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Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.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

Claig - you are so right! It seems that the pretext of "true equality" is often used to roll back the rights women have gained.

Peanut - Don't be daft! I can personally vouch after having seen previous threads in which you have made right on feminist comments that you are so NOT an RA! (Sorry to speak in Chandlerese!)

'Consensual' is so hard to prove, especially in such a macho culture, where a boy's word is favoured against a girl's, in a country where a man could seriously claim in court that he didn't know a girl he had sex with was underage, and get away with it until 2006, and where the last of the Magdalene Laundries closed in 1996 (with three or four women still living there because they had been so utterly destroyed over the decades of confinement that they could not take care of themselves in modern society on their own). This particular boy claimed that even he and the girl basically seem to have engaged in some fooling around that was consensual but that led to sex and buggery, she had consented to it all. If not for the law, would she have even bothered pressing a case?

I think the case will be very seriously discussed in schools and homes across Ireland. People really talk a lot about this kind of thing in Ireland, and Irish radio tends to focus on cases like this much more than you would ever see in Britain or anywhere else for that matter. No need for research or advanced searching.

Thanks guys. I just feel shit about it. I really do.

Rape is rape, regardless of whether it's anal or vaginal, or takes place between two adults or two teenagers. I'm just angry that I've defended someone who it later turns out falls into the category of people I have vehement hatred for. It's screwing with my head at the moment. I know that sounds like an over-reaction, but it's the same reaction I'd have if I called a woman a bitch for keeping her DC from their father, to later find out he was abusive. I hate people jumping to conclusions, and I've done that.

Thanks, HRH. And I think you know more than anyone from previous clashes that I wouldn't. :)

Mathanxiety, I agree, but I don't think the issue with consent lies solely in Ireland. All you need is to look at some popular rape myths to see that. It's in challenging these rape myths that we make the issue of consent less of an issue.

I'm a long way off DS reaching puberty, but will be teaching him about firm and positive consent before he even reaches an age where he's considering sex. That's a "yes", that isn't coerced or born out of fear. Ex-P never practised that with me, but both boyfriend's I've had since, who are thoroughly aware of my past, have.

It' just the "he said, she said" issue. As long as we have people believing the media's portrayal of most rape allegations being false, which isn't the case, we'll always have the "we weren't there, so we don't know" arguement.

Sorry, not sure if I made sense there...

But in Ireland, where the law applies, teenage girls and boys are now very likely to be aware of what the law is.

'I agree that the third link provided shows a rape case, unfortunately, I think that it should then be tried as rape, because if nothing else, trying the boy/man for under age sex, as opposed to rape, feeds his ability to cry - but we were the same age, its not fair, I have been unjustly treated side of things, which in the case of rape would not be true.'

The trouble is this is not what he claimed as his defence. He claimed consent, just as every rape defendant who doesn't want to admit guilt does. He may cry all he wants about fairness, but the courts have said the age of consent is what matters if the girl is under 17, no matter how old he is. He was willing for this girl to have to take the stand against him and tell the court about being buggered, to be cross examined by a skillful SC perhaps just because he had something to lose in case he was convicted and he was willing to agree that he had done what the girl claimed he had done and that she had consented. Fair? Is he really entitled to his day in court?

This way, with prosecution under the age of consent law, the girl avoided that particular ordeal at the hands of that boy. Rape trials are an ordeal for a victim -- it is the huge problem that leads to gross underreporting of rape, not the fear of girls that their boyfriends will be prosecuted.

Consent is at the heart of rape myths, DCMP. Because consent is what sets rape apart from sex.

"Would you not prefer this boy to be labelled a rapists than be able to claim he was a victim of an injust law?" Agreed.

So many of us would have defended a boy who was jailed for consensual sex. We did. Yet we fight against rape. We've been coerced into defending a rapist... Probably why I reacted so badly.

I would prefer to see a law that is already on the statute books enforced. The likelihood of a rapist being successfully prosecuted are slim to none, anywhere despite laws against rape. At least with age of consent laws being enforced (if they will be, though Claig's link said there were 24 prosecutions with only one involving parties of the same age) those who are raped have some comeback. It does have a bearing on the issue of rape.

But as the law's defenders state, I don't think it is possible to argue that pregnancy and its repercussions are not borne disproportionately by the girl and therefore prosecution for what is in effect often the ruining of a girl's life, is appropriate.

To see people wringing their hands about boys having their lives ruined, the difficulty of finding a job when you have a record, etc., is really hard to understand. This is exactly the sort of thing young single mothers have always been up against, including the damage to reputation (though that aspect is diminishing a bit now). It is not easy for a young mother to go to school or college, to get a job where flexible hours are required (i.e. most entry level jobs) and providing for a baby is not easy for a lot of families. A lot of young mothers find their chances of marriage receding too. Without education or a good job or a husband, most young mothers will never rise out of poverty. And yet the hit that a boy takes evokes sympathy?

As this particular case has turned out to be one of rape, I too am glad that the boy was prosecuted successfully, but agree with the following comment from HRH

"There have been plenty of comments here, by people who believe that all teenage boys should be held liable under this law, which is still from my perpective, and those of my teens, a ridiculous assumption."

In fact, looking at my original posts on the subject, I didn't refer specifically to this case, just the general issue around criminalising consensual sex - and I stand by that.

------------

claig Wed 06-Jul-11 19:44:59

"If we are not careful, eventually these type of equalist arguments will be used against us in courts, and some of our rights will be stripped under the equalist banner. That is why on the other thread in AIBU, the MRA types champion equalism."

Claig - you still appear to be confsuing equalism with MRA's and accused me of being an MRA on that other thread. I will repeat what I said to you on the AIBU thread:

Just because some MRA's claim to be equalists and distort equalist / egalitarian arguments for their own ends, does NOT mean that ALL equalists are MRA's in exactly the same way that just because some man haters claim to be feminists does not make ALL feminists man haters.

I think I always see it as slightly different, ma, as I've been a single mother for two years now. Still pretty young (26) yet I've managed to return to education. I think perhaps it's something that I take for granted, forgetting that not everyone has the intellect or sheer bloody mindedness I have to pursue my dreams. Also easier because I completed my GCSE's I guess. I forget it's not that easy for everyone.

I didn't accuse you of being an MRA, I said that the MRA website is probably more your home than the feminist board which you accused of having posters who were not "reasonable and lovely". I said that as an equalist, you would find many equalists on the MRA website too.

So "I will repeat what I said to you on the AIBU thread"

"but I thought you were interested in equality? So why aren't you interested in discussing issues of equality on the feminism board? Is it because of the unreasonable, unlovely posters, that bitchfest that you don't like. It doesn't sound like you are really interested in equality. The feminism board is probably not for you. I reckon the MRA's website is more your home. There's no bitchfest there and you'll probably find them more reasonable there. There's not a single feminist there, but there's lots and lots of equalists."

"So did I - it's not for you to tell any poster the feminism board isn't for them.

Feminism is as I understand it an issue for everyone."

agreed with this... As long as you're not claimiing men are better than women, you're welcome here... :)

Haven't we had enough fighting the past few days?

But you've certainly got a lot of front to appear on the feminism board again, after what you did, and pretend that butter wouldn't melt in your mouth.

'Haven't we had enough fighting the past few days?'

yes and who was responsible for it?
They haven't even got the decency to apologise to dittany after their 2000 post threads.

We've had lots of fighting, but not a single apology to dittany, apart from a gracious apology from sunshineandbooks, who mistakenly got sucked into it.

"yes and who was responsible for it?
They haven't even got the decency to apologise to dittany after their 2000 post threads.

We've had lots of fighting, but not a single apology to dittany, apart from a gracious apology from sunshineandbooks, who mistakenly got sucked into it."

We know who was responsible for it. But why drag it into yet another thread?

On a side note, I don't think I said anything untoward about Dittany. I'd hope to high heaven I didn't. And I'd hope to high heaven that someone would point out if I had through a private message.