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Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.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

'And if she drank underage, claig? What if (aand this is what I used to do aged 14) she smuggled alcohol out of your house to go get drunk with her friends?'

underage drinking is entirely different to underage sex. I wouldn't want people facing jail sentences for underage drinking.

He's charged with buggery. But nothing is said about it being non-consensual...

And not neccessarily... Perhaps we could... you know... learn something from Spain? That lowest teen pregnancy rate included abortions, y'know...

How is it different? Risks of drinking are as bad, if not worse than those of sex...

'no but you can be there to take her to and from school, keep her in the rest of the time, you could inform the school so that they can keep an eye on her, you could put her on report so she is monitored in every lesson, you could contact all her friends parents, to ensure that if she says she is with friend A in friend As house, they are aware she isnt allowed anywhere else.vWould you contact the boys parents??'

Why should I restrict her freedom like that. I prefer the law that deters boys from having underage sex.

OK, what if your daughter was a lesbian, and had underage sex with another girl... Which one gets prosecuted there?

having their lives destroyed simply for having consensual sex

Got to be careful with that argument. Consensual sex with a person under the age of consent is rightly subject to sanction (or in this case, unequal sanction).

Apparent consent, though vital, is not the be all and end all of assessing whether the sex should have legal sanctions because society recognies that some people are not able to consent, consent because of pressure or, though consenting, are then left to bear all the stigma and consequences of the sexual intercourse.

I am always surprised in these threads that sexual continence for boys is not seen as an option, in the way it is when girls are being discussed. It is open to boys to wait, not have full intercourse, or seek out partners over the age of consent. Why is the idea of a 14 year old boy being told to tie a knot in it such a bad or unrealistic one? Is it because it overturns the conventional assumptions that men should not, need not or cannot control their sexuality and women are the gatekeepers of sexual morality? All a bit Nadine Dorris, that.

'What if the girl instigated sex? What if she pushed him into it?'

Then teh judge would take that into account. But at teh end of teh day the onus is on teh boy and not the girl, and I think that is right, and that is how most societies have operated for centuries. It may not be progressive, but I think it's right.

'OK, what if your daughter was a lesbian, and had underage sex with another girl... Which one gets prosecuted there?'

Difficult one. To me that is less serious. Would have to think about it more.

'Risks of drinking are as bad, if not worse than those of sex...'

what, so a hangover is worse than being made pregnant and either having an abortion or bringing up a child?

'He's charged with buggery. But nothing is said about it being non-consensual...'

I don't care if it was consensual. He should be charged.

But why? Does that mean you think gay men should not have sex?

Hang on, I've known people to die from drinking. My ex almost died, for one. Add to that, there's the risk of alcohol addiciton, or cirhossis of the liver...

So... dead daughter or pregnant daughter... which is preferable there?

'But why? Does that mean you think gay men should not have sex?'

Of course not, provided they are over the age of consent.

'dead daughter or pregnant daughter'
pregnant daughter and the law upheld with regards to underage sex.

"Because you said you would do everything you could to try to stop her - because it is ilegal, because then you, as the parent, would be taking reponsibility intead of passing it onto a teenage boy." Or how about this radical idea? Teenage girls can make their own decisions... Therefore, they can take responsibility for such (in the case of sex, that would be joint responsibility

'I would suggest underage drinking is far more of a problem than underage CONSENSUAL teenage sex.'

Then why aren't judges in Ireland handing out 5 year sentences for underage drinking?
Is it because the progressives have not taken over the asylum?

But why are they handing out five year sentences and ruining teenage boys lives for a mutual decision?

'Teenage girls can make their own decisions... Therefore, they can take responsibility for such (in the case of sex, that would be joint responsibility'

I don't agree with that. I believe in parental responsibility for children and until they are 16, they are under age and parental responsibility takes precedence.

'But why are they handing out five year sentences and ruining teenage boys lives for a mutual decision?'

In order to act as a deterrent, to try to prevent it happening on a wider scale. Because they think it is important for the girl's well-being that it does not happen. Because they are protecting underage girls.

So, if your teenage daughter goes out and has sex aged 15, because of parental responsibilty, the teenage boy in question is also not accountable... Nope, under your arguement, that would see the parents prosecuted...