Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Irish Supreme Court Strikes Down Age of Sexual Consent Law
LifeSiteNews ^ | 5/29/06 | Gudrun Schultz

Posted on 05/29/2006 12:45:27 PM PDT by wagglebee

DUBLIN, Ireland, May 29, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ireland's Supreme Court struck down the nation's statutory rape law as unconstitutional last week, leaving a legal void the Department of Justice is now scrambling to fill.

A provision in the law made sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 15 automatically considered rape, regardless of the circumstances. The Supreme Court ruled the law was unconstitutional on the grounds it did not leave room for a genuine mistake, even if it were proven that a girl had lied about her age, reported the Irish Emigrant this morning.

The ruling resulted from a recent case of a man charged with four counts of statutory rape for having sex with a 14-year-old girl. He was 18 at the time; the girl told him she was 16.

Although the ruling accepted the man's defence, the court did state that "the protection of young girls from engaging in consensual sex is a legitimate end to be pursued by appropriate means," indicating the need for new legislation.

Multiple cases of statutory rape charges before the courts were thrown into question by the ruling, media reported last week. RTÉ news reported Friday on a 38-year old man convicted of the unlawful carnal knowledge of a 12-year-old girl, two years ago, who was expected to challenge his conviction in court this week. The Irish Times reported Saturday on several cases, including a 26-year-old man who was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea of having sex with a 14-year-old girl.

Rape support groups expressed outrage over the ruling, saying it would give a "green light" to child sex offenders. A spokeswoman for the Rape Crisis Network said the new laws could strengthen the protection of children, however, by including young boys in the legislation, a group left largely unprotected by the 1935 law, reported the Emigrant.

New laws closing the temporary legal gap are expected to be in place within two weeks.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ageofconsent; eringoblow; ireland; moralabsolutes; pedophiles; shantyirish; teensex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last
Disgusting.
1 posted on 05/29/2006 12:45:31 PM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; BIRDS; BlackElk; BlessedBeGod; ...
MORAL ABSOLUTES PING.

DISCUSSION ABOUT:

Irish Supreme Court Strikes Down Age of Sexual Consent Law

Now the left will look for a way to do away with statuatory rape laws altogether.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.

2 posted on 05/29/2006 12:46:58 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The courts are out of control everywhere, it seems.


3 posted on 05/29/2006 12:50:35 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
These judges are wacky enough to be on the 9th Circuit.
4 posted on 05/29/2006 12:52:19 PM PDT by BW2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Ping for you.

I think I read that Aer Lingus is having a sale on airfares to Ireland this week.


5 posted on 05/29/2006 12:52:27 PM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irish_Thatcherite

Ping.


6 posted on 05/29/2006 12:54:16 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

These guys seem determined to show us that an independent judiciary is simply something that doesn't work.


7 posted on 05/29/2006 12:54:31 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The ruling resulted from a recent case of a man charged with four counts of statutory rape for having sex with a 14-year-old girl. He was 18 at the time; the girl told him she was 16.

Ridiculous. If she lied about her age (and lets face it, some 12 year old girls look 18), and admitted it in court, how can he be charged?

8 posted on 05/29/2006 12:55:41 PM PDT by CrawDaddyCA (Free Travis McGee!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA

Then throw out the charges not the law.


9 posted on 05/29/2006 12:56:28 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

St. Patrick pray for them.


10 posted on 05/29/2006 12:56:34 PM PDT by AliVeritas (Murtha, doing the job Marines wouldn't do... on Memorial Day weekend. s/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

Irish weddings are bad enough with the drunken brawls...now this.

11 posted on 05/29/2006 12:57:20 PM PDT by Fintan (Nár lagaí Dia do lámh!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I guess there are black robed Nazgul all over the world. Judicial tyranny.


12 posted on 05/29/2006 12:59:39 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Happygal; Colosis; Black Line; Cucullain; SomeguyfromIreland; Youngblood; Fergal; ...

It's a terrible thing that convicted offenders are taking advantage of the Irish Supreme Court ruling - but, to be fair, it was bad law considering cases where a teenaged girl lied about her age to an older man - and it couldn't be used as defence in court.

I hope the Irish government bring in a better worded law - except 'Irish government' and 'well-worded law' are mutually exclusive notions...


13 posted on 05/29/2006 1:02:44 PM PDT by Irish_Thatcherite (~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~| IRA supporters on FR are trolls, end of story!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

I wish they'd sell Aer Lingus..


14 posted on 05/29/2006 1:03:38 PM PDT by Irish_Thatcherite (~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~| IRA supporters on FR are trolls, end of story!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The ruling resulted from a recent case of a man charged with four counts of statutory rape for having sex with a 14-year-old girl. He was 18 at the time; the girl told him she was 16.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but the 18-year old male may be entitled to some understanding. I'm not sure he really should be branded a rapists and sex offender for the rest of his life (not to mention serve a long jail term), if this girl really made a plausible claim that she was 15 or 16.

I've got far less sympathy for older males who make the same claim.

15 posted on 05/29/2006 1:11:53 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

"Then throw out the charges not the law."

Now that does not make a lot of sense. Why have a law that is wrong? Do you think that eveyone who is convicted of it should then have to work there way up to the supreme court to get it thrown out. If this law had been written with common sense instead of a MOB mentality then this would not have happened. There was another thread on this here on FR a few days ago. People had a much different oppinion on that one. That fact is that this was bad law. The man was entitled to a defense. Not that what he did was right, but you have to look at the whole picture in this day and age when we are turnning into a police state. Sooner or later we are going to be found guilty of some crime. If you take the right of defense away from some then someday it will taken from you as well. It is a bad precident.


16 posted on 05/29/2006 1:13:47 PM PDT by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

Under the circumstances, you are correct.


17 posted on 05/29/2006 1:14:04 PM PDT by Irish_Thatcherite (~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~| IRA supporters on FR are trolls, end of story!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

There's something rotten in Ireland.


18 posted on 05/29/2006 1:17:15 PM PDT by TheWasteLand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark

No, you're not in the minority. In virtually every state in this country, 18 year olds and 16 year olds can have sex without breaking the law. Heck, a 15 year old and a 14 year old can in most states.

A law that makes no provision for teenagers having sex with other teenagers near their age is just wrong. There is no sense in criminalizing what most of us have done ourselves.

This was a bad law, and needs to be re-written. That's what supreme courts do...throw out bad laws and force legislators to think again and make the law sensible.


19 posted on 05/29/2006 1:19:59 PM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
RTÉ news reported Friday on a 38-year old man convicted of the unlawful carnal knowledge of a 12-year-old girl, two years ago, who was expected to challenge his conviction in court this week.

An eighteen year old with a fourteen year old who may or may not have lied about her age is one thing.

This is quite another.

20 posted on 05/29/2006 1:20:27 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Every lady in this land hath 20 nails on each hand five and twenty on hand and feet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam

Soon Steven Breyer will be seeing this precedent as applying to the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. Democrats think that sex with children is merely an alternative lifestyle.


21 posted on 05/29/2006 1:21:55 PM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
Yeah, it's terrible that real sex offenders are taking advantage of this.
22 posted on 05/29/2006 1:22:46 PM PDT by Irish_Thatcherite (~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~| IRA supporters on FR are trolls, end of story!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Next they'll allow raping of two year old babies.

Ireland is down the sewer.

23 posted on 05/29/2006 1:24:08 PM PDT by FerdieMurphy (For English, Press One. (Tookie, you won the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes. Oh, too late.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Shouldn't the burden be on the older person to obtain proof of age? Heck, a store that sells tobacco or booze to a minor that lied about their age is still guilty.

Out of wedlock sex should require a higher standard than this.

The gays have a desire to remove all age barriers, this ruling is one of the cases to that end.


24 posted on 05/29/2006 1:26:51 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

A posting about this a few days ago gave a little better take on the matter. Under the law that was struck down, a defense wasn't allowed if the accused acknowled that the act took place.
In the case that challenged the law the former posting indicated the boy was seventeen and the girl was fifteen though she told him she was sixteen. In that case I think the court's ruling was a good one. If she had been sixteen there wouldn't have been a crime.


25 posted on 05/29/2006 1:29:09 PM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: em2vn
If she had been sixteen there wouldn't have been a crime.

If he took the time to know her, there wouldn't have been a crime either.

26 posted on 05/29/2006 1:31:28 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

The Randall P. McMurphy defense.


27 posted on 05/29/2006 1:34:38 PM PDT by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Heck, a store that sells tobacco or booze to a minor that lied about their age is still guilty.

Sure.. ID cards can't be faked. < /sarcasm >

28 posted on 05/29/2006 1:34:39 PM PDT by Irish_Thatcherite (~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~| IRA supporters on FR are trolls, end of story!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Is Aer Lingus any relation to Connie Lingus?


29 posted on 05/29/2006 1:36:45 PM PDT by razorback-bert (Kooks For Kinky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
I'm not sure he really should be branded a rapists and sex offender for the rest of his life (not to mention serve a long jail term), if this girl really made a plausible claim that she was 15 or 16.

There was a thread recently on FR about a vigilante who murdered two convicted sex offenders whose addresses he was able to get from a database. Naturally, he received lots of thumbs up on the forum despite the fact that one of the "sex offenders" he murdered was an 18 or 19 year-old high school student convicted of having sex with his underaged girlfriend.

30 posted on 05/29/2006 1:44:24 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
... the court did state that "the protection of young girls from engaging in consensual sex is a legitimate end to be pursued by appropriate means,"...

no protection of young boys is needed ?
31 posted on 05/29/2006 1:45:10 PM PDT by stylin19a (There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
That's what supreme courts do...throw out bad laws and force legislators to think again and make the law sensible.

Sheesh. I really don't care much about Irelands Supreme Court but I would hope that not one Justice on the SCOTUS thinks that he has the power to throw out "bad laws".

32 posted on 05/29/2006 1:45:22 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

That's how the Constitution of Ireland works - it's the only check we have on the Executive and the Legislative.

I'm confused... can the US Supreme Court throw out unconstitutional laws?


33 posted on 05/29/2006 1:49:52 PM PDT by Irish_Thatcherite (~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~| IRA supporters on FR are trolls, end of story!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
There was a thread recently on FR about a vigilante who murdered two convicted sex offenders whose addresses he was able to get from a database. Naturally, he received lots of thumbs up on the forum despite the fact that one of the "sex offenders" he murdered was an 18 or 19 year-old high school student convicted of having sex with his underaged girlfriend.

I hadn't heard about that.

Overall I love FR, and freepers in general. But a couple of individuals need to dial back their blood lust just a little bit.

34 posted on 05/29/2006 1:52:32 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
A spokeswoman for the Rape Crisis Network said the new laws could strengthen the protection of children, however, by including young boys in the legislation, a group left largely unprotected by the 1935 law, reported the Emigrant.

Currently, the law doesn't protect boys, according to this article. But hopefully there will be a new law that will.

35 posted on 05/29/2006 1:54:46 PM PDT by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Irish_Thatcherite

"I'm confused... can the US Supreme Court throw out unconstitutional laws?
"

Of course it can, and frequently does.


36 posted on 05/29/2006 1:54:49 PM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

That's what I thought.


37 posted on 05/29/2006 1:55:51 PM PDT by Irish_Thatcherite (~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~| IRA supporters on FR are trolls, end of story!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
Currently, the law doesn't protect boys, according to this article. But hopefully there will be a new law that will.

I hope they do - but my government hasn't a good record at bringing in laws without serious loopholes.

38 posted on 05/29/2006 1:57:32 PM PDT by Irish_Thatcherite (~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~| IRA supporters on FR are trolls, end of story!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

"Sheesh. I really don't care much about Irelands Supreme Court but I would hope that not one Justice on the SCOTUS thinks that he has the power to throw out "bad laws"."

By bad laws, I mean laws that are unconstitutional. The SCOTUS (and the lower federal courts) throgh unconstitutional laws out all the time. I doubt that will change anytime soon.


39 posted on 05/29/2006 1:58:51 PM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert

Nope. Aer Lingus is the Irish Airline. Sorry to disappoint you.


40 posted on 05/29/2006 1:59:26 PM PDT by MineralMan (non-evangelical atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Irish_Thatcherite
I'm confused... can the US Supreme Court throw out unconstitutional laws?

Certainly. Can they throw out laws simply because they consider it bad law? Absolutely not.

41 posted on 05/29/2006 2:03:21 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Bad law and unconstititonal law are not mutually inclusive. But you've clarified that already.


42 posted on 05/29/2006 2:05:14 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

BUMP!


43 posted on 05/29/2006 2:13:28 PM PDT by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Actually, this law was unconstitutional.


44 posted on 05/29/2006 2:19:14 PM PDT by Irish_Thatcherite (~A vote for Bertie Ahern is a vote for Gerry Adams!~| IRA supporters on FR are trolls, end of story!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
no protection of young boys is needed ?

It depends what she looks like.

45 posted on 05/29/2006 2:26:11 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Irish_Thatcherite

So they say, I suspect that statement is highly debatable. Do you have a link to the holding?


46 posted on 05/29/2006 2:26:34 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 68skylark
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but the 18-year old male may be entitled to some understanding. I'm not sure he really should be branded a rapists and sex offender for the rest of his life (not to mention serve a long jail term), if this girl really made a plausible claim that she was 15 or 16.

You may be in the minority, but I agree with you. There are exceptions in U.S. law if the age difference between the two is very small, like 2 years. Otherwise, according to the wording in the article, if a 14 year old has sex with a 14 year old, bot would be guilty of rape since neither is over the age of consent. I think the court was just trying to inject a more reasonable boundary into the law. But then again, that's the job of the legislature, not the court.

47 posted on 05/29/2006 2:32:55 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CrawDaddyCA

The law is there to protect the minor ... not the adult. The onus is on the adult to not break the law. He could have asked for legal proof of her age.


48 posted on 05/29/2006 2:38:02 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Cheats, liars, ... and child rapists.


49 posted on 05/29/2006 2:40:01 PM PDT by Albert J Nock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
He could have asked for legal proof of her age.

Oh, yeah. In the heat of a consensual sexual encounter, with harmones raging on both sides, they're gonna stop and compare ID's.

50 posted on 05/29/2006 2:45:26 PM PDT by CrawDaddyCA (Free Travis McGee!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson