Log in

No account? Create an account

Wed, May. 24th, 2006, 09:26 am

Today was a great day for editorial juxtaposition. On page one of the Metro we have the headline "predators to exploit change in sex laws" (which I'll get back to) and beside it a picture of Fr Ted and Fr Dougal as an aside about how the island featured in the opening credits is now suffering a population boom.
Then there was an article about a cloned mule coming face to face with the original. The original is standing there, all muley and noble. The clone faces him while wearing a blinkers and harness that... well they look like a gimp mask and his tongue is hanging out the side of his mouth and he's drooling. I'm sure the clone is fine but... well it is not a picture that speaks well of the outcome of the process to me. Had me giggling though.

For those of you in the know, the supreme court yesterday said something to the effect of "When a fella has sex with an underaged girl it isn't necessarially statutory rape". Meaning those times when the girl looks eighteen, acts eighteen, sounds eighteen and has ID saying she's eighteen but - oh dear - turns out to be fourteen. I'm sure it happens from time to time. Unfortunately the perception is that now a forty year old can have sex with a kid and get away with it if he can convince them that he thought she was above the age of consent (15) at the time.

Maybe I'm mad but... the ruling was made in the context of a 17 year old who was charged with statutory rape of a girl who was under 15 at the time but claimed to be 16 - two kids being idiots and certainly the bloke deserves a slap with the cop-on trout but what the press would have me believe as of this morning is that right now there are ferryloads of perverts waiting in international waters to come into ireland in their droves. Did I miss something?

Wed, May. 24th, 2006 11:29 am (UTC)

The big issue is the fact thee are several cases pending at the moment that involve the rape and statuatory rape of minors and these are all in disary.
Plus the fact is until the law is amended ( it should be amended rather then completely struck out ) those who have be prosectued under it like the infamous Z from the X case can appeal thier convection and seek to have it over turn, their name removed from the sex offenders register and to sue that state as the law was deemed unconsitional.

Yes a person should be able to defend themselves legall but that does not mean they should not be able to be charged with statutory rape, but the law was to stop very young minors from being (mis) treated like adult rape victums are in the current legal system.

The Uk has the system that allows for a consenting minor and for the teen ager to be assesed to see if they can give consent we do not have the here.

Wed, May. 24th, 2006 11:33 am (UTC)

God... that'll teach me to be optimistic and assume the press is sensationalising the issue.

Wed, May. 24th, 2006 03:17 pm (UTC)
followthebird: Consent

I was under the impression that the age of consent is 17 in Ireland. If that is true the girl in question claimed to be of an age that was below the age of consent. So the young boy in question was still aware that she was under age.

That point aside, there is and should be a big difference between two young teenagers being foolish and a 40 something year old predator who manipulates young children into doing sex acts.

Wed, May. 24th, 2006 03:24 pm (UTC)
mr_wombat: Re: Consent

I thought it was 16 myself but according to the reports (which could as easily be wrong) anything below 15 is illegal. Whatever the case, the version I read was that she lied about her age to put it above the age of consent and he "didn't know". I'm dubious about that particular claim but its aside from the issue.
Apart from that however, I agree - he should get a hefty slap to knock some sense into him (which I guess this case would have done) but theres a world of difference between that and some creep in a chatroom grooming vunerable kids. However, the way the law stands at this particular moment would seem to be the opposite to what I initially assumed - that "I didn't know" is now a defence for the 40 year old men who molested kids while my original assumption was that "I didn't know" would only really be usable in cases like the pair of teenagers so that some kid wouldn't have their life destroyed because they couldn't keep it in their pants.

Wed, May. 24th, 2006 03:51 pm (UTC)
followthebird: Re: Consent

The age of consent to sexual activity is 17 and it may be a criminal offence to have sex with a person under the age of 17.


Wed, May. 24th, 2006 03:56 pm (UTC)
mr_wombat: Re: Consent

Puzzling, both papers seem to be reporting it as 15. Perhaps its a typo... kind of a bad one really.