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.
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.
Ireland is down the sewer.
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.
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.
If he took the time to know her, there wouldn't have been a crime either.
The Randall P. McMurphy defense.
Sure.. ID cards can't be faked. < /sarcasm >
Is Aer Lingus any relation to Connie Lingus?
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.
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".
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?
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.
Currently, the law doesn't protect boys, according to this article. But hopefully there will be a new law that will.
"I'm confused... can the US Supreme Court throw out unconstitutional laws?
"
Of course it can, and frequently does.
That's what I thought.
I hope they do - but my government hasn't a good record at bringing in laws without serious loopholes.
"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.
Nope. Aer Lingus is the Irish Airline. Sorry to disappoint you.
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.