NationStates Jolt Archive

Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650)

Am I going crazy, but is there something seriously wrong with our legal system?

Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650)

Am I going crazy, but is there something seriously wrong with our legal system?

Yes. And, yes.

They shouldn't have been having sex.

Yes. And, yes.

Paradox!

Just double-think.

Just double-think.

And irony.

No.
Irony is an outcome you wouldn't expect.

You would be surprised if there was a single crazy person in a nation of 300 million with a fucked-up justice system?

Well, I'm sure the girl was surprised. :p

For adolescents under 14, though, there are no exceptions or mitigation and they are never considered capable of consenting to sex.
so according to the law these kids are being punished for having sex without realising it? madness. i really don't think the law should be involved with this. it's an issue for their families or social services to deal with unless there's an allegation of some coercive force being involved.

These kinds of laws are always fucking stupid and the courts are being douchebags.

According to the law and courts, they both engaged in sex only with each other, but neither was able to consent and both coerced the other into doing it. "I don't want to play poker and you don't want to play poker, but we are making each other player poker anyway!"

Wouldn't the sensible thing here be to drop charges against herself? :p

Er...forgive my ignorance here - if found guilty, would she be a registered sex offender for life?

Wouldn't the sensible thing here be to drop charges against herself? :p

It is the state charging both of them. Apparently non-consenting sex between two 12/13 year olds is a threat to the state, which technically makes it terrorism. Two 13 year olds having non-consensual, consensual sex is terrorism. You heard it here first, folks.

Er...forgive my ignorance here - if found guilty, would she be a registered sex offender for life?
I wouldn't doubt it.

Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650)

Am I going crazy, but is there something seriously wrong with our legal system?



I think laws involving age are questionable.

As far as I'm aware usually there is an x year rule (i.e. two years) that is someone who is 11 can have sex with a 13 year old, someone who is 18 can have sex with a 16 year old, this is if it is consensual. However in general sex is veiwed as an ADULT act thus 19 years or older or in some communties 21, although sex after highschool to bridge the difference between youth and adult.


In quebec it is legal to marry at 13 (or something like that)... and marriage is not legal unless it is consumated (atleast in a catholic sense, but don't quote me on that)

It is a general fact indiviuals are undergoing puberty at younger ages and accelerated culture. 8+ years old. Although sex of this type would likely be veiwed as molestation because the jewish concept of age of responsibility is 12 or something like that.

In general I think it is questionable the occurance of sexual acts under puberty age. It is a little more understanding when it occurs from age 8 - 14 (minor ages) as long as it is not someone over 16 with two years difference in age or less. 12-14 is the mildly loose acceptance level but it is not necisarily a norm.. but you hear stories about people around these ages having their first psuedo or full sexual experience...

14-16 is the middle ground where most cultures see this as the bear non contraversy level, but more conservative folk would likely be upset.

17-19 is the 'teen sex' range where it is becoming seemingly more common.
anything over 19 is normative and fair game..and more so acceptable out of wedlock for both men and women (Even though sex is a form of marriage)


The thing about salk lake city of course is the mormon stereotype of having man young virgin wives. (a stereotype)

all in all I find this odd but really I think that a 12 yo 'boy?man?" and a 13 yo/ woman/girl? ... is at the fringe of normative.. but in general the 2 year consensual activity rule should be respected. but I think that sexual norms in a non harming context should not be raised.

I think it is odd for people to be having casual sex, but I don't so much support agism.. I don't beleive in exploitation.. however I don't feel there is much room for intentful exploitation within a 2 year age difference realm.

I think the only non-idiots involved in this one are sitting on the Utah Supreme Court.

My great-grandmother had her first child when she was 14. She was married at 13 (the Irish side).

At least that wasn't wierd.

I think the only non-idiots involved in this one are sitting on the Utah Supreme Court.


Hmm, so you think ruining someones life for having sex when they were to young to qualify as consenual is the right thing to do?

If they cannot consent then why are they considered to have mens rhea.. isnt the whole idea based on a lacking of mens rhea to make an informed decision about consent to have sex?

or is it more than that now. it isn't that they are mature enough to consent, it is instead the idea of someone who is in Grade 6 or 7 having sex.. why then are sex education classes started at that age or younger?


Isn't this odd.. the education system is teaching them to have sex, that they otherwise not have any idea about.. but it is a criminal act.. wouldn't sex education then be party to the act.


I think in this instance a double standard on the quality of mens rhea are demonstrated. imo opinon the utah supreme court is flawed in it's judgement.

The concept of protection is not the flaw, it is the concept of penalization, and socially stigmatizing the victims. THe law exists as a means to protect society. If society fails to protect victims from victimization than the law is in error.

It makes sense to make a point but placing penalization on the victims is exploitatin in itself by the utah courts on two youth. I think that this is a tragic example of non consideration by the legislature for an important issue.

Although the absence of agism may be warranted, the finding of mens rhea on a law that should only rightly be applied on the basis of lacking of mens rhea is errored.

If there is a reason other than ability to reason lacking on this issue then could someone mention it.

Ignorance is no excuse but mental state is. Minors are the responsbility of their partents, to deny right to consent to an individual who is not a minor is leaving a void of responsibility, if the parents are not responsible, and the children are not responsible, then how is it that the youth get blamed?

Although I think this is a cultural issue as age of consent varies from 12 to 20 or so around the world.

I whole heartedly feel convicting the youth in this case to go against the spirit of the law. Since the law exists imo reasonbly only on the basis of lack of men rhea, if mens rhea exists they should not be penalized for having consensual sex.

I think protections are important against exploitation, however this does not seem to be any informatin leading to exploitation in this case.

=======if they were to say that there was a criminal conviction (as there was no response from the UtahSC yet

It is kind of simple, sex with a minor is illegal.
She commited a crime.

A while ago it wasn't illegal for women to rape(because woman wouldn't do that) and maybe young girls wouldn't get their chops bustedfor this now i think they might.

I dont know about your legal systembut us brits must be doing crap too if somone can make off with 26 million pounds in notes and not be chraged in court because of a tecniclty!

They shouldn't have been having sex.

Why not?

Why not?

I anticipate the response will be something like "because it was against the law".

It is kind of simple, sex with a minor is illegal.
She commited a crime.

A while ago it wasn't illegal for women to rape(because woman wouldn't do that) and maybe young girls wouldn't get their chops bustedfor this now i think they might.

So a minor who has sex with another minor should be arrested and tried? :rolleyes:

Its not like it was some pedophile having sex with a minor.

I anticipate the response will be something like "because it was against the law".
Actually there will be no response, because they got deleted.-_-

So a minor who has sex with another minor should be arrested and tried? :rolleyes:

Its not like it was some pedophile having sex with a minor.
Yes.

Now is this consensual sex with a minor(Ignoring the fact that consent 'cant' be given)?

So a minor who has sex with another minor should be arrested and tried? :rolleyes:
Its not like it was some pedophile having sex with a minor.

The law probably states that the sexact is illegal below a certain age, period.
Probably you then have a grace period in which sex is allowed between people of similar ages, and finally adulthood in which you can happily make love to someone 50 years your senior if you so desire.

Yes.

Now is this consensual sex with a minor(Ignoring the fact that consent 'cant' be given)?

Says who? Some idiot making pointless laws?

It is kind of simple, sex with a minor is illegal.
She commited a crime.

A while ago it wasn't illegal for women to rape(because woman wouldn't do that) and maybe young girls wouldn't get their chops bustedfor this now i think they might.

an act is not illegal for the sake of the interpretation of the physical act alone unless that act is an absolute liability offense, where the concept of reason, intent and liability exist in a crime.

That is to say is it universal that if a person shoot another person that they should be charged with murder and put to death?

Why is there room for defences.. or duties such as self defence, protection of property, or exemption in the military as long as it is an executive order.


THe law is meant to be reasonable, although as odd as it seems for different at times cultural reasons.

For instance look to the hittites, why was it a capital offence to have sex with a cow, but for it to be ok to have sex with a horse or a mule?

Perhaps there is hidden meaning.

IMO it wasn't any more a crime for them to have sex than a 31 year old and a 30 year old.

I think that in this instance it was flawed no mater how you look at it.


for instance if it was consensual or encourage then why were they not charged with two counts instead of one since they commited one and aided the other.

but I think that either the law is wrong or the judgement is wrong.

either mens rhea exists or it doesn't it is that simple.

my political opion is that individuals age 8-13 are a special class of youth and should not be able to have criminal records, but should be able to be helped to correct any social issues. proper education is very important


14-19 is young adults and are a special class -that acts within their age group should be equivlent to adult acts, Prosecution should be reserved to only recurrent or irreperable social damage


meanwhile 19+ is adult relocation for irreperable social damage or death.


7 or less is child and should be immune from prosecution, but should be able to be corrected, or defended against. proper education is very important

On topic mens rhea is the key.. I don't see where the line is on the two sides of the situation......



http://old.heraldextra.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=72254

goes into detaill... I never noticed it said she got pregenant from it?

Says who? Some idiot making pointless laws?

Someone who believes that a child cannot consent to sex at that age. If it cannot, the age of the partner is of course irrelevant.

Someone who believes that a child cannot consent to sex at that age.

If the child is not competent enough to consent to sex, then how is the child competent enough to be accused of rape?

Someone who believes that a child cannot consent to sex at that age. If it cannot, the age of the partner is of course irrelevant.

They CAN consent to it. However, they shouldn't. There's a difference between the two. If 2 minors want to have sex and do then they shouldn't get arrested for it. Like I said before there is a difference between 2 minors having sex and a pedophile having sex with a minor.

If the child is not competent enough to consent to sex, then how is the child competent enough to be accused of rape?

Easy - she did it. If she can be held accountable and should be convicted for something that law claims she does not understand is another question.

If she can be held accountable and should be convicted for something that law claims she does not understand is another question.

That's the question I meant to ask.

However, they shouldn't.

Why shouldn't they?

They CAN consent to it.

The law disagrees. It believes the mental development of a child at that age simply is insufficient to make such a decision.
If the law is right is another question.

Like I said before there is a difference between 2 minors having sex and a pedophile having sex with a minor.

The way most countries see it:

Below age X: child cannot truly comprehend sex and therefor is incapable of consent, period. This age is usually in the area of pre-pubescence.

Between ages X and Y: child can comprehend sex, but is too easily manipulated by authority figrures and adults to engage in such activities. For its own protection it is therefor only considered to be able to consent to sex with people of similar age.

Above Y: child is no longer a child. It should be able to decide for itself. Full consent ability assumed.

The law disagrees. It believes the mental development of a child at that age simply is insufficient to make such a decision.
If the law is right is another question.



The way most countries see it:

Below age X: child cannot truly comprehend sex and therefor is incapable of consent, period. This age is usually in the area of pre-pubescence.

Between ages X and Y: child can comprehend sex, but is too easily manipulated by authority figrures and adults to engage in such activities. For its own protection it is therefor only considered to be able to consent to sex with people of similar age.

Above Y: child is no longer a child. It should be able to decide for itself. Full consent ability assumed.

I'm going by the logical dictionary definition not what the law says. The law says many stupid things but it doesn't make them right. Just look at the war on drugs. Its just a huge waste of money to bust people for smoking weed.

Why shouldn't they?

Even with sex ed classes kids are still stupid enough not to use any protection.

I'm going by the logical dictionary definition not what the law says. The law says many stupid things but it doesn't make them right.

True. However, the way of looking at it I described gives you the possibility to condemn pedophilia. Most other ways do not. At least, not without being inconsistent.

Even with sex ed classes kids are still stupid enough not to use any protection.

There is a difference between "kids should not have sex" and "kids should not have sex without protection."

I think the only non-idiots involved in this one are sitting on the Utah Supreme Court.

Time will tell. *nod*

Says who? Some idiot making pointless laws?
I'm asking you/whoever.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12059285']an act is not illegal for the sake of the interpretation of the physical act alone unless that act is an absolute liability offense, where the concept of reason, intent and liability exist in a crime.

That is to say is it universal that if a person shoot another person that they should be charged with murder and put to death?

Why is there room for defences.. or duties such as self defence, protection of property, or exemption in the military as long as it is an executive order.


THe law is meant to be reasonable, although as odd as it seems for different at times cultural reasons.

For instance look to the hittites, why was it a capital offence to have sex with a cow, but for it to be ok to have sex with a horse or a mule?

Perhaps there is hidden meaning.
-snippage-
I'm not 100% sure of it but perhaps Baal or whoever those crazy Hittites grooved to took the form of a Cow, Baal could have sex with you, but you couldn't have sex with Baal.

I think the only non-idiots involved in this one are sitting on the Utah Supreme Court.
As a Utahn, I must dispute that. Our supreme court does not have the best track record. Or at least I don't agree with them much of the time.

But time will tell I guess.

As a Utahn, I must dispute that. Our supreme court does not have the best track record. Or at least I don't agree with them much of the time.

But time will tell I guess.
But in this case do you agree with them?

Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650)

Am I going crazy, but is there something seriously wrong with our legal system?

Wow.

Not to be silly,
but here(MI) when two people get into a physical altercation where no one needs medical assistance and it appears both parties are equally at fault the police can declare "Mutual Combatant" status upon the issue and neither party is charged with anything so long as niether side wants to go about pressing charges--you wouldnt press charges because the police will attest you are equally at fault whereby you are open to criminal charges yourself.

The isue is resolved that both parties broke the law...BUT no harm no foul.

Cant these kids have ...for lack of a better term "Mutual Combatant" status(of some fashion) apply to them, and if neither family wishes to press the issue ...fecking drop it.

But in this case do you agree with them?

I'll decide when they reach a conclusion.

The law disagrees. It believes the mental development of a child at that age simply is insufficient to make such a decision.
If the law is right is another question.
.

Oddly, the law is right.

The brain of children do not have fully functioning developed judgment center until near the end of Adolescence. Pre-adolescence, have no real judgement skills at all beyond what is needed for basic survival, the complex decisions required for knowing and understanding the danger of sex--eheh.

Adolescence is a time when the brain is in a high state of plasticity and while certain hormones and change make "teens" actually think faster then their adult counter parts--at no time is the judment center of the brain more difficient---during adolescence, gray matter actually reduces to less then pre-adolescence but white-matter drastically increases.

Children below about age 15 or 16 are not medically capable (on the average) of making good long term decisions....doesnt mean adults are, but at least their brain is designed to, kids dont even have the tool set yet.

so according to the law these kids are being punished for having sex without realising it? madness. i really don't think the law should be involved with this. it's an issue for their families or social services to deal with unless there's an allegation of some coercive force being involved.

This is actually a perfect showcase for the philosophical flaws behind conservative ideas of justice.

I've said many times that conservatism is based on fear and anger, but uses window dressing like concern for children and love of patriotism to justify themselves.

In cases like this, even conservatives, with the few exceptions like Forth Holy Reich, must admit that they had it wrong, though they put their heads back in the sand once the issue passes.

The conservative lawmakers were so worried about being "tough" on sex with minors that they forgot how to actually prevent it happening. Just like they are afraid to de-criminalize marijuana because they're so afraid that they'll look "soft" on drug use.

Yes, they shouldn't have been having sex. But when two kids are having sex, legislators and law-enforcers have no business in the situation. It's strictly a matter for the parents.

Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650)

Am I going crazy, but is there something seriously wrong with our legal system?Funny. If they are too young for consentual sex, how can they be old enough to be tried?

In cases like this, even conservatives, with the few exceptions like Forth Holy Reich, must admit that they had it wrong, though they put their heads back in the sand once the issue passes.FHR isn't a conservative.

Wow.

Not to be silly,
but here(MI) when two people get into a physical altercation where no one needs medical assistance and it appears both parties are equally at fault the police can declare "Mutual Combatant" status upon the issue and neither party is charged with anything so long as niether side wants to go about pressing charges--you wouldnt press charges because the police will attest you are equally at fault whereby you are open to criminal charges yourself.

The isue is resolved that both parties broke the law...BUT no harm no foul.

Cant these kids have ...for lack of a better term "Mutual Combatant" status(of some fashion) apply to them, and if neither family wishes to press the issue ...fecking drop it.

I knew there was a reason I had a little common sense -- I was born in Michigan. Great law.

But what do you call it with consenting unconsentable minors having sex? "Mutual Combatant" becomes what -- "Mutual Playing Doctor"?

"No harm no foul" may not apply in the Utah case, because of the pregnancy. Pregnancy in itself isn't necessarily harm, but to a 13 year old, it certainly isn't a boon.

"No harm no foul" may not apply in the Utah case, because of the pregnancy. Pregnancy in itself isn't necessarily harm, but to a 13 year old, it certainly isn't a boon.
Except that she's older and girls are supposed to reach sexual maturity faster than boys anyway, so, if anyone is deserving of legal punishment in this case, it would be her.
And she's the one making an appeal, and she'll probably get it to.

It is kind of simple, sex with a minor is illegal.
She commited a crime.

So did the guy she had sex with. Or did you read the article? They both 'Raped' each other and were at the same time 'raped' according to the law. Where is the logic?

Seriously where is the logic?

So did the guy she had sex with. Or did you read the article? They both 'Raped' each other and were at the same time 'raped' according to the law. Where is the logic?

Seriously where is the logic?

There is no logic in rape; only raw, vindictive, confused emotion.

There is no logic in rape; only raw, vindictive, confused emotion.

But logic must exist in law, or else that law system is useless.

So did the guy she had sex with. Or did you read the article? They both 'Raped' each other and were at the same time 'raped' according to the law. Where is the logic?

Two guys are in a "Mexican standoff". They both fire. They both die.
Both guys were both murdered and murderer.

Is this illogical ?

There is no logic in rape; only raw, vindictive, confused emotion.
Yeah, and there's no real rape in "Statutory Rape", just an age difference that exceeds societal norms. The primary source of confusion or psychological is society, in telling the child that something is wrong and that they need to start reacting violently to, or repressing what has happened.

They shouldn't have been having sex.

I agree.

Funny. If they are too young for consentual sex, how can they be old enough to be tried?

You read my mind...

Okay so we know that sex at that age is illegal; but to be charged as an offender and a victim? Sounds to me like she knew what she was doing; both her and her boyfriend, so I don't think that anybody's being 'victimized'. The law is pretty contradictory...

Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650)

Am I going crazy, but is there something seriously wrong with our legal system?

Crap. Those legal-eagle bastards. All they wanted to do was have some fun. If you can't do that without getting slammed for it, fuck this existence. And contrary to popular belief, 12 and 13 year olds actually know what sex is, and are capable of saying yes or no to it.

It isn't illegal to have sex if you are under 18; its just that you you don't have the ability to consent to having sex...your parents do. this is NOT saying your parents can force you do have sex with someone as this is called child endangerment. the only way a minor is charged with statutory rape is if the parents press charges. So, parents of 12 year old press charges of statutory rape against 13 year old..how many parents of said 13 year old aren't going to turn around and press charges as well? either way, the children aren't pressing charges and neither is the state (though they are because its the state-vs-whomever) its the parents that actually bring charges up.

as to whether being convicted would lead to life long ruin, pretty sure the answer is no, since records for minors are sealed and pretty much have a clean slate on 18th birthday. unless, of course, they are being tried as an adult, though I doubt there is any DA out there that would try someone as an adult in this type of case.

Well, I'm sure we all know that the authorities in Utah were just upset that a 13 year old girl was dating a 'younger man' and didn't become someone's third or fourth wife.

This'll learn' her...

FHR isn't a conservative.

If you want to get down to it, neither are most people who call themselves conservative. I'm using the term to refer to the broad right wing.

If Avrile Levigne gets to call herself Punk I get to call FHR conservative.

Funny. If they are too young for consentual sex, how can they be old enough to be tried?

That's exactly what I was trying to get at when I complained about the failings of conservative justice. It's not about compassion and protecting the innocent. It's about finding excuses to hurt people. And so when two children make a dumb decision it's more important to conservatives to follow up on their excuse to inflict suffering than to administer compassion to two children who are clearly very lost.

Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650)

Am I going crazy, but is there something seriously wrong with our legal system?
A pretty screwed up system if you ask me.

http://www.electrical-contractor.net/Fun_Stuff/DumbLaws.gif

So did the guy she had sex with. Or did you read the article? They both 'Raped' each other and were at the same time 'raped' according to the law. Where is the logic?

Seriously where is the logic?
Thats realy irrelevant, they are too young for sex.

Two guys are in a "Mexican standoff". They both fire. They both die.
Both guys were both murdered and murderer.

Is this illogical ?

There's a difference between murder and 2 minors having sex.

Thats realy irrelevant, they are too young for sex.


How the hell is that irrelevant? There is no logic in this law.

There's a difference between murder and 2 minors having sex.

Of course there is. But the post this reply was aimed at expressed amazement that someone could be considered offender and victim at the same time.

http://www.electrical-contractor.net/Fun_Stuff/DumbLaws.gif

Clearly true.

The Age of Consent system is screwed up.

But logic must exist in law, or else that law system is useless.
Laws have no use other than to punish people. Good people don't need laws. Bad people don't care about laws.
Yeah, and there's no real rape in "Statutory Rape", just an age difference that exceeds societal norms. The primary source of confusion or psychological is society, in telling the child that something is wrong and that they need to start reacting violently to, or repressing what has happened.
*shrugs* That's life.