. Sex with a person under 17 who does not consent is the offence of rape.

tedpan

kd12345 wrote:

Indeed it is, but I don't mean to use you all for information! haha. It seemed that this place was full of knowledgeable people so I said I'd go ahead and make an account and ask some questions that were small concerns of mine.

OK, may I ask why this a concern of yours?

Samuel T. Cogley

tedpan wrote: »

OK, may I ask why this a concern of yours?

The forum is specifically for questions in the abstract in fairness.

IIRC at this age and with this difference in ages (2 years) the DPP won't prosecute, so the OP's question of force would be more relevant than paerha it would be if she was 15. It's still rape though so OP.

Edit: I'd forgotten how freaky that video is.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Just to be clear, while the DPP generally elects not to prosecute where the couple are close in age, that's a policy, not an inflexible rule, and there are circumstances in which she will prosecute. If there's an allegation of force or lack of consent, that would clearly be a case where she might feel that prosecution would be warranted.

Samuel T. Cogley

Peregrinus wrote: »

Just to be clear, while the DPP generally elects not to prosecute where the couple are close in age, that's a policy, not an inflexible rule, and there are circumstances in which she will prosecute. If there's an allegation of force or lack of consent, that would clearly be a case where she might feel that prosecution would be warranted.

Sorry poor choice of words on my part; have discretion not to prosecute is what I should have said.

kd12345

tedpan wrote: »

OK, may I ask why this a concern of yours?

It's something my girlfriend and I were discussing, so I wanted to get as much information about the topic as I could

kd12345

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The forum is specifically for questions in the abstract in fairness.

IIRC at this age and with this difference in ages (2 years) the DPP won't prosecute, so the OP's question of force would be more relevant than paerha it would be if she was 15. It's still rape though so OP.

Edit: I'd forgotten how freaky that video is.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I see, thank you for the info!

pah

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The new sexual offences act puts this particular situation on a statutory footing.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

(8) Where, in proceedings for an offence under this section against a child who at the time of the alleged commission of the offence had attained the age of 15 years but was under the age of 17 years, it shall be a defence that the child consented to the sexual act of which the offence consisted where the defendant—


(a) is younger or less than 2 years older than the child,


(b) was not, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, a person in authority in respect of the child, and


(c) was not, at the time of the alleged commission of the offence, in a relationship with the child that was intimidatory or exploitative of the child.”.

kd12345

pah wrote: »

The new sexual offences act puts this particular situation on a statutory footing.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

Can you elaborate on and C) for me?

What does it mean that is shall be a defence? Does this mean punishment for a less-than-2-year age gap is less severe, and if they're in a relationship even more less severe?

And is it no matter what, you will be listed as a sex offender? Or are there cases where you will not be listed as a sex offender?

Thank you.

Peregrinus

No. It means that if you're charged with having sex with a 16-year old, and you can prove (a) and (b) and (c), then you're not guilty; you'll be acquitted. There'll be no conviction, no punishment, no listing as a sex offender, nothing.

But note that it's up to you to prove these things; it's not up to the state to disprove them. And you have to prove all three of them.

Samuel T. Cogley

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. It means that if you're charged with having sex with a 16-year old, and you can prove (a) and (b) and (c), then you're not guilty; you'll be acquitted. There'll be no conviction, no punishment, no listing as a sex offender, nothing.

But note that it's up to you to prove these things; it's not up to the state to disprove them. And you have to prove all three of them.

On preponderance of the evidence (theoretically)?

Really Interested

kd12345 wrote: »

Can you elaborate on and C) for me?

What does it mean that is shall be a defence? Does this mean punishment for a less-than-2-year age gap is less severe, and if they're in a relationship even more less severe?

And is it no matter what, you will be listed as a sex offender? Or are there cases where you will not be listed as a sex offender?

Thank you.

A defence is a full defence so if the girl is over 15 but less than 17 and the other party is younger or within 2 year then no offence as long as the other party not in a position of authority or it is not a exploitive relationship.

I love Sean nos

kd12345 wrote: »

So many people have underage sex nowadays

Do they?

Samuel T. Cogley

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Do they?

I dunno about Ireland and 2017 but in 90s UK teenagers were going at it like rabbits and I thought always did and would. I've always found the age of consent laws here to be a bit odd but more about protecting children from adults than each other, but without that being properly put (arguably until recently) in legislation.

Peregrinus

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Do they?

Many do, but it's still a minority. A largeish minority.

A study a couple of years back of adult now in their twenties found that 32% of the men and 22% of the women had had sex before their 17th birthday.

Europe-wide, the median age for first sexual intercourse for both men and women has in fact been rising (modestly) for the past decade or so, having fallen (significantly) over several previous decades. I don't know whether there's evidence that it has risen in Ireland in the same way.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. It means that if you're charged with having sex with a 16-year old, and you can prove (a) and (b) and (c), then you're not guilty; you'll be acquitted. There'll be no conviction, no punishment, no listing as a sex offender, nothing.

But note that it's up to you to prove these things; it's not up to the state to disprove them. And you have to prove all three of them.

Evidential burden of proof can't change to the accused unless statute or common law requires the accused to prove their defence, in this case it allows you to raise the defence but does not require you to prove it, the state must rebut your defence.

Pat Mustard

Thread closed for moderator review.

Please do not send any PMs in that regard for a period of 48 hours, in order to allow moderator review.

Pat Mustard

Mod note:

Thread reopened and posters may feel free to post.

New posters are pointed to the forum charter, which does not allow requests for legal advice or trolling, amongst other things.

Please do not reply to this post on the thread.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Just on a related topic how does consent legislation match with recognition of weddings.

For example say an 18 year old and a 16 year old get married either with parental consent in northern Ireland or without parental consent in Scotland.

Is it still illegal for the couple to engage in sexual intercourse with the Republic of Ireland?

The ops question reminded me of a marriage in a work of fiction which prompted the question.

Victor

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Just on a related topic how does consent legislation match with recognition of weddings.

For example say an 18 year old and a 16 year old get married either with parental consent in northern Ireland or without parental consent in Scotland.

Is it still illegal for the couple to engage in sexual intercourse with the Republic of Ireland?

The ops question reminded me of a marriage in a work of fiction which prompted the question.

The marriage would likely be legal in Ireland, so it would likely be legal for them to have sex - on the grounds they are married. The courts will look to see if the rules for marriage in the other jurisdiction is broadly equivalent to the rules for marriage here. In Ireland, one can marry at 18, but can marry younger than that with the consent of the High court.

However, if they were married somewhere that allows marriage at say age 12 (Ireland pre-1935), it might not be legal, as the marriage might not be recognised.

TheBeach

Have a read about romeo and juliet law I think it covers this kind of situation.

RandomName2

An 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old is rape by definition, unless the 18 year old is female. This is only true in Ireland, which has the highest age of consent in Europe because of backwards laws that were originally introduced to placate the Catholic Church. It would be perfectly legal in Northern Ireland.

Peregrinus

RandomName2 wrote: »

An 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old is rape by definition, unless the 18 year old is female.

No, it isn't. It's the offence of engaging in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years, and it is that offence regardless of the gender of the older partner.

Rape is an entirely different offence, which consists of sexual penetration of somebody without their consent, regardless of their age. There is no age-related rape offence in Ireland.

Ireland doesn't have the highest age of consent in Europe; the age of consent in Malta is 18. I'm sceptical of the claim that the age of 17 was adopted "to placate the Catholic church", given that the age of consent in Northern Ireland was also 17 until a few years ago, and the Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people wasn't notably concerned with placating the Catholic church. Besides, historically Catholic countries tend to have a lower age of consent; it's fourteen in Italy, Austria and Portugal, for example, and fifteen in France. An age of 16 or higher is more associated with historically Protestant countries - England, Scotland, the Netherlands, Norway - or countries ruled by them - Ireland, Malta.

Peregrinus

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Just on a related topic how does consent legislation match with recognition of weddings.

For example say an 18 year old and a 16 year old get married either with parental consent in northern Ireland or without parental consent in Scotland.

Is it still illegal for the couple to engage in sexual intercourse with the Republic of Ireland?

The ops question reminded me of a marriage in a work of fiction which prompted the question.

Victor wrote: »

The marriage would likely be legal in Ireland, so it would likely be legal for them to have sex - on the grounds they are married. The courts will look to see if the rules for marriage in the other jurisdiction is broadly equivalent to the rules for marriage here. In Ireland, one can marry at 18, but can marry younger than that with the consent of the High court.

However, if they were married somewhere that allows marriage at say age 12 (Ireland pre-1935), it might not be legal, as the marriage might not be recognised.

Just a footnote to what Victor said. If you're ordinarily resident in Ireland, then Irish law on the age of marriage applies to you no matter where your marriage is celebrated. So if an Irish resident aged 17 goes to Scotland and marries, that marriage is not recognised in Ireland. Similarly if an Irish resident goes to Scotland and marries a 17-year old. But those marriage would be recognised in Ireland if neither spouse were ordinarily resident here.

Really Interested

TheBeach wrote: »

Have a read about romeo and juliet law I think it covers this kind of situation.

Ireland currently does not have such a law it is proposed but at the moment a 16 year old boy who has sex with a 15 year old women commits an offence, while a 16 year old girl with a 15 year old boy does not.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/act/15/section/5/enacted/en/html#sec5

Peregrinus

Really Interested wrote: »

Ireland currently does not have such a law it is proposed . . .

We do have such a law. It came into force on 27 March last.

Really Interested

Peregrinus wrote: »

We do have such a law. It came into force on 27 March last.

I must have missed that can you link?

Found it

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

Am i missing something but does section 16 not have the same defence.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/16/enacted/en/html#sec16

I remember the act now but was looking at the sex industry provisions.

Peregrinus

Really Interested wrote: »

Am i missing something but does section 16 not have the same defence.

No, you're right, it doesn't.

That's how Romeo-and-Juliet clauses work. They cover cases where the relationship is consensual, non-exploitative, etc, where the couple are close in age, and where they are both close to or over the age of consent.

If one of the couple is 14 or younger, a Romeo and Juliet defence is not available.

neonsofa

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it isn't. It's the offence of engaging in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years, and it is that offence regardless of the gender of the older partner.

Rape is an entirely different offence, which consists of sexual penetration of somebody without their consent, regardless of their age. There is no age-related rape offence in Ireland.

Is it not statutory rape? Not saying it is, genuinely asking of that's a thing in Ireland.

Peregrinus

neonsofa wrote: »

Is it not statutory rape? Not saying it is, genuinely asking of that's a thing in Ireland.

No, it's not a thing in Ireland. The term is sometimes loosely used in an Irish context by people who watch too many US TV shows, but it's not accurate and it leads to all kind of confusion.

We don't have statutory rape in Ireland. We just have one kind of rape, which is called "rape", and which is not age-related in any way.

neonsofa

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it's not a thing in Ireland. The terms is sometimes loosely used in an Irish context by people who watch too many US TV shows, but it's not accurate and it leads to all kind of confusion.

We don't have statutory rape in Ireland. We just have one kind of rape, which is called "rape", and which is not age-related in any way.

Every day is a learning day, thanks for the comprehensive answer!

Really Interested

neonsofa wrote: »

Is it not statutory rape? Not saying it is, genuinely asking of that's a thing in Ireland.

Rape is normally where there is no consent. A Statute that says a person under the age of x can never consent hence the term statutory rape.

neonsofa

Really Interested wrote: »

Rape is normally where there is no consent. A Statute that says a person under the age of x can never consent hence the term statutory rape.

I wasn't asking what it means, asking if it applies in Ireland. Got my answer, thanks.

Peregrinus

Really Interested wrote: »

Rape is normally where there is no consent. A Statute that says a person under the age of x can never consent hence the term statutory rape.

There is no Irish statute which says that a person under a given age can never consent.

Really Interested

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is no Irish statute which says that a person under a given age can never consent.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cp63.htm

"It notes that the Oireachtas has created a number of protective offences, including section 5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 and section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 (statutory rape/defilement of a girl under 15 years), that depart from the common law position by imposing an objective test of capacity. The Oireachtas does so by enacting protective offences which apply to categories of vulnerable individuals and to which consent is not a defence"

That is a law reform paper on the issue. My reading of the law is that a child under 15 can never consent but unlike the USA a defence of honest mistake can be raised.

Peregrinus

A child can consent. Indeed, they could consent enthusiastically.

But, as s. 3 was worded when the Law Reform Commission wrote its paper, that's irrelevant. Consent or lack of consent was not an element of the s. 3 offence. It made no difference whether the child consented or not.

S. 3 has now been amended. Consent or lack of it is still not an element of the offence, but it is an element of the defence available under s. 3(8).