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Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.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

All criminilisation drives the criminilised practices underground. And much teenage sex is 'underground' anyhow. The first thing most parents learn of it is when the girl reveals she is pregnant.

HRH, I love that method of thinking. :) I hope if I ever find someone to put up be with, they could accept DS in the same way :)

DM told me not to recently that I'd probably not be able to find someone who could put up with him... All because he was being a typical 3 year old

(equally off topic, I know)

It is impossible to establish consent after the fact in most cases. To say there should be exceptions for clear consent is unrealistic. Establishing lack of consent is where most rape cases fall after all. Establishing consent is the other side of the same coin. The best you can do where protection is concerned is to criminilise all underage sex therefore.

Don't listen to your mum DCMP. Having fostered my friend's daughter, who still come to stay with me a couple of nights a week, and for whom I would happily donate a kidney if it came to it, I know I am capable of loving someone else's child as much as my own. As there is nothing particularly special about me, there must be other people - male and female - who can feel the same, including a single man who you could love who could feel that way about your DS.

Is anyone saying that the age of consent should be done away with? Here it's a matter of years. The age of consent is 16 but it's only statutory rape if the other party is more than two years older. (Or if the younger is 13 or younger)

As indeed HRH shows with her DBC.

HRH, is the preferred acronym for you DBM instead of DSM?

Nothing reinforces the power of the patriarchy better than having young girls saddled with babies, prevented from getting qualifications in school or college, or leaving them financially dependent on teenage boys they may regret even meeting once the shininess wears off the baby and the young father gets bored of having a girlfriend who can't go out and party like she used to. Don't tell me it doesn't happen.

There is a graduated age of consent in Ireland too, CY, with a sort of grey area from 15 to 17, and under 15 very clearcut.

What are the rules in England & Wales or Scotland where say there are a couple of fifteen year olds having consensual sex?

Wasn't there some debate recently about changing the definition of stautory rape where, say, a just turned 16 yr old boy was having consensual sex with his girlfriend who was not yet quite 16?

This issue makes me uncomfortable because I do not believe that the way to deal with consensual sex between children is to criminalise one of the parties.

The age of consent exists to protect youngsters (both male and female) from predatory adults, it should not exist to criminalise teenagers for doing what teenagers do - it is arbitrary anyway some 15 year olds are mature enough to know they are ready for sex, some 18 year olds are not.

I like the set up mentioned by Cheerful Yank. It has an element of common sense about it.

With regards to the issue of the female having to be 'protected' in Ireland due to the lack of abortion laws, as a female, I find it incredibly patronising on behalf of 15 year old me.

By virtue of nothing but my biology I need to be 'protected' from myself, and a boy can be criminalised by virtue of his biology. It is just wrong. I can't see how criminalising a boy is treating him any differently to the appaling treatment of unmarried mothers in the magdeleine laudries

In cases like Ireland where abortion is illegal, the law should state that where a pregnancy occurs as a result of underage, consensual sex, the boy should legally have to take the same responsibility as the girl - miss the same amount of time from school to parent the child, take on 50% of parental responsibility and 50% of the cost of raising the child. If he refuses to do that, then and only then should criminal prosecution ensue.

If there is no pregnancy as a result of the sex, then either boy nor girl should be prosecuted OR both should (as the age of consent actually relates to both genders, then technically both have committed a criminal act). The fact that one party has taken a bigger risk is neither here nor there if there is no negative outcome due to that risk.

It's no longer called Statutory rape in England, morebeta.

Mathsanxiety. I get what you mean. I just think criminalising sex drives teenagers to unprotected sex. It's a double edged sword, really. My parents were very strict on sex. It just meant I found other ways to have sex without them finding out.

Thank you HRH and sunshine :)

Lenak - well said! :)

...the law should state that where a pregnancy occurs as a result of underage, consensual sex, the boy should legally have to take the same responsibility as the girl - miss the same amount of time from school to parent the child, take on 50% of parental responsibility and 50% of the cost of raising the child. If he refuses to do that, then and only then should criminal prosecution ensue....

That is craziness. The ideal solution is to maximise the chance of both parties to finish their education, even go to college, not minimise it and ensure they both end up on welfare.

Do you really think an undereducated teenage boy will be able to walk into a job in post Celtic Tiger Ireland? Do you really think a lot of teenage relationships last long enough for teenage fathers to take on 50% of the care of their babies, or that both parties want to see each other again after a few months? Is it ok to tie a girl to a boy whom she may or may not want to be tied to?

And you can't fail to prosecute anyone just because there is no pregnancy. That brings us right back to the bad old days of the Magdalene Laundries where getting pregnant was the worst crime any Irish citizen could commit..

well said, mathanxiety

"The ideal solution is to maximise the chance of both parties to finish their education, even go to college, not minimise it and ensure they both end up on welfare."

That makes no sense in the context of this law though - they both suffer anyway if the boy gets criminalised. How is he going to finish his education if he is in prison.

"Do you really think an undereducated teenage boy will be able to walk into a job in post Celtic Tiger Ireland?"

No, but neither do I think he will walk into a job with a criminal record for having underage sex either, so how does not forcing him to take responsibility make him any better off.

At least if the boy is forced to take responsibility, the child benefits from having both parents around.

Teenage relationships may not last, many adult relationships don't last either, just because the relationship between the parents doesn't exist doesn't mean that responsibility for any child should just dissapear.

If there is no pregnancy and you think that prosecution should still go ahead, then prosecute both parties - the age of consent applies to both genders so technically they have both broken the law. It is punishing only one party that is reminiscent of the Magdalene Laundries, it does not make it ok just because it is now the male receiving the punishment.

Having just gone back and read the OP over again, I wonder if there is more to this case than meets the eye.

Would the girl have had to undergo an examination to prove this in order for it to make it as far as the initial trial? What parent would do that to their DD for having underage 'consensual' sex (if that's possible at 14) and there was no pregnancy resulting? How would they know it involved buggery? However angry I might feel about someone who had had sex with my 14 year-old-DD I would only submit my DD to that if I felt she had been raped or coerced. If she'd come home and said she'd been raped or coerced that would be different of course.

Could it be that if these two were adults this would be more like a typical adult rape case? The extract says "The boy's case was they engaged consensually" which also suggests that, but I could be reading things into it that aren't there I suppose. Given that this law is a discretionary one brought out mainly when it is felt to be in the public interest to prosecute, I feel that there may have been more to this than a simple case of two teens indulging in early sex.

I think it is hoped that the law will serve to put boys off the idea that having sex in contravention of the rules wrt age of consent. The idea being that boys can control themselves, so not an insult to them. I think the aim of the law is to clarify the situation and educate all about the consequences of pregnancy (which do fall unevenly on girls). I don't think there is any way to prove sex has been taking place without some sort of medical exam right afterwards, the presence of witnesses, or a pregnancy, so I don't foresee much in the way of prosecution.

I also think threatening to prosecute girls might result in girls not seeking medical help if they were injured or contracted a std during sex, or if they got pregnant. It is important that at least one party is able to seek out medical help, and in the case of pregnancy, seeking out medical help is going to be the girl's role. Yes boys can get stds from girls too, but I think legislators were most concerned that girls would not be put off getting medical help for pregnancy (looking back to the case of Ann Lovett in the 80s. Ann was a 15 year old who bled to death giving birth in a churchyard in 1984, having hidden her pregnancy and never once been seen by a doctor).

The result of prosecution only in the case of pregnancy would be to criminalise pregnancy. It is the inevitable way things would turn in Ireland. I think it is hard for many outside of Ireland to grasp the utter shame that used to be associated with pregnancy in Ireland (because pregnancy is the one clue society in general had that a woman had had sex), so much so that even 'respectable married women' were ashamed of their pregnant bodies. Irish women have fought against that concept of shame associated with pregnancy. Breastfeeding rates still remain very low in Ireland -- this is a remnant of the old attitudes towards the female body, whose abilities and powers were once turned against women.

In a roundabout way, the law may start a conversation about the notion of proof in cases of alleged rape. Nothing sheds light on the plight of girls and women who have been subjected to sexual violence like the sight of boys' behaviour being potentially criminalised. It is something that goes very unnoticed until boys are suddenly in danger of facing real consequences for their decisions. It would be ironic if as a result of looking at the situation from the pov of the consequences for boys, the consequences for women of 'lack of consent' being up for grabs in court, and the hard life an unintended teenage pregnancy can lead to for a young mother, might get some serious discussion.

Sunshine, I agree... The article does feel ambiguous, though. If it was rape, then treat it as such, but address it as such in the article. If not, I'm not sure why anyone woould subject their DD to all of that.

I am guessing that there was bleeding or some injury related to the buggery, and that that was how the case came to light.

Also, the risk with prosecuting girls would mean girls would be less likely to come forward in the event of rape.

Date rape would be rendered unprosecutable; bad and all as it is right now it would get far worse.