Should people accused of sexual offences have a right to anonymity?

awec

PucaMama wrote: »

i would think it was very obvious if shes that young....

That doesn't answer my question.

Lets imagine she's only 1 year too young. If she lies about her age is it still his fault?

PucaMama

laoch na mona wrote: »

no I don't get what you mean sex is an activity involving two or more people and no one gets to just lie there not doing anything

of course the girl would end up the worst if something went wrong but why would we not do more to discourage girls more then boys? ( I think it should be equal for both but your logic suggests this)

you forget that if two 16 year old boys have sex they technically raped each other but if two 16 girls have sex neither of them has broken the law
how does that make an iota of sense

a definition of rape

Meaning of “rape”.

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

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

(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,


statutory rape n. sexual intercourse with a female below the legal age of consent, but above the age of a child, even if the female gave her consent, did not resist and/or mutually participated.

as the law sees it rape is always by a male to a female.

PucaMama

awec wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question.

Lets imagine she's only 1 year too young. If she lies about her age is it still his fault?

you could say well, hes 19, 17 is very close to his age so he would be reasonable in looking for a girl around that age eg 17+ but if hes 30+ well im not so sure.

Holsten

Corkbah wrote: »

let me turn that around on you do you think that criminals should get their criminal history wiped because they have been crime free for X amount of years ??

Yes 100%.

Perhaps 10 years after their sentence is finished, with no re offending they should have their conviction spent.

Punishing people for their entire lives is not effective.

laoch na mona

PucaMama wrote: »

a definition of rape

Meaning of “rape”.

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

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

(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,


statutory rape n. sexual intercourse with a female below the legal age of consent, but above the age of a child, even if the female gave her consent, did not resist and/or mutually participated.

as the law sees it rape is always by a male to a female.

we know the law but we also know its sexist and outdated
please explain why you feel a law saying women cannot be rapists is ok?

PucaMama

laoch na mona wrote: »

we know the law but we also know its sexist and outdated
please explain why you feel a law saying women cannot be rapists is ok?

i just think why if people know the law why do they break it and act surprised when the crime is punished? its in black and white. fair or not.

laoch na mona

PucaMama wrote: »

i just think why if people know the law why do they break it and act surprised when the crime is punished? its in black and white. fair or not.

laws were made to benefit society
this law does not
by your logic no woman should have used a condom until the 80s
and no man should have loved another man until the 90s
i find your conservatism disgusting

seenitall

PucaMama wrote: »

i just think why if people know the law why do they break it and act surprised when the crime is punished? its in black and white. fair or not.

Laws can be changed.

People change laws.

You are one of the people.

Do you think this law is just and equal as it stands, or do you think it could do with changing?

PucaMama

laoch na mona wrote: »

laws were made to benefit society
this law does not
by your logic no woman should have used a condom until the 80s
and no man should have loved another man until the 90s
i find your conservatism disgusting

Getting rid of law against gay people is a lot more important than allowing for underage sex. It doesnt even measure up. Stopping underage sex does not take from human rights.

laoch na mona

PucaMama wrote: »

Getting rid of law against gay people is a lot more important than allowing for underage sex. It doesnt even measure up. Stopping underage sex does not take from human rights.

UDHR article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination



sounds like a violation to me

Legs.Eleven

Gatling wrote: »

So if say woman/or a man even came on to boards and other outlets such as twitter and Facebook claiming they were raped by an individual/s naming them and so on ,
Yet it was never reported to the gardai the person/s deserve to have there lives ruined off a baseless aligation

Huh?

Gatling

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Huh?

I was going off your last post ,must have misread something

hatrickpatrick

PucaMama wrote: »

as i said the law is the law. its illegal for a male to have sex with underage female. they do no this beforehand. so they shouldnt do it.

SHOULD the law be the law? I'm arguing that all rape and sexual assault laws should be rewritten so as to be completely gender neutral.

Actually scratch that, all laws should be gender neutral. The law should only refer to people.

mlumley

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Accusation proven false = page six

If at all mentioned.

mlumley

No, they should get the anominimity, same as the aleged victim. Then, if proven gilty, their name shoud go out.

Reindeer

In the States, people whom are incarcerated for molesting or raping children are placed in a different ward from the 'general population' because their safety has been shown to be precarious at best in the past. If I could change one thing about the criminal justice system, placing these offenders within the general population would be high on that list...

Legs.Eleven

Gatling wrote: »

I was going off your last post ,must have misread something

Yep.

hatrickpatrick

Reindeer wrote: »

In the States, people whom are incarcerated for molesting or raping children are placed in a different ward from the 'general population' because their safety has been shown to be precarious at best in the past. If I could change one thing about the criminal justice system, placing these offenders within the general population would be high on that list...

So essentially you're advocating extrajudicial violent punishment against criminals.
Where does that end, exactly? Lynch mobs? Burning witches at the stake? Believe it or not, there's a damn good reason this isn't allowed.

tritium

Reindeer wrote: »

In the States, people whom are incarcerated for molesting or raping children are placed in a different ward from the 'general population' because their safety has been shown to be precarious at best in the past. If I could change one thing about the criminal justice system, placing these offenders within the general population would be high on that list...

Wow must be great having all those torture porn fantasies from the safety of your keyboard! Now maybe you'd like to contribute to the actual topic

hatrickpatrick

By the way just to go into detail about gender neutrality, I would get rid of all references to penetration in any rape law. It's completely irrelevant. Penetration itself is not the wrongdoing, forcing someone to have sex with you is. Forcing someone to have sex against their will should be against the law, simple as that. It shouldn't be any more specific to certain ways of having sex or to which gender initiates it against the other's will. If someone doesn't consent and you have sex with them, you are a rapist. Otherwise, you're not a rapist.

If we must criminalize consensual underage sex, (a) don't call it "rape", give it a different name, and (b) get rid of any and all gender specific language in the law so that everyone bears an equal responsibility depending on who initiated, the level of consent etc.

Call me an extremist if you like. If we're living in an age of equal rights, which I approve of, it absolutely must mean equal responsibilities, and it must apply to absolutely every area of life, not just those in which applying it benefits one group over the other.

tritium

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

By the way just to go into detail about gender neutrality, I would get rid of all references to penetration in any rape law. It's completely irrelevant. Penetration itself is not the wrongdoing, forcing someone to have sex with you is. Forcing someone to have sex against their will should be against the law, simple as that. It shouldn't be any more specific to certain ways of having sex or to which gender initiates it against the other's will. If someone doesn't consent and you have sex with them, you are a rapist. Otherwise, you're not a rapist.

If we must criminalize consensual underage sex, (a) don't call it "rape", give it a different name, and (b) get rid of any and all gender specific language in the law so that everyone bears an equal responsibility depending on who initiated, the level of consent etc.

Call me an extremist if you like. If we're living in an age of equal rights, which I approve of, it absolutely must mean equal responsibilities, and it must apply to absolutely every area of life, not just those in which applying it benefits one group over the other.

My god, new fangled ideas! Next thing I suppose you'll want to us this new Internet thingie or even the wireless

hatrickpatrick

tritium wrote: »

My god, new fangled ideas! Next thing I suppose you'll want to us this new Internet thingie or even the wireless

Ah now come on, even a mad bastard like myself has limits

laoch na mona

tritium wrote: »

My god, new fangled ideas! Next thing I suppose you'll want to us this new Internet thingie or even the wireless

I've had a wireless for years you can get radio Luxemburg on a clear day ...... tis great

gramar

Now it's Chris Evan's turn. 20 years later an anonymous accuser gets to drag him through the shít for alleged sexual offences (flashing).

"It is understood that neither the BBC nor Evans have been contacted by detectives in relation to the claims"

So the police haven't even contacted them and the press can publish whatever they like while the accusor after toying with their conscience for 20 years hides in the shadows.

gramar

After my earlier post I now see that Chris Evans has left his Top Gear post. The ratings mightn't have been wonderful but that it coincides with the above allegations hardly seems a coincidence.