Irish government wants to lower age of consent

SingleDonald, now it seems to me that I was being ridiculously idealistic in what I wrote below. When are human beings sexually responsible--age 25? 35? 50? I don't know. Maybe I'll know when I'm 70, maybe never. I don't envy Irish lawmakers their task of setting an age of consent. Whatever they do, I hope they are both responsible about children and serious about sex education.

Current Irish law allows courts to reduce both the charge and the penalty for sex crimes against girls. Example: Irish Times Nov 6/10, reported that a man was convicted for "defiling" (raping) a 14-year-old girl in a shed near her house in 2007, when he was 17. He had 20 previous convictions for "mostly alcohol-fueled offenses." The court accepted his guilty plea NOT for an offense against a 14-year-old, but for an offense against a 17-year-old. If the victim was 17 OR if the accused can persuade the court that he BELIEVED s/he was 17, the maximum sentence is five years, vs. life in prison if the victim was 14. If a girl of 14 can seem 17, she is all the more vulnerable! (I suspect the court was reluctant to apply the law as written because its sentencing seemed too harsh. But the way to fix this problem is not to ignore the age of the victim, but to reduce maximum sentences and apply them strictly according to the victim's age.) This was rape, yet the court treated it like consensual teen sex simply because the rapist was 17. Would the court have decided differently if the victim had still been 14 at time of trial, or if she had died of pre-eclampsia after the rape? It's not progress if the courts protect boys while treating girls as throw-away children by ignoring the vulnerabilities that girls alone have.

Today, the average girl can become pregnant before age twelve, and is completely past puberty by age 14 or 15. The younger the child, the more vulnerable the child is, and the more in need of protection. But for girls, vulnerability increases post-puberty as well. Two principles seem relevant to me: age of consent should coincide with age of responsibility, and a child past puberty needs the continued protection of law, not less of it. Imagine a 14-year-old girl being told by a teenage boy that she cannot become pregnant if she has sex. Not only can she become pregnant, but there are significant risks to her life and health if she does. I do favor equal treatment of males and females under the law; however, the law must be written to reflect the vulnerabilities of the most vulnerable. At what age do you think boys and girls are BOTH responsible enough to protect each other's health?

eiriamach, Seven or Eight? Sounds hard to believe, but I guess there are exceptions! I agree that statutory rape is wrong, but vehemently support the N.Y. law, which gives the protection to near age partners.

SingleDonald, I question your definition of "pedophilia." It might make sense for cases in which the victims are boys because boys still enter puberty later than girls. But have you seen recent studies that indicate that some girls are entering puberty at age seven? Ten-year-olds, twelve-year-olds, and fifteen-year-olds are children, and the law is right to treat them as children. In so far as they have gone through puberty, we have the awesome challenge of teaching them a form of adult responsibility, but in so far as they are still children, we have the responsibility to protect them. When a 20-year-old man has sex with a fourteen-year-old girl, I am inclined to call it pedophilia, whether the law calls it that or not. If we need to find another word for it, OK, but it belongs in a category different from that of teenagers having consensual sex.

I feel that New York's law should be a model for other jurisdictions. Passed in 1968, the age of consent is 17. If a boy or girl is under 17, there must be a 5-year age gap (21 with 16; 20 with 15; 19 with 14, etc. for the liason to be considered statutory rape. This makes all the sense in the world. Prior to 1968, boys (and only boys) could be charged with "statutory rape", even if consorting with a same age girl!! As I have 2ce previously said, pedophilia only applies to an adult having sex with a pre-puberty child, usually 12 or less. Father Ritter, for all his notoriety, was NOT a pedophile, just a statutory rapist. All the boys he was involved with were past puberty. In fact, Kevin Kite, the guy who turned Father Ritter in to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, in 1989, was 21. Common sense should always prevail, on both sides of majority. Near age teens should not be prosecuted. Nor should any adults who have consensual encounters with people in "lower status" positions than themselves: professor/student; attorney/client, supervisor/staff member, etc. It is a feminist myth that "power differentials" override the age of consent. If coercion does take place, sexual harassment policy can remedy the situation. Under no circumstances, though, should a sighting of a supervisor/staff member at a restaurant, movie theater, or of one entering the others' residence be grounds for "discipline". For example, if I accept an invitation from my unmarried female manager, or supervisor, do I revert to a boy under the age of consent, since she is "higher" than me?? I might even ask her out! I realize the topic here involves the law. Yet, I wanted to add situations involving employment rights, as well!

With all the sex abuse scandals running mad, this is how the 'authorities' decide to deal with it? Lowering the age of consent? Why not change the law to decriminalize consensual sex between people of the same age or close to it?

God bless them. The Catholic Church is involved in everything.

Yes, a true load, especially when a 14 year old can't travel to England for an abortion. (Remember that case?) Bunch of hypocrites.

this cat's bro is a comedian too - having name of savage

What a load....... Why not just lower it to 7 years of age...isn't that the age of reason?

What's behind this? According to a survey reported Sept. 5, 2010 in the Irish Times, "about 20 per cent of those aged 18 to 34 believe the age [of sexual consent] should be 17, while a similar number support the age being lowered to 16." The current age-of-consent law criminalizes adults and under-aged boys who have consensual sex with under-aged persons (male or female), but not under-aged girls who have consensual sex with under-aged persons. On this matter, 87 percent of all surveyed seem to prefer equal treatment for boys and girls. But simply adding boys to the wording that exempts girls from prosecution in the "Offenses" section would accomplish equal treatment. So it's not clear that fairness to teenage boys what Andrews intends. It's strange that he has not explained the likely consequences, though maybe all will become clear when the bill is published. [Correction to what I wrote below: the maximum sentence of life in prison seems to be, according to Times, for "defilement" of children under 15, not 16, but reading the Times shows that the courts apply age limits loosely.]

THE LAW IS ALWAYS TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAW OF GOD AND MORALITY. ABSTINENCE SHOULD BE OBSERVED BY ALL HUMAN BEINGS UNTIL MARRIAGE REGARDLESS OF YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. WE ARE NOT ANIMALS READY TO PRODUCE EVERY TIME WE GET EXCITED...WE HAVE A BRAIN AND CAN CHOOSE RIGHT AND NOT WRONG....SEX IN MARRIAGE ONLY AND NOT BEFORE MARRIAGE AND NOT LIVING TOGETHER BEFORE MARRIAGE. SEX IS A BEAUTIFUL THING DONE IN LOVE AND MARRIAGE ALONE. READ YOUR 10 COMMANDMENTS OF GOD AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND. GOD BLESS IRELAND AND THE KIDS OF TODAY....BOTH NEED GOD IN THIS TERRIBLE IMMORAL WORLD THAT CONDONES EVERY EVIL POSSIBLE. I TRULY BELIEVE THAT EVIL EXISTS (DEVIL) AND IS WORKING NON STOP TO DESTROY OUR YOUTH THRU STUPID ADULTS.GOD HELP US ALL.

Now, I'd be more upset about this than the naked model/dog calendar. Don't come to Ameria where the age of consent is still 18. Next thing you know, Ireland will be pardoning pedophiles.

I am in total agreement with the posting by bets731. It will be a sad day for Ireland if the age of consent is lowered.