Headline: "Mom, 13, is ruled a sex crime offender"

slingblade

Unregistered
S
Joined
Jul 28, 2005
Messages
23,466
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3358959

An appeals court on Friday upheld a judge's refusal to dismiss a sexual abuse allegation against a 13-year-old Ogden girl who became pregnant by her 12-year-old boyfriend.
The Utah Court of Appeals says the law's "rigorous protections" for younger minors include protecting them from each other.
The decision leaves the teens in the odd position of each being both a victim and a perpetrator in the same offense.

[. . .]

Richards pointed out that Utah law says minors under age 14 do not have the ability to consent to sexual activity.
"It's a paradox," he said. "How can they be old enough to commit an offense if they're not old enough to consent to it?"
According to the court decision, the girl became pregnant after she and the boy engaged in sex in October 2003.
State authorities filed delinquency petitions in July 2004, alleging that each had committed sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony if committed by an adult.

[. . .]

...the conviction could have lingering effects, according to Richards.
If the girl commits a crime when she is an adult, her juvenile record will make it more likely that she will go to prison and could increase the length of her sentence, he said. And there is the emotional toll of knowing she has a sexual abuse conviction.
Click to expand...

That this happened in Utah won't surprise too many people, I imagine.

But I think the girl's attorney has a good point: how can you be charged with commiting a sexual offense when you are not considered old enough to consent to having sex?

The article doesn't specifically say if the children will both be added to a sex-offender registry, but it makes me really angry to think that this might happen. I'm already angry that these poor kids have been subjected to this much.

Will other states try this approach, making it a crime for anyone, regardless of age, to have sex with any person under a specific age? What does this concept of "sexual abuse" include: intercourse, oral sex, fondling? Does it then become a crime for little kids to "play doctor" in Utah?

I mean, there's already something terribly wrong when children this young are having sex and getting pregnant, but they shouldn't be thought of as criminals, for Hank's sake!

It's already gone to the state Court of Appeals, so please pardon my ignorance in asking if the next stop is the Supreme Court, or is there another appellate court before that?
 
I think this whole case is screwy, but I don't see how it could possibly make it up to the SCOTUS. In what way is this bizzare and trecherous legal and cultural moraine a constitutional issue?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I think this whole case is screwy, but I don't see how it could possibly make it up to the SCOTUS. In what way is this bizzare and trecherous legal and cultural moraine a constitutional issue?
Click to expand...

The paradox, maybe? Under the law, the girl was incapable of consenting to the act that she is accused of committing. Therefore, how can she be held accountable for it? The very law that makes her act a crime also makes her incapable of committing that act.

Similarly, you cannot charge someone with statutory rape of themselves if they commit a solo sexual act while underage.
 
Heh. While my 17 year old son was visiting me over the holidays, I learned he is dating a 14 year old. :eek:

So I says, "A year from now, you'll be breaking the law." So he says only if they were having sex, which they aren't.

Yeah. Maybe. But a year from now? Doesn't he know Dad is a Skeptic?

Not sure how I feel about a 17 year old and a 14 year old together. Or an 18 year old and a 15 year old.

As for charging a 13 year old with sex abuse for having sex with a 12 year old, that's pretty stupid.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The paradox, maybe? Under the law, the girl was incapable of consenting to the act that she is accused of committing. Therefore, how can she be held accountable for it? The very law that makes her act a crime also makes her incapable of committing that act.

Similarly, you cannot charge someone with statutory rape of themselves if they commit a solo sexual act while underage.
Click to expand...

Is a question of this nature really the sort of issue that the SCOTUS can rule on?
 
A 12 year old and a 13 year old cannot consent to sex. So neither one agreed to have sex. But no one made them have sex. So it was an accident. Oops! :wink8:
 
slingblade said:
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_3358959I mean, there's already something terribly wrong when children this young are having sex and getting pregnant, but they shouldn't be thought of as criminals, for Hank's sake!
Click to expand...

. . . but, don't they have programs that teach abstinence in Utah? According to many religious conservatives (in our government, even), preaching abstinence is SUPPOSED to be a viable alternative to sex (just ask a priest).
 
Luke T. said:
A 12 year old and a 13 year old cannot consent to sex. So neither one agreed to have sex. But no one made them have sex. So it was an accident. Oops! :wink8:
Click to expand...

Isn't the real solution here more safe-sex education, and condom dissemination at schools?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Is a question of this nature really the sort of issue that the SCOTUS can rule on?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. There's a general prohibition on "arbitrary and capricious governmental actions" under common law, which the SCOTUS is empowered to review.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Isn't the real solution here more safe-sex education, and condom dissemination at schools?
Click to expand...

Call me a dick, but distribute condoms to 12 year olds? Just because of these two kids? I'd have to know just how big a problem pre-teen pregnancies were in Utah before I could decide on the best course of action.
 
drkitten said:
Absolutely. There's a general prohibition on "arbitrary and capricious governmental actions" under common law, which the SCOTUS is empowered to review.
Click to expand...

You mean they actually try make the legal submit to logic? I have a newfound respect for them.
 
. . . but, don't they have programs that teach abstinence in Utah? According to many religious conservatives (in our government, even), preaching abstinence is SUPPOSED to be a viable alternative to sex (just ask a priest).
Click to expand...

Don't get me started about "abstinence" in UT. I grew up and went to school there - and the teacher actually taught that ONLY abstinence worked, and that no other form of birth control worked.

When I grew up I thought I must have been dreaming....... but I had a friend who was a nurse practitioner and ran the Planned Parenthood clinic in my home town. She told me the teachers were still teaching the kids the same thing....... so, since they believed what they had been taught, they rarely used protection since "it would not work anyway". :jaw-dropp Therefore I HIGHLY DOUBT any schools would be passing out condoms. All I can hope is that this is no longer being taught there.

This whole thing is disgusting. Why aren't the parents being held accountable, instead of the kids? In my opinion THEY should be the ones being charged with being "sex offenders".
 
Luke T. said:
Call me a dick, but distribute condoms to 12 year olds? Just because of these two kids? I'd have to know just how big a problem pre-teen pregnancies were in Utah before I could decide on the best course of action.
Click to expand...


There was sex ed in my middle school. I think they might have covered it in 6th grade too, but I might be remebering...er...extra credit. Condoms wholesale are pretty cheap, and would do a lot for the students then Mr. Big Shot Superintendet's middle six figure salary. On the other hand, I went to school on South Beach.
 
Luke T. said:
Call me a dick, but distribute condoms to 12 year olds? Just because of these two kids? I'd have to know just how big a problem pre-teen pregnancies were in Utah before I could decide on the best course of action.
Click to expand...

In Norway, kids can get free condoms and birth control pills from they're old enough to talk until they're 19. Then they have to pay for it. Abortions are free, too, at any age.

Seems to work pretty well, teen pregnancy is nearly non-existant here.
 
Originally posted by Luke T.Heh. While my 17 year old son was visiting me over the holidays, I learned he is dating a 14 year old
Click to expand...
Your son is in very dangerous territory. Sex would be considered a major crime. Even if he does not have sex, if the girl gets pissed at him and makes accusations, he could also be in big trouble.

A greater than 24 month age difference is the important thing in Washington state. He would be guilty of both statutory rape and domestic abuse. Statutory rape gets a prison sentence and a sex offender label for 15 years. Because he is committing a sexual crime (statutory rape) with his girlfriend, it becomes domestic abuse which has a prison sentence and domestic abuse registry which lasts until his death.

Even if the crimes were committed (or alleged) when he a minor, he could still be tried as an adult. I know a kid who had sex at 14 with a 12 year old girlfriend (more than 24 month age difference). She mentioned it 4 years later and her mother pressed charges and some bozo decided to prosecute. He freely admitted the sex not realizing the consequences. He eventually pled guilty to avoid a jail term but is on the sexual offender registry until 33 and will always be on the domestic abuse registry.

Tell your son to get away from her now!

CBL
 
CBL4 said:
Your son is in very dangerous territory. Sex would be considered a major crime. Even if he does not have sex, if the girl gets pissed at him and makes accusations, he could also be in big trouble.

A greater than 24 month age difference is the important thing in Washington state. He would be guilty of both statutory rape and domestic abuse. Statutory rape gets a prison sentence and a sex offender label for 15 years. Because he is committing a sexual crime (statutory rape) with his girlfriend, it becomes domestic abuse which has a prison sentence and domestic abuse registry which lasts until his death.

Even if the crimes were committed (or alleged) when he a minor, he could still be tried as an adult. I know a kid who had sex at 14 with a 12 year old girlfriend (more than 24 month age difference). She mentioned it 4 years later and her mother pressed charges and some bozo decided to prosecute. He freely admitted the sex not realizing the consequences. He eventually pled guilty to avoid a jail term but is on the sexual offender registry until 33 and will always be on the domestic abuse registry.

Tell your son to get away from her now!

CBL
Click to expand...

My son lives in Alabama, where I believe you are required by law to sleep with a minor at least once, preferably one who is related to you.

But I will check. Thanks.
 
We have a sort of mexican standoff here. I'm wondering if the kids are Mo-Mo's? That would be a hoot. They'd probably want them to get married.
 
In many states, the statutory rape law is written in such a way (or there are riders to the law) to avoid or lessen this kind of situation.

In my state, the offender is always the older partner. It is only a crime when the minor is under 16 and the offender is an adult, or if the minor is under 13. In both cases, however, if the offender is less than four years older than the minor it is not prosecutable.

In Kansas, they have a "Romeo and Juliet" rider, where if the adult is less than a certain number of years older than the minor it is a much lesser crime, but only in heterosexual encounters. A 19 year old convicted of the greater crime in a homosexual encounter just won in SCOTUS, if you can call it winning -- he'd already served more than four times the maximun Romeo and Juliet sentence
 
If she wasnt such a whore she wouldnt be in trouble. Maybe we should be harsh on these kids before they start making babies.

I dont see the paradox. You cant have sex wh someone under 14. Doesnt matter what age you are. Its kinda like a drinking law.
 
Tmy said:
If she wasnt such a whore she wouldnt be in trouble. Maybe we should be harsh on these kids before they start making babies.
Click to expand...
She's 13!

I dont see the paradox. You cant have sex wh someone under 14. Doesnt matter what age you are. Its kinda like a drinking law.
Click to expand...
The paradox is at age 13 you are incapable of understanding what sex even is, its consequences, etc. So the law states that a 13 year old is not able to consent to sex, even if she instigates it. Would yo call a 8 year old a whore for "playing doctor"?

It is not at all like a drinking law.
 
WildCat said:
She's 13!


The paradox is at age 13 you are incapable of understanding what sex even is, its consequences, etc. So the law states that a 13 year old is not able to consent to sex, even if she instigates it. Would yo call a 8 year old a whore for "playing doctor"?

It is not at all like a drinking law.
Click to expand...

We try minors as adults all the time. And at 13, you have a good idea about sex and the consequences.
 
Tmy said:
We try minors as adults all the time. And at 13, you have a good idea about sex and the consequences.
Click to expand...
No, you don't IMHO.

What age do you draw the line? 6? 9? 11? Please be specific, as the law has to be.
 
13 years old is prime MTV audience. They know all about sex. In our older age we forget how much we knew as kids.


Two 13 year olds going at it. and the state chasing after them. Im sure they knew what was up. They probably went around bragging about it.
 
Tmy said:
We try minors as adults all the time. And at 13, you have a good idea about sex and the consequences.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. My son was just telling me how some of the girls in his high school thought now was a good time to have a baby as they had some free time and thought it would be cool to have one, and they are having unprotected sex with no birth control. Seriously.
 
Well, it's always a hoot to have fun at Mormon's and Southener's expense but there are some serious issues here. One is peculiar to the case and the other is, perhaps inherent in the system of law.

It may be that the law in Utah required the physician or other responsible person, perhaps a teacher, to report the pregnancy as per se abuse - insemination of a minor. Once that occured, a second abuse report, seduction of a minor, was triggered as well. This may not be the disaster that it appears if this refferal to the juvenile justice system results in the refferal of both sets of - apparently - clueless parents and the kids to counseling. Perhaps also the resulting issue, sex unspecified, will be made a ward of the court. It's difficult to imagine the parents being ready for parenthood at such an age.

The othe point is that law is like logic, Goedel's theorem always applies. There will always be nonsense results. Part of why I stopped practicing 16 years ago.

Finally, never believe newspapaer reports of legal cases. They are nearly always incorrect.

IIRichard
 
Luke T. said:
No, they don't. My son was just telling me how some of the girls in his high school thought now was a good time to have a baby as they had some free time and thought it would be cool to have one, and they are having unprotected sex with no birth control. Seriously.
Click to expand...

They KNOW the consequences they just dont appreciate them. Which is the mindset of most criminals.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The paradox, maybe? Under the law, the girl was incapable of consenting to the act that she is accused of committing. Therefore, how can she be held accountable for it? The very law that makes her act a crime also makes her incapable of committing that act.

Similarly, you cannot charge someone with statutory rape of themselves if they commit a solo sexual act while underage.
Click to expand...

You know, I have always wondered how juveniles can be charged as adults when they are not legally adults and don't have the same rights that adults do. I'm not making any judgement about whether or not a given 17 year old deserves to die for a heinous crime - their are undoubtable many who do, but deserve often seems to have precious little to do with our justice system.
 
Plus they were tried in juvy court. Thats what we do with scofflaw kids. Whether they are breaking windows or doing the nasty. Would you say 'Oh hes only 13, he doesnt know what hes doing when he hurls a brick at that school building."
 
IIRichard said:
The othe point is that law is like logic, Goedel's theorem always applies. There will always be nonsense results. Part of why I stopped practicing 16 years ago.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm fairly certain the law is not sufficiently complex to represent arithmetic.
 
Hey, do you think the 13yr old dad shoudl have to pay child support? Better get a big paper route!
 
I somehow wonder if this is rather like those 'bastardisation' situations you get in hell-hole (and sometimes not...) private boarding schools where ritual abuse of fellow students is sometimes a disgusting 'tradition'. Perhaps that's why she is being ruled a sex offender?
 
Luke T. said:
A 12 year old and a 13 year old cannot consent to sex. So neither one agreed to have sex. But no one made them have sex. So it was an accident. Oops! :wink8:
Click to expand...

Clearly adult fantasies of the way children should behave are not in accordance with reality.
 
Kiless said:
I somehow wonder if this is rather like those 'bastardisation' situations you get in hell-hole (and sometimes not...) private boarding schools where ritual abuse of fellow students is sometimes a disgusting 'tradition'. Perhaps that's why she is being ruled a sex offender?
Click to expand...

Both children were charged with sexual offenses. Each child is both a "perpetrator" and a "victim" at one and the same time.

I wouldn't compare this case, or anything connected with it, to a boarding school tradition, but I admit, I'm not sure exactly what you're musing on. Maybe if I understood, I'd agree with that assessment.

It certainly sounds disgusting, I'll give it that.
 
slingblade said:
Both children were charged with sexual offenses. Each child is both a "perpetrator" and a "victim" at one and the same time.
Click to expand...

But that's ridiculous; if both children are charged, the charges cancel each other out. The girl cannot be guilty of statutory rape of the boy if he is guilty of statutory raping her in the same instance. Either there is consent or there isn't. Since neither party is capable of consent, legally, both are victims. A victim of unconsentual sex cannot be a perpetrator, therefore there are no perpertrators, there are no guilty parties, and there was no crime. It's a charming bit of logic, but it holds. You can't charge the victim of a crime with committing the crime he or she is a victim of. The only way to hold either child culpable would be to grant them the right and power of consent...which would negate the crime itself by making it consentual.
 
TragicMonkey said:
But that's ridiculous; if both children are charged, the charges cancel each other out. The girl cannot be guilty of statutory rape of the boy if he is guilty of statutory raping her in the same instance. Either there is consent or there isn't. Since neither party is capable of consent, legally, both are victims. A victim of unconsentual sex cannot be a perpetrator, therefore there are no perpertrators, there are no guilty parties, and there was no crime. It's a charming bit of logic, but it holds. You can't charge the victim of a crime with committing the crime he or she is a victim of. The only way to hold either child culpable would be to grant them the right and power of consent...which would negate the crime itself by making it consentual.
Click to expand...

[Pirates of Penzance]
It's a paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox!
[/Pirates of Penzance]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom