Printable View
Just a couple of points on what's been discussed.
1. The age of heterosexual consent wasn't adjusted with legislation for homosexual consent. It was 17 long before homosexual relations were legal in this state.
2. The two underage thing is a tricky one. Technically statutory rape has been committed but both are underage. I have mates who are lawyers so I'll ask them for clarification.
That's her own fault. All 14/15 year olds know what can happen if they have sex so she knew what risk she was taking even if they used a johnnie. The argument that younger people are stupid is true, myself is one example, however every teenager knows what can happen from sex, it's taught in school. Noone can be so naive to think it couldn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
It doesn't make them responsible but the should have some cop on. It's her own fault that she got pregnant and it shouldn't be considered rape. This case is actually disgusting me. It means people my age can't have sex for fear of going to jail. Where's the logic in that??
AFIK, the legal definition of rape in Irish Law involves penetration - otherwise it's unlawful carnal knowledge. Therefore there is no provision for the statutary rape of males by females. Therefore, a 17 year-old girl and a 16 year old boy is not statutary rape, (i don't know if it's legal or not), but a 17 year-old boy and 16 year-old girl is.
Interestingly enough, here in Norway a woman's appeal against a rape conviction was quashed recently. Story is here. Apparently she got 8 months in prison for it.
What kind of bloke gets psychologically disturbed because a scandinavian Bird gives him a BJ .......bizzare
My sentiments exactly. I'd be pretty happy to wake up and find some blonde Norwegian playing the pink oboe, as they say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
Apparently the boyfriend was in the flat as well and she was looking for a bit of an aul menage a trois. Anyway, not all Norwegians are particularly good looking :(Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
although some of the politicians are quite nice. Better than Mary Harney anyday!
Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
:D :D :D
I thought I'd heard 'em all.
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
RFLMAO:D
BGR..you're a legend........a true legend.
Jaysus and all I got was ten shillings, a big bottle of Cidona, a new suit and shiny shoes.:mad:
So are we to understand that there's a two year age gap rather than a 4 year age gap then?
When I was 16 I'd a 14 year old girlfriend for a while ...22 months younger than me. Never got into her knickers but that wasn't for want of trying mind. I think girls that age just like "older" fellahs ..or what's "older" in their mind at least? I'd no real awareness of her being 14 and it wasn't an issue for her folks.
I have to say though -if I'd a 15 year old daughter and she arrived home with a 19 year old boy ...frankly I'd assume malevolence, deviance and sexual retardation on his part and would quite possibly arrange for him to have a very nasty accident.
It's too big a gap at that age. Way too big in terms of emotional, social and sexual development. Yeah ...I'd have him accidently reversed over repeatedly.
Just listening to the radio on the way to work this morning there was a prof. from one of the countries Biggest std clinics on he said the average age of his patients are 16 and he regularly treats girls of thirteen and upQuote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
man thats down right worrying
Another massive problem is that idot judge over here in the UK who dropped a case against a rapist because the girl was drunk! She was lying outside her room and he took her in and had sex-because she can't remember all the details apparently it's not rape! So it seems that girls have no right to get drunk without some animal raping them. The law should protect you whether you are drunk or not end of.
Damn media. You've made the same mistake as everyone else - she was 15 at the time, he's 19 now. I still haven't picked up the actual age difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
It take a big man to highlight their mistakes like that Liam, I applaud you! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by liam88
Can't agree with you. Does that mean drink-drivers should be protected too??Quote:
Originally Posted by liam88
No no i obviously put my point across wrongly!Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
Case of rape/murder/assult-jsut because you are drunk it doesn't mena people can do what they like to you!
Drink drivers are breaking the law and subsequently endangering others lives. This girl was drunk and passed out outisde her hotel room. The point I was trying to make is that just because a girl is drunk it shouldn't mean animals are allowed to rape her which is what this judge is effectivly saying!!
I'm totally unfamiliar with the case you're referring to Liam so feel free to metaphorically slap me on the back of the head if I'm wrong here.
I presume that the verdict was because the girl couldn't consciously remember saying 'no'. In that case there's no way to prove that the sex was non-consentual and as such there's no way of proving that the lad was guilty.
A similar case here a couple of years ago with Kerry footballer Declan Quill. There he seemed to get off more or less because he couldn't remember anything that had happened until he woke up to a screaming girl with a bloody face... the legal system here is no better... :rolleyes:
"drunken consent is still consent" was what the judge said, or at least alluded to. agree with him, not that id take advantage of a drunken girl thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by liam88
The point is though-as slk said-no one knows if conesnt was given!Quote:
Originally Posted by anto eile
Should drunken consent really be consent though?
I mean surely you can judge it on each case.....if a long-term couple are together and have had a couple to many wines then maybe fine, but if a boy fidn a girl passed out in a doorway, drags her into a room, wakes her up, she says yes-not knowign what she's saying or who she's saying it to (and he knows that because he's just drageed her in there!) then that is rape; plain and simple. I know this is dodgy ground but.....the fact she has taken it to court anyway implies that she didn't want to/didn't know what was going on-she stands nothing to gian by him going to prison considering she never knew him before that night! I don't know how compensation etc. work but it'd be a bit far fetched to suggest that a gril would put herself through the trauma of a rape trial/DNA test/STD test/story all over the papers for a bit of money or just for a laugh!
It does happen liam - people can do it to cover themselves from partners finding out or embarrassment. I know one guy who was accussed, but cleared by DNA evidence straight away. She confessed all once he was cleared -turned out the woman had got píssed, had sex with two different blokes, and was using the rape as cover for her husband. All the accused had done was help out after seeing her collapse in a ditch whilst she was walking home.Quote:
Originally Posted by liam88
It's got to be beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction. If someone is too píssed to remember what actually happened, how can you convict on that basis?
That's true but stil the judge is setting a precednt that it is acceptable to rape drunk girls-when it clearly isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy