Donegal teenager to challenge statutory rape laws

Rb

Fair play to him and I hope it goes his way. The law regarding this is absolutely ridiculous.

ManofMunster

Linoge wrote: »

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.

you've obviously never dated a gaelic football bird? i once went out with the meath ladies football captain and she could've kicked the ar*e off me from kilbeggan to timbuktu and back had the mood so taken her.

Reku

Legally due to the terminology used a female cannot possibly rape a male as the irish legislation requires the rapist to have a pen*s or the victim to have a vagina for it to be rape.

CRIMINAL LAW (RAPE) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1990 wrote:

4.—(1) In this Act "rape under section 4" means a sexual assault that includes—

[GA] ( a ) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

[GA] ( b ) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

Stupid f**kwit lawyers that they let write these amendments....:mad:


Same story AFAIK as with underage for if both parties are drunk, both are drunk but it's the man's fault. Odd how the feminists never seem to be kicking up a fuss over being treated differently as regards being convicted for rape.:rolleyes:

MizzLolly wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately it's running on the premise that these people are too young to make an informed decision on the matter, they can be charged as adults for murder, but they can't be accepted as adults when it comes to their private relationships.:rolleyes:




*In fact looking further it was the same amendment which effectively rendered it impossible for a female to legally rape a male that decided to pick on underage males for prosecution should 2 consenting underage persons have sex:

6.—Any rule of law by virtue of which a male person is treated by reason of his age as being physically incapable of committing an offence of a sexual nature is hereby abolished.

Even the old 1981 definition of rape marked it as something only males could be charged with:

CRIMINAL LAW (RAPE) ACT, 1981 wrote:

Meaning of "rape". 2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

[GA] ( a ) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and

[GA] ( b ) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it,

[GA] and references to rape in this Act and any other enactment shall be construed accordingly.

The rest of the act uses the phrase "person(s)" instead of "man" but there is no definition of rape for where the female is the rapist.

TerrorFirmer

Total farce....could have been any one of most normal teenagers.

Imagine being charged for having sex with your girlfriend?

johnnyskeleton

Dudess wrote: »

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.

Whatever about culturally, legally, rape requires penetration. Normal rape is the penetration of a woman's vagina by a man's penis without her consent, and knowing that it is without her consent.

Section 4 rape is penetration of the mouth or the anus by the penis, or the penetration of the vagina with an object (including other body parts) without the person's consent and knowing that it is without the person's consent.

The term statutory rape is a bit misleading, as the offence is called defilement and relates to any sexual act - so touching another person in a sexual manner could be considered defilement.

Lirange

I think they should ban sex altogether. Then these two should burn.

johnnyskeleton

farohar wrote: »

Stupid f**kwit lawyers that they let write these amendments....:mad:

Laywers don't write the law - politicians do (with the assitance of retired german civil servants and the like).

farohar wrote: »

Same story AFAIK as with underage for if both parties are drunk, both are drunk but it's the man's fault.

That's not the law that's just how it is in reality i.e. very few men will feel that they have been violated if they have drunken sex (and even less if any will report it or consider it a crime perpetrated against them). However, women will often feel that they have been violated, taken advantage of or, (incorrectly as it often appears) raped.

Suffice it to say that rape laws are there to protect people from being penetrated against their will. If penetrating against your will was a serious or widespread problem, that would probably also be outlawed.

Lirange

All these hypotheticals about a woman raping a man (or a boy) are goofy.

They're a million times more likely to be raped by their Schnauzer.

Dudess

Well it's rare but not impossible for a woman to force a man to have sex with her. It's just that we're conditioned to believe it's impossible, since it flies in the face of certain cultural norms.

Theresalwaysone

Wow. Just Wow. How do politicians/lawyers whoever, **** up so badly?

I really hope this huy wins the case. Its a farce and whoever decided that prosecuting him would be a good idea should be given the boot, I mean, is common sense completely eradicated in contemporary Ireland?

source

I personally know of a guy who while passed out at a house party woke up to find that he was in the middle of sex with someone he hadn't given consent to, the stupid thing is if this was the other way around the guy would be in jail and on the sex offenders register, the woman can't even be charged with rape which is what it was, only sexual assault.

ninty9er

Statutory rape exists as a protection so that an 18 year old doesn't go out and fu<K a 14 year old.

You cannot argue that that is not wrong, one is an adult and one is a child. I would have sympathy for 2 underage people engaging in sexual acts, BUT should we just abolish the age of sexual consent altogether?? NO, because that wouldn't work. General world consensus is that you must be 18 to enter into contracts for financial services, alcohol, cigarettes etc....why should sex not have a limit. It CAN'T be healthy for a 13 year old to be having sex.

The case is actually of a 20 year old and 14 year old if tomorrow's Times is to be believed.

Dudess

ninty9er wrote: »

It CAN'T be healthy for a 13 year old to be having sex.

Socially and psychologically maybe... but biologically? Everything's in place for reproduction by that age.

ninty9er

Dudess wrote: »

Socially and psychologically maybe... but biologically? Everything's in place for reproduction by that age.

Biology is only one part of health. At 13/14 you don't know what's best for you, hell at 24/44/64 you're as likely not to know, but you should have gathered enough life experience to make an informed choice by then.

Reku

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Laywers don't write the law - politicians do (with the assitance of retired german civil servants and the like).

Ah... that actually explains quite a few of the silly legal definitions I've encountered in the irish statutes.:(

Tigger

Thaedydal wrote: »

Weren't these already thrown out ?

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

thats the honest mistake defence basically that the man thought the woman was over thge age of consent
the donegal case is different as the boy knew the girl was underage

so the 20 year old gets off after having his way with the 13 year old but the 15 year old will be done for making love to the 14 year old
(see what i did there the media is letting this pass )

Pardon my confusion with regards to this (I only just woke up). The boy was 15 when this happened (is 17 now), so do they mean the girl was 14 when it happened (and is 16 now), or that the girl was 12.

ojewriej

Deleted User wrote: »

Pardon my confusion with regards to this (I only just woke up). The boy was 15 when this happened (is 17 now), so do they mean the girl was 14 when it happened (and is 16 now), or that the girl was 12.

She was 14, just one year younger

ojewriej

ojewriej wrote: »

She was 14, just one year younger

Oh right.

That is just stupid.

Linoge

ninty9er wrote: »

You cannot argue that that is not wrong, one is an adult and one is a child. I would have sympathy for 2 underage people engaging in sexual acts, BUT should we just abolish the age of sexual consent altogether??

I don't think that anyone is arguing a point against the age of consent. The point is, both are underage, boy is the only one being charged. So, although he is underage, he has not only consented to sex (which contradicts the age of consent law) but now he has committed "rape".

Zzippy

Either drop the case or charge her too.

Tigger

Linoge wrote: »

I don't think that anyone is arguing a point against the age of consent. The point is, both are underage, boy is the only one being charged. So, although he is underage, he has not only consented to sex (which contradicts the age of consent law) but now he has committed "rape".

yes thats the question

as per the poll


do you think the same immunity should be give to males

kmart6

Zzippy wrote: »

Either drop the case or charge her too.

Have to agree with that! If they drop the charges againist him they'll have to change the law won't they?!

And I can't see them charging her even though it seems like the right thing to be done!

User45701

anyone who voted no had better not belive in equlity and if im ever on a sinking boat or a plane with limited parashutes it will be children first then decided on age (sorry i think agisim is a problem but it is based on logic unlike racisim or sexual discrimination)

But women and children first is long gone even though you know some women would try and pull it off.

Sam Vimes

kmart6 wrote: »

Have to agree with that! If they drop the charges againist him they'll have to change the law won't they?!

And I can't see them charging her even though it seems like the right thing to be done!

it's legally right but only because the law is wrong

constitutionus

i seen this coming two years ago.

this fecking countrys run by muppets. they KNEW the law wasnt up to scratch when they rushed it through yet here we are now.


the kids got an ironclad case, theres no WAY he can lose.

thelordofcheese

ninty9er wrote: »

Statutory rape exists as a protection so that an 18 year old doesn't go out and fu<K a 14 year old.

You cannot argue that that is not wrong, one is an adult and one is a child. I would have sympathy for 2 underage people engaging in sexual acts, BUT should we just abolish the age of sexual consent altogether?? NO, because that wouldn't work. General world consensus is that you must be 18 to enter into contracts for financial services, alcohol, cigarettes etc....why should sex not have a limit. It CAN'T be healthy for a 13 year old to be having sex.

The case is actually of a 20 year old and 14 year old if tomorrow's Times is to be believed.

That's quite a leap there, i assume tall buildings are no problem to you.

Nobody is talking about removing the age of consent, we're talking about a well intentioned law thats been badly implemented and as a result of such a poorly managed clusterfúck a young lad would be set jail for sleeping with a girl one year his junior.

Various american states and i believe other european countries have "Romeo and Juliet" exemptions built into their statutory rape laws, ireland should have too.

kowloon

thelordofcheese wrote: »

"Romeo and Juliet" exemptions built into their statutory rape laws, ireland should have too.

I Could open up wikipedia now, but i would be much happier if someone else explained the above to a simple country boy such as myself.

What happened to marrying into royal blood at 12? gone are the good days.

ojewriej

kowloon wrote: »

I Could open up wikipedia now, but i would be much happier if someone else explained the above to a simple country boy such as myself.

I think it's quite self explenatory, given the subject of this thread?

Basically it's an exemption that decriminalises or reduces severity of the charges for sex with a minor, when the "victim's" and "ofender's" ages are close.

Spyral

I recall pointing out how shyte those laws were when they were made. thats +gloating rights for me when i get back home

kowloon

I feel so misunderstood:rolleyes: