Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

1 year in prison for raping 8-year-old over 50 times

124»

Comments

  • #92
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    What fact? What are you talking about? You seem very confused. Despite the fact that the law has repeatedly been pointed out to you, you insist on inventing your own, calling other people's posts bullsh1t and generally burying your head in the sand.

    She did not rape the boy. Rape is a gender specific offence. It requires the penetration of a vagina by a penis.She does not have a penis. He does not have a vagina. It is physically and legally impossible for her to rape him. I can't make it any clearer than that for you. If you dont (or wont) see that, then nobody can help you.

    What about anal? That's not rape, it's sodomy?
    it's not legally rape in the current jurisdiction, but then again there are jurisdictions where a female victim of what we would call rape would be considered at fault... which we know to be wrong.


  • #93
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    kiffer wrote: »
    What about anal? That's not rape, it's sodomy?
    it's not legally rape in the current jurisdiction, but then again there are jurisdictions where a female victim of what we would call rape would be considered at fault... which we know to be wrong.


    Rape under section 4 requires the penetration of the mouth or anus by a penis, penetration of the vagina by a hand held object.

    By the way, I am not saying I agree with the law. IMO she is just as bad as a male perpetrator, I DO think she got off light because of her gender (as I think a lot of women do - you only need to look at the family courts to see this), it just annoys me when people get the law wrong because they wont be taken seriously then.


  • #94
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    tritium wrote: »
    I think you'll find that was never in dispute. The internet however is not subject to a single jurisdiction, and if folks use a term that is valid in a broader sense then being pedantic about it doesn't serve much purpose. If anything all it illustrates is the differences in how legal systems consider what is essentially the same crime. If it makes you happier we can agree for the avoidance of doubt that the crux of the crime was one of coercive sexual intercourse (with a child in this case) or something akin to that.


    With respect, I am in Ireland and I am talking about the Irish law. Quoting Irish law in this context is not pedantic, regardless of whether you agree with it. I am aware that the definition varies depending on jurisdiction. This crime was committed in the UK. So, I suppose we should acquaint ourselves with the statutes there if we want to discuss their interpretation and application in this case. Like I said already, I am not overly familiar in this regard, though I am not afraid to admit when I do not know something.


  • #95
    Gatling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    I'd hate to hear what some people would tell there kids if they were abused and raped ,

    Ohh under section this and section of the criminal justice act states you weren't actually raped under this definition,

    Seriously
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • #96
    Kidchameleon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭Kidchameleon


    Southpark Nice?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Gatling wrote: »
    I'd hate to hear what some people would tell there kids if they were abused and raped ,

    Ohh under section this and section of the criminal justice act states you weren't actually raped under this definition,

    Seriously

    Seriously is right. What a strange parent indeed that would be! :confused:

    I'd hate to hear what you would say to a judge if you were representing your victim in court and referred to the wrong legislation.


  • #98
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    According to the law it's not rape. I don't agree with the law, lots of people don't agree with the law - but that doesn't change that the law doesn't recognise it as rape... why the denial of this law, crappy and all as it may be? :confused:


  • #99
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    Sure look at the comments on a news story any time some bint kills her kids and then herself, then compare it to a man who does the same, or kidnaps his children and brings them abroad. Men who do it are evil, women who do it were "in a dark place" and other such bollocks.
    Not as simple as that at all. Plenty of people, myself included, would consider it possible for a father who does such a thing to be mentally ill - e.g. that fella in Crete and the Crowley guy in Cork.
    And plenty of "evil bitch" comments about mothers who do that.
    jank wrote: »
    If the kid was a girl and the older person a man, then you can be sure that it would be a hell of a lot longer than 1 year…
    But... that... was already covered loads of times?

    Between the gleeful use (by a small number) of this horrible case to sock it to the feminazis (and not seeming to give a hoot about the victim) and the focus on the gender inequality angle of the reporting on a desperately poor widowed mother-of-10's murder... I can't decide which is classier.


  • #100
    Holsten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,971 ✭✭✭Holsten


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    According to the law it's not rape. I don't agree with the law, lots of people don't agree with the law - but that doesn't change that the law doesn't recognise it as rape... why the denial of this law, crappy and all as it may? :confused:
    Terminology is flawed in my view.

    Rape for me is a very powerful word that brings up ideas of extreme violence and force.

    A 16 year old boy who has sex with a 16 year old girl is raping her in the eyes of the law even if they have been going out three years, she instigated it and it is completely consensual. Is that right?


  • #101
    py2006
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,845 ✭✭✭py2006


    Holsten wrote: »
    A 16 year old boy who has sex with a 16 year old girl is raping her in the eyes of the law even if they have been going out three years, she instigated it and it is completely consensual. Is that right?

    Pretty much. or is it 15?


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    maguic24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,790 ✭✭✭maguic24


    Is the legal age for sexual intercourse still 17?


  • #103
    Holsten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,971 ✭✭✭Holsten


    py2006 wrote: »
    Pretty much. or is it 15?
    It's 17.

    Females cannot be guilty of ANY offense if they are under 17 within the Sexual Offenses Act.


  • #104
    py2006
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,845 ✭✭✭py2006


    Defilement of a child aged under 17 years
    Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sex Offences) Act 2006 (pdf) as amended by Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Act 2007 (pdf) makes it a criminal offence to engage or attempt to engage in a sexual act with a child under 17 years. The maximum sentence is five years, ten years if the accused is a person in authority. A person in authority means:

    A parent, step-parent, guardian, grandparent, uncle or aunt of the victim, or
    any person acting in loco parentis (in place of parent or parents) to the victim, or
    any person responsible for the education, supervision or welfare of the victim.
    The maximum sentence is greater for a second or subsequent offence.

    The accused may argue that he or she honestly believed that the child was aged 17 years or over. The court must then consider whether or not that belief was reasonable. It is not a defence to show that the child consented to the sexual act.

    The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for any prosecution of a child under the age of 17 years for this offence. A person who is convicted of this offence and is not more than two years older than the victim is not subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. This means they will not have their name placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

    A girl aged under 17 years who has sexual intercourse may not be convicted of an offence on that ground alone.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html


  • #105
    py2006
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,845 ✭✭✭py2006


    Essentially if a sixteen year old heterosexual couple have consensual sex, he can be convicted of rape, defilement of a child and placed on the sex offenders list. At worst, she gets a broken heart.

    How does this law affect two gay or lesbian 16yr old couples?


  • #106
    kiffer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    py2006 wrote: »
    Essentially if a sixteen year old heterosexual couple have consensual sex, he can be convicted of rape, defilement of a child and placed on the sex offenders list. At worst, she gets a broken heart.

    How does this law affect two gay or lesbian 16yr old couples?

    The Lesbians are in the clear, the boy who is top is in trouble.


  • #107
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Holsten wrote: »
    Terminology is flawed in my view.

    Rape for me is a very powerful word that brings up ideas of extreme violence and force.

    A 16 year old boy who has sex with a 16 year old girl is raping her in the eyes of the law even if they have been going out three years, she instigated it and it is completely consensual. Is that right?


    That is correct.

    IMO its not right.


Advertisement