Is Ireland correct to declare war on boys who have consensual sex with their girlfriends?

[femtastic]

Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.

Court hears 'Romeo and Juliet' laws appea

THE Supreme Court has been urged to overturn as unconstitutional the so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws which allow the prosecution of teenage boys for having sex with teenage girls but prevent prosecution of the girls.

The court is hearing an appeal arising from a 15-year-old boy being charged under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 with having sex with a 14-year-old girl in the Donegal Gaeltacht.

The boy is also charged with buggery and his trial is on hold pending the outcome of the appeal, which opened yesterday and will resume on a future date.

Section 3 of the 2006 act created an offence of defilement of a child under 17 and provided for a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment. Section 5 of the act stated a girl under 17 cannot be guilty of such an offence.

In the High Court in March 2010, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne ruled, while the law did amount to gender discrimination, that discrimination was not invidious, capricious or disproportionate.

As the risk of pregnancy as a result of underage sex was borne by girls only, not boys, society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those "who bear the least adverse consequences" of it, she said.

Outlining the boy's appeal against that decision, John O'Kelly SC said the kernel of the appeal was that both parties involved in this sexual act were children in law aged under 17, with only about a year between the two of them.

The boy's case was they engaged consensually in an act of sexual intercourse but under the act, one of them was liable to be convicted and possibly jailed for up to five years while the other was guilty of no criminal offence at all.

Mr Justice Nial Fennelly noted the 2006 act is neutral as to whether the act of sexual intercourse is consensual or not and the court was not getting involved in that issue in the appeal.

John Finlay SC, for the state, opposed the appeal and argued the High Court decision should stand. The disputed provision was a proportionate measure on grounds of pregnancy, he submitted.

Well, where I live he wouldn't be breaking the law, but...isn't the question here whether the law should be in existence or not?

The law is in existence to prevent society going back to the times of 'shotgun weddings'. Parents were not progressive and always protected their daughters. The consequences of sex are not equal for girls and boys, and that is why girls receive more protection from the law.

Why don't they just insist that the young men support any children they may have?

'Why don't they just insist that the young men support any children they may have?'

because as a society they have decided that there is an age limit involved to protect children who are under age. That overrides the issue that they have trouble enforcing some fathers to support their children.

Yes it's about protecting girls more than boys, since the consequences of sex are not equal for girls and boys.

But as dittany has said, the age limit is also to protect under age boys from older predatory boys, even though that is a rarer occurrence.

Parents would not stand by and accept boys getting away with sex with their under age daughters. The majority of parents are not progressive. It is a natural human instinct, which is why the law exists.

I honestly cannot believe this thread has got to 10 pages without this being brought up, but since it has, I will wade in.

If we accept that pregnancy is a real risk with having sex and we accept that abortion is illegal in Ireland, surely this means that any underage girl having sex in Ireland is at risk of becoming a teenage mother, yes? If we then have a law that says that the boy is imprisoned for having had sex with the girl (the baby would be irrefutable proof) then what happens to the baby?

In a country with shaky views on illigitimate children and single parents, how is it remotely sensible to risk increasing the amount of children born to young single mothers, by potentially removing the best source of support that young woman may have in raising her child by sending him to prison for 5 years? How is it in anyones interests for that child to spend their formative years either never seeing their father, even if both parents want contact, or being taken along to visiting hours at the local borstal?

5 years is a long time to a 15 year old who had consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, but it is longer to a 5 year old child, what with it being their whole lifetime and that.

Without wishing to sound all Maude Flanders, won't somebody think of the (theoretical) children?

I dont think anybody under 16 should be having sex because no one under that age has the emotional maturity of financial wherewithall to deal with the consequences. We cannot stop it happening with laws like this though.

This Romeo and Juliet law is wrong not just because it treats boys and girls differently but because it is all about a patriachal attitude in Irish society being enforced through the law of the land. Every law reflects the attitudes of the society that voted for it and crafted it.

SGB - you said something much earlier in the thread that sums up what I also strongly feel really underlies this law:

"... that drives the disgusting Father And Daughter Purity movement in America, where a young girl's virginity is her father's property until it is passed to her husband and whate she wants is irrelevant and unimportant.2

Absolutley right. This is all about one group of older men who are fathers of daughters passing a law to enforce control over another group of younger men who are lovers of their daughters. This law allows the older men to pretend to themselves, the priest and to the Catholic Church that their pure virginal daughter could not possibly have ever of her own free will actually wanted sex. By extension therefore, all the guilt is with the boy who wanted sex.

My DW is a Catholic and grew up in a community whjere there were a lot of strict Irish Catholic families and the grip of the priest, the church and the patriachal father on his family and especially his wife and daughters was deeply embedded in that community and quite palpable even in the 1970s.

I am astonished that anybody who calls themselves a feminist can't see this law for what it is. Fathers (ie the embodiment of the patriachy) taking it upon themselves to decide what women want. This is nothing to do with protecting minors against exploitation although that very clearly is extremely important and is an area that Ireland has massively failed in as recent revalations confirm.

This law has everything to do with preserving and protecting and enforcing the power of men and the church over women.

I would say it was illegal and explain why she should wait, but I would also help her gain access to contraception just incase. And I would support any law that discouraged it and penalised boys more than girls.

The law is there to act as a deterrent. You can't throw the law aside because some boys will be jailed.

Also judges will use their discretion. I presume that the 5 year sentences are not mandatory.

I wouldn't be allowing it to take place. I would onlt be taking precautions in case it did take place. If I was able to stop it then I would.

I would hold the boy more responsible. That is why the law is firm on this issue, so that everybody understands what the consequences of breaking the law are. It is a deterrent to try and prevent it from happening.

A lot of references to consent on this thread but underage children cannot legally consent to sex. If they're under the age of consent, then there is no consent.

The next question is whether, when you have one or two people who legally did not consent, they should be treated the same. Here I agree with Dittany. The consequences for a girl are far more serious than for a boy. The severity of those consequences for girls, particularly in a country where abortion is not legal, justifies this law IMO.

Of course the circumstances will always be taken into account in deciding whether to prosecute and also at sentencing. So, it may well be that if two 16 year olds had sex by agreement then it wouldn't be in the public interest to prosecute. But if a 16 year old boy has sex with an 11 year old girl, this law would allow charges to be brought on the evidence of sexual intercourse alone. That's a good thing IMO.

"I rate protectoin of teenage girls as more important than some boys" Dittany, that's because you don't have sons.

Now, here's a little tidbit for you. The age of consent in Spain is 13, if both parties are under the age of 16 (that last bit is if I remember correctly). Yet, they have the second lowest teen pregnancy rate in Europe... Just have a mull over that, if you will.

Now, if my son comes home aged 15, and says "I slept with my girlfriend (same age)" my first thought is not going to be "ohmyfuckinggod my son's a rapist!" Because he's not. Not if the girl gives consent. That's the optimal word here... consent. If you're telling me a 15 year old girl can't make up her mind, then you've never met my nieces... I spent my time as one of these teenage girls that needed "protecting". It left me struggling with my own identity after I left home

Like I mentioned before, our sex education needs to focus more on some important issues. I only left school ten years ago, and then, it was more about biology. We had a few chats about contraception, but never anything aabout loving relationships or consent. Possibly why my town has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in England.

Now, you keep going on about boys needing "punishment" for putting teen age girls at the risk of pregnancy. Is a lifetime on the sex offenders register, being turned down from potential jobs, having vigilantes driving them out of their homes etc, really a suitable punishment for a consensual decision? Really?

No I don't. But do you think it's important underage boys spend the rest of their life persecuted for a mutual agreement that happened when they were 15, regardless of whether a baby was the end result?

Agree very much with PiousPrat and Moreeta, but also with peanut: No need to criminalise what ought not to be regarded as criminal.

This conversation is so difficult because most of us are in the UK, and this law is in Ireland. Where despite our proximity and often sharing the same language, the cultures are quite different.

This law ties in with other laws that seem to us terribly wrong.

In a country where abortion was freely available and there wasn't a stigma on becoming pregnant and a highly religious Catholic background etc this law would certainly be way out of place.

However in a country such as Ireland it is easy to see why this law is wanted.

I would say that you can't get rid of one without the other. In my ideal world you would get rid of this, legalise abortion etc etc ie make it more like the UK. But it's not the UK, and so looking in the whole package needs to be taken into account, this one thing can't be viewed in isolation.