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Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.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

'You believe in parental responsibility, as ,ong as you dont have to take any.'

I take as much responsibility as I can, but when I am not there, the boy who buggered the underage girl needs to take responsibility.

The Grimms had the right idea, y'know... Lock your daughters up in a tower until you feel they're old enough to have sex...

Oh wait... It didn't work there, either, did it?

I have a son of 11

But he was 15... under 16, the parents are responsible... I mean, 15 year old girls can't be responsible for their actions... Surely the same is said of 15 year old boys?

'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...'

It's got nothing to do with the parents and everything to do with the boy. I certainly am not in favour of prosecuting the parents, just the boy.

OK, so if he comes home aged 15, saying he's slept with his girlfriend will you

a) give him a lecture, ground him but double checkk he used contraception
b) frog march him to the police, so he can be locked up, yourself?

'15 year old girls can't be responsible for their actions... Surely the same is said of 15 year old boys?'

No I agree with the law, which says that the boy bears greater responsibility. That's the way it has always been done in most societies and I think it is right.

But you said, under the age of 16, the parents are responsible... Why does this not apply to boys? Are the superior to us because they have a penis?

You know, for a while, I was thinking equal rights = equal responsibilty...

Hope it never happens. But when they prosecuted him, I would say that it was fair, because that is the law and he knew it.

'You know, for a while, I was thinking equal rights = equal responsibilty'

Yes, you were thinking progressively.
Maybe this discussion will have changed your mind.

No, stick to the options....

a) you give him the lecture or
b) YOU escort him to the police station to have him locked up

Nope, I still think it's pretty misogynistic that word we can't say here to say boys bear more responsibility for a joint decision. It's also a little misandrous too

'under the age of 16, the parents are responsible... Why does this not apply to boys? Are they superior to us because they have a penis?'

it does apply to boys, and if boys break the law, then they have to face the consequences.

'Are they superior to us because they have a penis?'
Where does superiority come into this?

Because you're saying boys have the capacity to make a decision and be responsible for it, yet girls don't...

I am really unsure about this. I tend to fall in the same camp as dittany and claig, because the consequences of sex in a country where abortion is illegal are so much more severe for girls than they are for boys. Also, sex before the age of consent is legal rape, regardless of whether you feel that is right or wrong.

However, the idea of criminalising a 15-year-old boy for what could be just a really bad decision to have sex too early (as teenagers of both sexes are want to do) is making me very uncomfortable, especially the fact that he could be on the sex offenders register for the rest of his life.

I will be bringing up my DS with a strong view about issues of consent, and I will try to get him to understand that the law considers sex before the age of consent to be rape and that he should be mindful of that fact. But I don't like the idea that he and his gf at say 15.5 years of age could have mutually agreed sex and then he could be imprisoned for it (if he lived in Ireland). I strongly suspect it would be unlikely to happen in reality though for the reasons claig pointed out earlier.

I think I agree with the law in principle but I would like to see some sort of clearly defined areas about what constitutes discretion - such as the ages of the children, the age gap between them, whether contraception was used, etc.

Then again, I see the point that this could be considered a patriarchal control of women's virginity.

Umm. I think I need to do more thinking about this.

No, stick to the options....

a) you give him the lecture or
b) YOU escort him to the police station to have him locked up

It's hypothetical. I don't know what I would do. But when they came for him, then I would accept it as the law of the land, because he would have broken that law.

'Because you're saying boys have the capacity to make a decision and be responsible for it, yet girls don't...'

No, they both have the capacity, but the boy has the duty. That is the law of society, as it has been enacted for centuries. That is right.

But isn't that a bit... backward thinking?

Oh wait... What happened to the feminist board? It was a mans right to strike his wife for centuries... does that mean it's right?

Agree with HRH''s children and DBS (not clear on that acronym, btw)

Not everything that was done in the past is backward. Many of our customs and traditions exist for a valid purpose.
'A man's right to strike his wife' is wrong, but so is it wrong for a boy to have sex with an underage girl.