NationStates Jolt Archive

What is everyones opinion of juveniles who are convicted of sex offenses?

They need to be dealt with harshly, before they grow up to be real monsters. Try them as adults, or perform castrations, lobotomies (?).

Besides being my Heroes?

Depends on the offense.

I think it's all a load of crap. If two twelve year olds want to run off and have sex that's their problem. Just because someone is a minor shouldn't make this a crime. I'm not even in favor of the statutory rape thing. It makes no sense that two 17 year olds can go have sex and have it be alright, but an 18 and a 17 year old is instant rape.

Depends on the offense.

No, it really doesn't - criminal sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse are essentially the same thing.

Two twelve year olds having sex isn't illegal. A thirteen and a twelve year old having sex is.

No, it really doesn't - criminal sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse are essentially the same thing.

Two twelve year olds having sex isn't illegal. A thirteen and a twelve year old having sex is.

But there is a difference betweed a 13 year old having consensual sex with a 12 year old and raping them. Both offences but very very diferent

As the previous poster states, statuatory rape should be treated differently if talking about harsher sentances for jeuvanile sex offenders.

In the UK, if two kids are under age, the male is convicted of sex offences even if the act was "consentual" considering that in the eyes of the law, no such thing can exist bellow the age of 16. If you ask me, such a black and white approach to the matter is idiotic, at least in couples of a relative age. If an adult (over 18) has sex with someone under age, this is something that should be cracked down.

Of course, violent sex offences should be severely punished in my opinion. After a stint in a Jeuvanile detention centre of maybe 5 years, offendors should be required to attend counselling sessions weekly, if not daily to assess their rehabilitation. Repeat offendors should serve the equivalent period of an adult, moving from jeuvanile detention centres at the appropriate age into prison propper.

But there is a difference betweed a 13 year old having consensual sex with a 12 year old and raping them. Both offences but very very diferent

No, they really aren't - it can't be consensual because they are under age.

But there is a difference betweed a 13 year old having consensual sex with a 12 year old and raping them. Both offences but very very diferent

Exactly what I meant. Thank you.

EDIT:No, they really aren't - it can't be consensual because they are under age.
Only by legal definition.

Criminal Sexual Assault is as follows:
-An act of sexual penetration by the use of force or threat of force;
-An act of sexual penetration and the accused knew that the victim was unable to understand the nature of the act or was unable to give knowing consent;
-An act of sexual penetration with a victim who was under 18 years of age when the act was committed and the accused was a family member;
-An act of sexual penetration with a victim who was at least 13 years of age but under 18 years of age when the act was committed and the accused was 17 years of age or over and held a position of trust, authority or supervision in relation to the victim.

Criminal Sexual Abuse is as follows:
-An act of sexual conduct by the use of force or threat of force;
-An act of sexual conduct and the accused knew that the victim was unable to understand the nature of the act or was unable to give knowing consent.
-If the accused was under 17 years of age and commits an act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct with a victim who was at least 9 years of age but under 17 years of age when the act was committed.
-If the accused commits an act of sexual penetration or sexual conduct with a victim who was at least 13 years of age but under 17 years of age and the accused was less than 5 years older than the victim.

Exactly what I meant. Thank you.

EDIT:
Only by legal definition.

By legal definition, they are the same essentially.

Then whats the point in this thread? What point are you trying to make by insisting that under age consensual (as in sex agreed to by both parties) sex is equally serious to under age rape when clearly in the eyes of everyone else accept you they are completely different?

2-3 people is everyone else, HH? Wow!

As far as the law is concerned, it is as equally as serious.

Law aside, rape underage rape is a bit more serious than underage "consensual" sex. Although, you would have to prove that both children know the decision they were making when they engaged in sex, that both were competent and fully aware of all possible implications that might come from their acts :p

2-3 people is everyone else, HH? Wow!

Im pretty certain that if you went on the street and asked people they would agree with my view

As far as the law is concerned, it is as equally as serious.

But should it? for one they are radicly different experiance for the people involved. Most children know all about sex by the time they are 12 and yes some may not be mature enough to take the step but for some sex is just the logical way of progressing a relationship. Rape can completly destroy the life of the victim and if the attacker gets away with it then it can lead to the creation of a person who could potentially be very dangerous.

My personal view is that if proper education is used then sex betweed children under the present age of consent is perfectly fine. I also belive that the age difference between the 2 'participants' should be a factor (as you can therecticly be a day older then someone and become a sex offender). Rape and other sexual assulats shoudl be treated extreamly harshly

I'd also like to note, under several states criminal statutes, rape is listed as bodily harm, and not a sex offense.

Immediate reference: 720 ILCS 5/12‑13 {From Ch. 38, par. 12‑13}

Personaly i don't think it's rational to make a distinction between the age at which you can consent and the age at which you are criminally liable. At the age of 16 one person can have sufficient mens rea to intend to commit the crime but another can't have the capacity to consent? Rubbish.

Apart from the above i don't think there's a problem with the law as i understand it. If the age of criminal liability matched the age of concent then there would be no difference between a 13 yo sleeping with a 13 yo or a 17 yo sleeping with a 17 yo, which to my mind makes logical sense.

Statutory rape will always be an issue where two people are just either side of the age of consent/liability but that's what the golden rule's for.

By legal definition, they are the same essentially.

Doujin, surely it makes no sense to cite a specific country's laws in an attempt to refute someone making a general statement - just because you happen to be in america doesnt mean we all are and you'd be totally wrong if you were talking to, say, a Canadian.

One question is who gets charged if an underage boy rapes an adult woman.

I have a relative who's (justifiably) serving an eighty year sentence for oral sodomy of a ten tear old. If he'd been caught and counseled on his first offense when he was eleven perhaps he and the ten year old might be helped. Now at thirty I seriously any amount of counseling will help him. :mad: They might as well keep him where he's at.

One question is who gets charged if an underage boy rapes an adult woman.
The woman, at least in the US. There was a case like that (teacher-student relationship).

My personal opinion is that a consensual sexual relationship between an adult and an adolescent (14 to 17) should be closely examined but not considered a crime. After all, if two seventeen year olds are having a sexual relationship, one is born in january and one in november, you cannot really expcet them to stop said relationship during the eleven months one of them will be 18, can you?

Personally, I'd say that after someone is 16, anything consensual goes, no matter what legal guardians say ... sexual maturity often is reached way earlier than it was 100 years ago these days, and lawmakers should adapt the law to that fact.

As for sexual assault ... one-time offenders should be put in jail for a long period of time, and repeat offenders locked and the key thrown away. Those are the only people that really make me consider the death penalty.

The woman, at least in the US. There was a case like that (teacher-student relationship).

My personal opinion is that a consensual sexual relationship between an adult and an adolescent (14 to 17) should be closely examined but not considered a crime. After all, if two seventeen year olds are having a sexual relationship, one is born in january and one in november, you cannot really expcet them to stop said relationship during the eleven months one of them will be 18, can you?

Personally, I'd say that after someone is 16, anything consensual goes, no matter what legal guardians say ... sexual maturity often is reached way earlier than it was 100 years ago these days, and lawmakers should adapt the law to that fact.

As for sexual assault ... one-time offenders should be put in jail for a long period of time, and repeat offenders locked and the key thrown away. Those are the only people that really make me consider the death penalty.

Define sexual assault - Speaking from the law of my state, Aggrivated Criminal Sexual Assault is essentially the same thing as Criminal Sexual Assault and Criminal Sexual Abuse/Aggrivated Criminal Sexual Abuse - the only thing that determines the charge is the States Attorney. Statutory Rape isn't in the Illinois Compiled Statutes/The Illinois Criminal Code, they prosecute it as Criminal Sexual Assault or Criminal Sexual Abuse. However, if a person is under the age of consent, then, under Illinois law, one could say that the so-called "victim" was raped, not because bodily harm was inflicted but because he was by legal standards not able to consent or fully understand the act that he/she was about to commit and therefor any sexual act was done by force.

If yo understood that at all.

Having sex is not a crime, except in unfree societies (dictatorships, religious fundamentalists, socialism, etc.), where the rulers decide who shall have sex with whom.

In free societies humans under the age of consent are legally considered "unable to consider the consequences of sexual activities" and shall therefore not be prosecuted for sex related activities.

However, if violence is involved or serious damage to their victim, their legal guardian shall face the consequences for dereliction of duty in regards to those under their RESPONSIBILITY.

Then there are those left who are above the age of consent but not yet adults legally.

And we need to differentiate between sexual harrassment, sexual discrimination, molestation and rape.

Then apply juvenile law.

The woman, at least in the US.
concerning sex...US Laws are retarded.

...Speaking from the law of my state...we dont care about the Laws of your state...they are retarded..

and if you think 17 years old sex is tha same as violent rape...you are too.