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.
Certainly. Can they throw out laws simply because they consider it bad law? Absolutely not.
Bad law and unconstititonal law are not mutually inclusive. But you've clarified that already.
BUMP!
Actually, this law was unconstitutional.
It depends what she looks like.
So they say, I suspect that statement is highly debatable. Do you have a link to the holding?
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.
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.
Cheats, liars, ... and child rapists.
Oh, yeah. In the heat of a consensual sexual encounter, with harmones raging on both sides, they're gonna stop and compare ID's.
Why? We live in a culture that teaches pre teen kids how to have "safe sex." This is the culture that we accept and this is the culture we created.
It is perverse, but it makes sense.
I don't have link (yet) to the wording of the ruling, but I do have a link to the Irish Constitution, the ruling is, I think, based on Article 40 4:
http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/publications/297.htm
Ignorance is no excuse ... the onus is on the adult, regardless of the temperature.
Let's make it a given that the law is poorly written. Bad law so to speak. I grant you that, now tell me what gives the SCOI the power to tell Parliament they don't like the law and thus it must be struck down or rewritten.
I'm trying to understand Irelands judicial system here.
Which is why laws should be written and revised carefully. It is good that they are changing it. Bad that some who are guilty might go free.
I'll try to dig up some more links, you could be right - our Supreme Court judges do have the same habit as their counterparts in the US - of basing rulings on their own opinions.
Bad that some who are guilty might go free.
Without a doubt they will - but case mentioned in the article is on weak grounds - a 38 year old sleeping with a 12 year old is clearly wrong, so hopefully the appeal will be thrown out.
Which is why I am in favor of laws being written and passed as slowly as possible. We have to have time to look at and consider all angles.
As you said the grounds for this guys appeal is weak.
We have a government here that moves too quickly with laws!
ruth ginsberg will refer to this because it is in keeping with her personal beliefs.
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.