Constitutional referendum on rape laws?

by Seán Ryan Wed Jun 28, 2006 19:08

Well done for keeping hold to this one Chris.

As you know, the powers that be will try to complexify the issues into a myriad of obscurities, in order to blur the picture. I wish they'd see that this will not be allowed to happen.

Methinks the issue is much greater than just the sexual laws angle. I'm not downgrading the importance of this issue. It's primal.

I think the hole opened in our laws brings into question the idea of mandatory sentencing itself. I'll not explore this further at this point, in order not to detract from the importance of this piece.

This is about children.

It's not about introducing some half arsed excuse for a referendum, allowing all the usual scum, to get up on platforms and elucidate on obvious points, and thus elevate themselves out of being the core of the problem to begin with.

People will remember this "apalling vista" as our friend Iosaf sometimes refers to it. And they will remember who is responsible for it.

by Chris Murray - The Unmanageables Wed Jun 28, 2006 20:12

42 cases of unlawful imprisonment - the 1935 legislation no longer stands.
12 cases of unlawful carnal knowledge of a 15-17 year old.

All these case have to be re-tried.

Bertie expects that the DPP will do his job.

He does not overtly question the issues that have brought about
this crisis.

No reference was made to the unconstitutionality of section 5.

To re-iterate: Mister'A' did not claim the honest mistake defence.

The honest mistake defence is open to constitutional challenge.

There will be a referendum on that issue, which will to all intents and purposes bring us back to the Laffoy decision.

There will be a constitutional challenge to section 5.

The DPP has his work cut out for him.

The government has brought us back to square one and further, it has participated in the criminalisation of young people for having sex.
It has put the rape victim back on the stand to describe what he/she was wearing and how he/she was acting the night they were raped.

by c murray - the unmanageables Mon Sep 04, 2006 20:19

A spokesperson for the Dublin Crisis Centre today criticised figures which were
released by the dept of Justice, indicating that murder and rape cases take an average
of 2 and a quarter years to ge to the court.

It appears that impact on rape victims includes the seating area awaiting trial,
wherein a victim is often seated with the perpetrator of the rape or family members of the perpetrator. This is further complicated by the structure of the court and added to that
the new statutory rape laws place the victim on the stand to be cross-questioned.

figures released last week said that a mimimum of cases known to DRCC end in a conviction
and imprisonment.

by c murray - the unmans Mon Sep 04, 2006 20:57

The first reason that the Criminal Law (sexual offences) Bill 2006
will be challenged constitutionally is that it is not 'gender neutral'
The rushed legislation included an insertion by Michael Mc Dowell
TD known as section 5.

The Ombudsman for children (by Letter) demanded the excision of section
5 , referred to by Brendan Howlin TD as an 'absurdity', the request for excision was
read into the record of the Dail by Ciaran Cuffe TD (green Party).

The law containing the unconstitutional section 5 nethertheless passed through
both houses of the Dail and got the presidential seal.

The Rape laws now include a facility for cross-examination of the victim (clothing, behaviour, jewellery)
retains the 'honest mistake' mechanism and is open to constitutional challenge
on the basis of section5.

Meanwhile the DRCC says that only a miminmum of rape cases are reported
and less result in conviction. The statutory rape laws mitigate against the victim/

a constitutional referendum would not answer the impact of bad legislation
on the victim of crime.

by Pundit Mon Sep 04, 2006 21:21

Anyone can make an honest mistake about age. Its difficult to see how any amendment could be worded so that it could prevent someone from raising mistake as a legitimate defense.

That does not mean that a man would be able to claim that he thought a 12 yr old was 17 and get away with it. I

by Robyn Tue Sep 05, 2006 02:15 peacefulwarriorprincess at yahoo dot com dot au Australia

What the hell has clothing, jewellery and behaviour got to do with being raped?

The crime of rape is a very difficult one to prove under the law of innocent until PROVEN guilty. Without forensic evidence and an independent witness, I believe it is very difficult to get a conviction. Most rapists ensure neither are available.

In Australia, less than 1% of rapes get to the prosecution by law stage. That's an awful lot of rapists getting away scot free, and an awful lot of victims feeling that justice has failed them.

Is it any wonder that rape victims often do not want to go to the police, or go to court, when they are further traumatised by being put on trial?

I believe a different approach is needed for the secretive crimes of rape, sexual assault and child abuse.

With regard to the honest mistake around a child's age, I am thinking the only way around this is for an ID check and a consent form to be filled in prior to any intimacy ;-)

Robyn

by C Murray Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:37

I have to question why people are ignoring the reasons for calling the
last general election. it was called 9 days after Dr Michael woods signed
the indemnity deal. The deal which Mary Harney defended and the
AG of the time Michael Mc Dowell did not- (he was not invited to the
nuts and bolts discussion). That election led to the present coalition
which has been incapable of addressing the abuse crisis, the constitutional
crisis provoked by 'A' and 'CC' in an intelligent and sympathetic manner.

The issue of a referendum by a coalition which has sorely let down
the victims of abuse in this state and not had the empathy to support
them or deal with funding for the trauma centers is appalling.

It is not good enough to adress these issues in this manner.

by Dub Mon Feb 05, 2007 18:31

In years to come the stand that Joe Higgins has made will be noted. Joe Higgins/SP were only group in entire Oireachtas to oppose the law passed last summer that criminalised consentual sexual relations teens engage in. In years to come historians will look back the same way we look back at the prudish victorians and will see Joe Higgins as the only voice of reason and progress.

by C Murray Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:10

Irish Times reports this morning that the Referendum to undo the Legislation (June 2nd 2006)
will not now take place before an election.

{The whole issue is re-capped in article and comments above:-}

Two things:-

1. The introduction of emergency legislation on June 2nd 06 stands on statute
until a properly worded referendum on child protection and education is
introduced -or in political 'speak', until 'all-party agreement' is reached.
The government envisages early autumn for the amendment.

a). This means that the criminalisation aspects of section 5, introduced by McD
stand {without 'Sunset Clause'(a re-visit to the statute) without
'Romeo and Juliet Clause' (an opt-out on age) }until the feckers clear the mess up.

b). This means that the issues raised by the protection aspect have a very
political character- how does a government determined to privatise everything
ensure proper protections for kids in care when there has been gross
abdication of responsibility to those kids under the present government?

Memo to electoral candidates:-

The state has a duty of care in relation to vulnerability in health and education.
This cannot be accomplished within a privatised system:-

*State homes are underfunded, Mary Rafferty reported on' habitual use of restraint' in
some care homes.

*Abuse shelters are under-funded. [111 spaces nationally- source, Amnesty.org]

*Health is being privatised so there is little recourse if something goes wrong.
Education is suffering a brain-drain because of the proliferation of private
schools.

In effect the Rape Laws have mitigated against the victims. Please read section 5 of Minister
Mc Dowell's legislation for your homework.

by c murray Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:53

Today sees the introduction of :-

**The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences ) Amendment Bill 2007.****

(as opposed to the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) bill 2006.)

They are patching up the loopholes , because it was badly legislated
for....

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/9979...omnet