Age of consent confusion

Biscuit17

If a 17 year old has sex with a 16 year old is it still against the law.

GarIT

Yes, 17 is the age in Ireland and that's it, it doesn't matter if its one persons 17th birthday and the other person is one day away from 17.

EoghanIRL

Gets pop corn

blahfckingblah

biscuit17... 17

Cookie_Monster

depends on who is 16 and 17, male or female.

anoda_username

Yes, why would u think it wasn't?

brummytom

If the 17 year old is a boy and the 16 year old a girl - NO, IT'S TERRIBLE. STRING HIM UP.

If the 17 year old is a girl and the 16 year old a boy - niiiiiiiice.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Don't do it Biscuit!

Sin City

Your going to jail
There isn't any consent.in there

admiralofthefleet

if a 17 year old lad has sex with a 16 year old he can go to jail

if a 17 year old girl has sex with a 13 year old lad she gets away with it?

SCOOP 64

Biscuit17 wrote: »

If a 17 year old has sex with a 16 year old is it still against the law.

ya ,but if you got the boat over to the uk you would be ok!

lkionm

Aboy biscuit. I hoped you wrapped your willy.


Hopefully you werent that bad and she wont bring you to court.

Dwork

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

ya ,but if you got the boat over to the uk you would be ok!

Book a ferry with a cabin Biscuit, and just do heavy petting till ye're past half way.Then fire ahead. So's to speak. Or not. Depending.

Biscuit17

Would they not turn a blind to it or something.

orestes

Yup, Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 , Section 3

If you honestly believed the person was 17 or over you have a defence, if you knew they were under 17 it doesn't matter if they gave consent or not, but charges can only be brought by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions. So if you can convince them it's no biggie I guess you're off the hook.

Interestingly, it say's a girl under 17 can't get prosecuted for an offence on the grounds of having sex, but it say's nothing about a guy, so it looks like if two 16 year olds go for it the guy can still get done for it but the girl can't.

Seachmall

Biscuit17 wrote: »

Would they not turn a blind to it or something.

Maybe, but sex with minors tends to be frowned upon these days.

Mal-Adjusted

Biscuit17 wrote: »

Would they not turn a blind to it or something.

as hypocritical as it is, they turn a blind eye to the girl but the lad gets both barrels from the judge...

it doesn't matter how close she is to 17, if caught, you'll be marked down as a pedophile and get yourself on the sex offenders register, just wait a few months man.

1ZRed

Ah to be having sex at 17 again!

SCOOP 64

Don't be panicking or worry to much, properly come to nothing.

IM0

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

as hypocritical as it is, they turn a blind eye to the girl but the lad gets both barrels from the judge...

is that innuendo

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Always ask for a valid passport or drivers licence and get a photocopy. Xtravision cards are no use.

orestes

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

as hypocritical as it is, they turn a blind eye to the girl but the lad gets both barrels from the judge...

it doesn't matter how close she is to 17, if caught, you'll be marked down as a pedophile and get yourself on the sex offenders register, just wait a few months man.

No you don't. Even if you're found guilty, if you aren't more than 2 years older than the other person you still won't be subjected to the Sex Offenders Act of 2001, so their name doesn't go on the sex offenders register.

And having sex with someone who is under 17 doesn't make you a pedophile by the way, by any definition legal or otherwise, but that's a different subject.

NoQuarter

I posted this in legal discussion a few months ago, thought I'd reproduce it here for clarity:



ANY person who engages in a sexual act (or attempts to) with a person under 17 is guilty of an offence.(5 years) Honest belief they were 17 is a defence, consent is not.

ANY person who engages in a sexual act (or attempts to) with a person under 15 is guilty of an offence. (Life sentence) Honest belief is a defence, consent is not. Honest belief is in relation to the child being 15 so if the honest belief was that the child was 15, they could still be liable under the previos offence.

Now the provision that causes all the hassle: A female child under the age of 17 years shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse.

So this means the following:

If the girl is over 17, she can be convicted of any of the above 2 offenced depending on the boys age.

If the girl is under 17, she cannot be convicted of any of the above offences.

If the boy is over 17, he can be convicted of any of the above offences depending on the girls age.

If the boy is under 17, he can only be convicted of the above offences if he is above the age of 12. And even if he is, if he is under 14, the DPP's consent is needed to bring the charges. So technically from 14 to 17 the boy is liable while the girl is not.



Doesnt really make sense to anyone but parliament drafted the legislation and the courts upheld it twice now so there must be something I'm missing! The pregnancy justification just doesnt sit well with me.

As a female, I say it should be the same law for males and females.

But give us our cheaper car insurance back please. I liked that.

orestes

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

As a female, I say it should be the same law for males and females over 17.

It already is, it's when they are both under 17 that things are different for males and females.

lkionm

How are they even to prove they made the sex though?


If the girls says her 17 year boyfriend had sex with her when she was 16, how does she prove it? Same as if the family walked in on them?

Surely its all a bit too hard to enforce?

orestes

orestes wrote: »

It already is, it's when they are both under 17 that things are different for boys and girls.

Mine edited. Didn't read the post above mine till after

Mal-Adjusted

orestes wrote: »

No you don't. Even if you're found guilty, if you aren't more than 2 years older than the other person you still won't be subjected to the Sex Offenders Act of 2001, so their name doesn't go on the sex offenders register.

that's a good thing. i'll defer to someone who knows better.

orestes wrote: »

And having sex with someone who is under 17 doesn't make you a pedophile by the way, by any definition legal or otherwise, but that's a different subject.

i meant by wider society

orestes

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

that's a good thing. i'll defer to someone who knows better.

i meant by wider society

I don't know better, I know nothing about the law, I just saw this thread and spent 5 seconds typing "Irish Age of Sexual Consent" into Google and 2 minutes reading the relevant information and applied a tiny bit of rational thought (when it says a girl under 17 can't be prosecuted, then it follows that a guy can).

The only difference between me and a member of "wider society" who would consider a 17 year old who had sex with a 16 year old a pedophile who is on the sex offenders register is using 3 minutes of time and a few braincells. Well, that and using a couple of more minutes to learn what "pedophile" actually means.

Dotsie~tmp

Shíte. I was hoping this was a New Order thread.

Where To

1ZRed wrote: »

Ah to be having sex at 17 again!

Ah to be having sex at all.