Donegal teenager to challenge statutory rape laws

Tigger

A Donegal teenager who is charged with statutory rape is to challenge the controversial law at the High Court.

The 17-year-old is charged with the rape of a 14-year-old girl in August 2006, when he was 15.

He claims the law discriminates against him because he is male.

Lawyers for the teenager are taking the case to the High Court, arguing that he is a victim of gender discrimination due to a clause in the controversial laws on statutory rape.

Under emergency legislation which was rushed through in 2006 to plug a legal loophole, girls are protected from being charged with statutory rape.

It means that although the couple in this case were both underage when they had sex, only the boy was charged.

The Government must convince the High Court that that the immunity given to girls is justified.

i'm shocked that this is going to court

NoQuarter

good for him, i hope he wins

Tigger

king-stew wrote: »

good for him, i hope he wins

if h3e loses his life will be a shambles

JIZZLORD

this reminds me of a guy i know who during a conversation kept saying "mandatory rape" instead of statutory rape.

as far as i know we have quite odd laws relating to consent.

The Real B-man

Well i think it should be the same for Male & Female under the age of consent. Now i know Women raping men isnt as common but it does happen & i think its only fair if there laws are the same.

Hogmeister B

It's a disgrace there was no proviso accommodating two underage consenting parties, like pretty much every other country in the civilised world...

I was actually wondering how long it would take for a case to be brought forward.

GhostInTheRuins

Fair play to him

MizzLolly

So.. wait a second. He didn't actually force her to do anything? He was a 15 year old boy who had sex with a 14 year old girl? Is that right or did I totally miss the point??

GhostInTheRuins

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Fair play to him

For the courtcase or...

Mossy Monk

I think it should be changed so that girls can be charged as well as boys. I don't think anyone should be getting away with anything.

MooseJam

immunity ftw

connundrum

Myth wrote: »

For the courtcase or...

For showing her who's boss.

The law is a big hairy female ass in relation to the statutory rape law. It didn't make sense before 2006, and definitely doesn't make sense since. As previously stated, it was only a matter of time before this case was brought forth.

Can I presume that the only people who would push for a conviction under the statutory rape umbrella would be the parents of the girl affected? If she was forced into unconsentual sex then the offending male could be charged with 'normal' rape legislation - correct?

oblivious

MizzLolly wrote: »

So.. wait a second. He didn't actually force her to do anything? He was a 15 year old boy who had sex with a 14 year old girl? Is that right or did I totally miss the point??

she told here father and the Garda he did not force her, but it was still deemed an offence in his case

MizzLolly

oblivious wrote: »

she told here father and the Garda he did not force her, but it was still deemed an offence in his case

How the hell is that an offence? The girl wasn't forced and they were both very, very young. There was only a year between them for God sake! I think Statutory Rape is a grey area in Ireland anyway.

I hope the guy wins his case. He's not actually guilty of anything if the girl said he didn't force her. I'm sure the poor girl will feel better to put it all behind her too.

Sherifu

If there's grass on the pitch...

oblivious

Sherifu wrote: »

If there's grass on the pitch...

thats not a particularly helpful comment for the thread :rolleyes:

Guy:Incognito

oblivious wrote: »

thats not a particularly helpful comment for the thread :rolleyes:

Lightening the mood is always helpful.


LOL @ mandatory rape.:D

ojewriej

This case is unbelievable.

It shouldn't go to court in a first place. Whoever decided to charge this lad, should loose his/her job.

sam34

ok, excuse my ignorance here, and i;ve no doubt i'll get some typical AH responses, but here goes.....
how can a woman actually rape a man? surely for them to have penetrative sex he has to have an erection, and why would he have one if he wasnt aroused and was being forced to do something he didnt want to do?

oblivious

sam34 wrote: »

ok, excuse my ignorance here, and i;ve no doubt i'll get some typical AH responses, but here goes.....
how can a woman actually rape a man? surely for them to have penetrative sex he has to have an erection, and why would he have one if he wasnt aroused and was being forced to do something he didnt want to do?

There is such a thing as oral rape

easyontheeye

sam34 wrote: »

ok, excuse my ignorance here, and i;ve no doubt i'll get some typical AH responses, but here goes.....
how can a woman actually rape a man? surely for them to have penetrative sex he has to have an erection, and why would he have one if he wasnt aroused and was being forced to do something he didnt want to do?

do you think you could escape this if this got nasty??

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/24/49516151_f44947f3eb.jpg

NoQuarter

sam34 wrote: »

ok, excuse my ignorance here, and i;ve no doubt i'll get some typical AH responses, but here goes.....
how can a woman actually rape a man? surely for them to have penetrative sex he has to have an erection, and why would he have one if he wasnt aroused and was being forced to do something he didnt want to do?

could be into that sort of thing

sam34

oblivious wrote: »

There is such a thing as oral rape

which is why my question referred specifically to penetrative sex

oblivious

easyontheeye wrote: »

do you think you could escape this if this got nasty??

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/24/49516151_f44947f3eb.jpg

:eek:

I don't know, but the sentence would start with "sir"

kowloon

A few years back some scummer girl had her friends hold down some poor fecker while she done things to him that shall not be spoken.
Turns out he rejected her in a club.
Anyone remember it? what happened to her?

Overheal

JIZZLORD wrote: »

this reminds me of a guy i know who during a conversation kept saying "mandatory rape" instead of statutory rape.

as far as i know we have quite odd laws relating to consent.

giggity.

sam34

easyontheeye wrote: »

do you think you could escape this if this got nasty??

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/24/49516151_f44947f3eb.jpg

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/24/49516151_f44947f3eb.jpg"&gt;

:eek:
but seriously, if there aint wood there, how can a woman rape him ( and i mean penetrative vaginal sex, not oral rape or anal rape)

ojewriej

sam34 wrote: »

ok, excuse my ignorance here, and i;ve no doubt i'll get some typical AH responses, but here goes.....
how can a woman actually rape a man? surely for them to have penetrative sex he has to have an erection, and why would he have one if he wasnt aroused and was being forced to do something he didnt want to do?

If 35 year old woman sleeps with a 14 year old boy, it's a rape.

And if you think that guys have full control over their lads at all times, you are sadly mistaken.

sam34

ojewriej wrote: »

If 35 year old woman sleeps with a 14 year old boy, it's a rape.

And if you think that guys have full control over their lads at all times, you are sadly mistaken.

didnt think of the age factor, tbh, but yes, of course, makes sense.
as for your second statement- a lady like me wouldnt know

highlydebased

Should be some sort of provision for underage consenting individuals.....instead of calling it rape in a case where it might have been consensual by both


I'm startin to get worried.....LMFAO!

AngryBadger

Best of luck to thie guy.

I seriously doubt he's doing this out of any sense of justice though, he's being charged with statutory rape, and he'll be convicted, sounds like his only hope of avoiding a sentence/having the case thrown out is to get the law changed.

And the law SHOULD be changed. It's complete double standards that ina case of sexual intercourse between two underage individuals the male is automatically charged with rape.

Kintarō Hattori

That is fairly insane that he can be charged yet she can't.

leeroybrown

This should hopefully bring a logical conclusion the mess that the government brought upon themselves when they enacted the changes.

Sherifu

oblivious wrote: »

thats not a particularly helpful comment for the thread :rolleyes:

Please accept my humblest.... actually no, fuck it. :pac:

Bottle_of_Smoke

sam34 wrote: »

:eek:
but seriously, if there aint wood there, how can a woman rape him ( and i mean penetrative vaginal sex, not oral rape or anal rape)

A cocktail of rophynol & viagra.

Seriously though you really should realise that this is statutory rape not rape. There's a huge difference as consent isn't an issue in statutory rape, whereas its really the only issue in rape

The_Minister

sam34 wrote: »

:eek:
but seriously, if there aint wood there, how can a woman rape him ( and i mean penetrative vaginal sex, not oral rape or anal rape)

She can strangle him until he gets hard (and no, I'm not joking)

Dudess

sam34 wrote: »

ok, excuse my ignorance here, and i;ve no doubt i'll get some typical AH responses

Typical AH responses such as... "yore MA raped me!"?

but here goes.....
how can a woman actually rape a man? surely for them to have penetrative sex he has to have an erection, and why would he have one if he wasnt aroused and was being forced to do something he didnt want to do?

No, a person does not have to be penetrated to be considered a victim of rape. Rape is the act of forcing someone - and succeeding - to have sex with you against their will.

Culturally though, we are led to believe that no man could not want to have sex - that only women can be forced into it.

I don't understand the oral rape suggestion though. As in, a woman forcing a guy to give her head? Well, could happen I suppose.

Krieg

I'd feel really sorry for this guy is he does get convicted, as it will result in him being added to the sex offenders register and ofc the possible prison sentence.
Say 10/20 years down the line, he moves into a new area and the register is made available to the public (Im not sure what form of availability its currently at in Ireland, a few US states have it easily available online) and someone in the area see's his name on it. Well I dont think I have to paint a picture of the possible fallout on this, especially if the words "Rape" and "14 yr old" are mentioned beside his name on the register.

Overheal

sam34 wrote: »

didnt think of the age factor, tbh, but yes, of course, makes sense.
as for your second statement- a lady like me wouldnt know

Well, they are an entity unto themselves. Whether the brain really wants it or not is truly irrelevant. If a woman wanted to rape a man its simply a matter of stimulating the genitals enough and through their own will they will become erect. So yes in theory its not such a challenge to rape a man.

Nevyn

Weren't these already thrown out ?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0423/rape.html?rss

EamonnKeane

From Saith Efrikeh:

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20050825071820256C880914

Police say that a trio of women have been accused of forcing a 30-year-old man to have sex with them at gunpoint.

On Wednesday the women had been driving a maroon BMW in Roodepoort, when they pretended to ask the man for directions before driving him to a deserted spot and "took turns having intercourse with him".

Police Captain Paula Nothnagel said a case of indecent assault had been opened. Identity kits would be released shortly. The man cannot be named because of the nature of the offence.

Nothnagel said the man was walking through Roodepoort on Saturday night when the women pulled up next to him.

They asked for directions to a hotel and he got in the car to show them the way. At the hotel they persuaded him to join them for a drink, before asking for directions to another hotel.

While on the road the women changed direction and drove to a spot near Durban Deep mine.

"One woman produced a firearm and held the man at gunpoint," Nothnagel said.

"The women got undressed and all three took turns having intercourse with him."

An advocate, who asked not to be named, said if the women were caught the man would have tremendous difficulty prosecuting them for rape as it was impossible to force a man to have sex with a woman.

"He has to be a willing party. Especially if he is being held at gunpoint," he said. "There is something more to this story."

The best the man could hope for would be an indecent assault charge.

Linoge

Dudess wrote: »

No, penetration does not have to occur. Rape is the act of forcing someone - and succeeding - to have full penetrative sex with you against their will.
.

Want to rephrase that???!

As for a woman raping a man, although i know it is possible and has happened, it is extremely remote as women just do not have the power. A 14 year old boy would be as strong as most full grown women. Erections aside, unless there is a weapon involved there very little chance of a woman overpowering a man.

Cases of women carrying out rapes from what i've read are usually part of gang initiation etc in the US where other gang members are involved.

sam34

Overheal wrote: »

Well, they are an entity unto themselves. Whether the brain really wants it or not is truly irrelevant. If a woman wanted to rape a man its simply a matter of stimulating the genitals enough and through their own will they will become erect. So yes in theory its not such a challenge to rape a man.

thanks for that overheal. i wasnt quite aware of this so hence my confusion.
(bless me, i'm an innocent one )

Dudess

Linoge wrote: »

Want to rephrase that???!

Yeah, I have done

Fremen

Christ, who's responsible for this law? What an incredibly irresponsible ****up.

I wouldn't mind knowing so that I can avoid voting for them in future.

Seriously though you really should realise that this is statutory rape not rape. There's a huge difference as consent isn't an issue in statutory rape, whereas its really the only issue in rape

That may be, but he'll still end up as a registered sex offender.

Holsten

Fair play to him, I wish him well and hope he gets off scott free.

He done nothing wrong.

ManofMunster

Fremen wrote: »

Christ, who's responsible for this law? What an incredibly irresponsible ****up.

I wouldn't mind knowing so that I can avoid voting for them in future.

from what i recall, was that not mcdowell?

don't imagine he'll be featuring at a polling station near you anytime soon. thank f**k.

johnnyskeleton

It was a very poorly drafted piece of legislation that is, on the face of it, clearly unconsitutional. Then again, what do you expect from the PDs?

To be honest, the blame isn't on the legislation, it's on the delay prior to the C case, and the subsequent refusal by the government to do anything about it.

Worse, they now have a chance to change the law before it is declared unconsitutional (and consequently some other people who are clearly abusing children will get away with it), but they probably wont.

When asked in the Dail why there was no "Romeo & Juliet clause" or no defence of reasonable proximity of age, the then Minister for Justice intimated that the DPP wouldn't bring a case like this to court. However, quite clearly he would and he did.

johnnyskeleton

Fremen wrote: »

Christ, who's responsible for this law? What an incredibly irresponsible ****up.

The entire oireachtas voted on it and approved it, as did the president. It was drafted by the then minister for justice Michael McDowell.

Fremen wrote: »

I wouldn't mind knowing so that I can avoid voting for them in future.

Way ahead of you.

Fremen wrote: »

That may be, but he'll still end up as a registered sex offender.

There is an exception in that if the man was within 24 years of age of the girl they are not registered as a sex offender, but I think this only applies to the offence of defilement of a person under 17 years old, not the offence of defilement of a person under 15 years old. Again, another arbitrary distinction.

ThE_IVIAcIVIAIV

this is so silly, they both wanted to do it.. so leave it be at that. and im sure he will win the case because its discrimination of bring a male!