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Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.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

DBD = still confused peanut

It's very hard to establish a clear definition of 'mutual consent' in a country that is still taken by notions of male superiority. Never mind the issue of teenagers being drunk out of their minds when they have sex. All this boyfriend/girlfriend/mutual agreement stuff is really quite funny because it is so far from the reality of most Irish teenage sex.

How is it a form of patriarchal control over women's virginity if girls are being buggered? (The girl in question was actually 14 at the time according to the Irish Times)

I hope this legislation sparks conversations and educates people.

Equal rights does not really apply in Ireland yet. Equal responsibility? Not when a girl has to drop out of school and go on welfare to take care of a baby or when her parents have to spread their income a bit further or her (usually) mother has to give up work to take care of the grandchild.

HRHMJOFMAGICJAMALAND could you please allow them to start reading the Daily Mail on a regular basis? That will put them right about most issues. I fear they may have been unduly influenced by progressives.

Hang on, but they're both underage...

Why should his presence of a y chromosome make him more accountable? Just because society said so x centuries ago, in a pretty misogynistic time?

Noooo! No more DM readers, please?

I'm sorry but this is a case of black and white, progressive or right.

Isn't the idea behind the law to protect in cases where it is needed though? So that the vast majority of sexual relationships between teens will be left along and the law will only be used in situations where there is a case to answer - where there is a significant disparity between the power of the parties concerned (e.g. a 16-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl).

I just can't see the law of the land interfering in cases of all underage sex. That would be nonsensical. Isn't it a bit like the rape within marriage act? No one is implying that all husbands are potential rapists, but the law is there to be used when men do rape their wives.

I do not know all the details about the case given in the OP, but from my own teenage fumblings and talking about those of my friends, anal sex was not something that even came up for discussion in those early sexual experiences. I admit that the world has moved on since then and that the influence of porn has probably changed things, but anal sex on a 14-year-old girl makes me feel instinctively that she was coerced.

Sorry, progressive or right? By that, do you mean that progressive = wrong?

Wow. I might just bow out of feminism now... Apologies for being able to think independently...

DBD/S = darling bonus daughter/son; it's nicer than "step".

Judges will take into account all of teh circumstances, but the law has to stand as a deterrent. It is similar to the situation with assisted suicide. The penalties are harsh in order to act as a deterrent.

Yes that's what I mean

DBD/S = darling bonus daughter/son; it's nicer than "step".

I can't decide if that's really sweet or bleurgh!

The sentiment is definitely right though.

HRM - surely it is banned in all schools? It is in DSs' school which is CofE.

DontCallMePeanut --the trouble with questions like 'What if the girl instigated sex? What if she pushed him into it?' is the exact same trouble girls and women face when trying to prove rape (ie lack of consent to a sexual act). It is one person's word against another's and unusually no witnesses.

exactly right, mathanxiety.

DCME -- he is held more accountable because he is the one penetrating the other person. She is the one who will bear the potential baby; as the judge stated. the person who bears the brunt of the consequences needs to be protected.

Sorry -- 'DCMP'

yes 'the person who bears the brunt of the consequences needs to be protected' that's what it boils down to.
the consequences of sex are not equal for the girl and boy, which is why the girl has to be protected and the onus of responsibility rests more on the boy

HRH yes, that sort of thing does worry me I'll admit. I do not like abstinence campaigns in general. I think all the research shows that they do not work and result in higher rates of pregnancy and STIs, not to mention the fact that they always seem to make women gatekeepers of sexuality.

However, in a country where abortion is illegal and contraception carries huge cultural and religious significance, things are slightly different.

The whole thing is really very complicated. I don't want to see underage sex criminalised and so driven underground, but I do want to see the vulnerable protected.

But this... isn't a rape case... I actually give up.

Must bget round to telling DS that the presence of his penis automatically makes him a threat to women.

Abstinence campaigns are not really the issue here though (I agree they spring out of a particular culture and tend not to work) I don't know of many countries, in Europe anyhow, that don't have an age of consent, and in Ireland I think it is 17. If there is an age of consent then enforcing it seems like common sense; the idea behind the age of consent is to protect females (very important in a country where sexual abuse of children was and remains rampant the Carrigan report in the early years of the Irish Free State made that clear, as did subsequent revelations wrt industrial schools, etc.) and allow a prosecutor at least a statutory route to prosecution.

DCMP -- I don't think the term rape has been brought up in this case. It remains an issue of sex before the age of consent, and the law attempts to introduce penalties for breaking an existing statute.

But you're the one who brought it up, mathanxiety...