This Is What Americans… Uhh… Incriminate Children For

8 December, 2006 at 10:04 pm | In Incompetence Exposed | 30 Comments

No, perhaps unfortunately (for many of you), this blog is not dead.

And while I will keep this particular post fairly succinct, I hope to return to this blog more frequently in the next few weeks.

What inspired me to come out of this recent hibernation was possibly the most absurd article I have read in quite a while.

It will not surprise most of my readership that this article comes from an American source, nor, sadly, should it.

What I am referring to here is this Denver Post article.

Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim

By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated:12/06/2006 01:12:35 AM MST

Salt Lake City - Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act – in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.The Ogden, Utah, girl was put in this odd position because she was found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14. She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her.

There are several issues in this one piece, some of which make me feel awry, most – downright sick.

Right now, though, I will address just one.

I won’t talk of the astronomical threat of paedophilia and sexual assault to your children, which is fortunately being addressed by the mainstream media and the government, and which led to the formation of laws such as this.

I will not talk of the completely amoral, taboo act of sexual intercourse, which god clearly forbids.

Neither will I talk of how children must be protected, sheltered and monitored by the government, using whatever means possible.

I could write an editorial on each of the above.

No, what I will post-ironically discuss today is a simple concept, an oxymoron of sorts, known as Common Sense™. Something that has undoubtedly been lacking in Christianity, American politics, and not least in the American Justice System as just a brief glimpse here will show.

Let’s look at what happened here: consensual sex, between two pubescent teenagers, both of whom are now facing delinquency status and are being charged as sex offenders, touted as both perpetrator and victim.

What perpetration? What victimisation? Where and how is this present in this case? What part of these two terms are not irrelevant?

And more importantly when will education be based not on morality, but on fact?

How about the people in charge look at the case? How about they look at the context, the circumstances and the details? In every case, individually?

Sure, the laws exist (their usefulness, or requirement, is a different issue) but the world is not, and never has been black and white. There is always hectares of grey, ever increasing as concepts, societal norms and ethical ideas change and evolve. The book cannot be used to cover the grey, which is where people need to do the thinking for themselves.

And once this thinking gets done, then perhaps we will not have kids charged as sex offenders, burglars winning money after breaking into people’s houses or suing airline companies because New Jersey sucks:

Technorati Tags: sex, America, absurd, justice, legal system

30 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

This Is What Americans… Uhh… Incriminate Children For

SBS is a simple blog system. Entries can be added, deleted, and viewed. SBS also supports topics, which can be added on the fly. If your looking for a basic blogging system with no special feature such as trackbacking, static pages and pinging, check t…

Trackback by JRB Technology — 9 December, 2006 #
For another example of this insanity see,
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-03-29-child-self-porn_x.htm
This is a society obviously run by sociopaths…

Comment by Larry Gambone — 9 December, 2006 #
Couldn’t agree more, this is point blank insanity.

I can fully understand the law itself being in place to prevent older “sexual predators” from interfering with kids under the age of fourteen. I also understand that there need to be laws in place preventing young people from having consensual sex at an age when they may not fully realise the wider consequences and implications to their actions such as unwanted pregnancy.

However, I believe it needs to be made clear that Paedophilia/Sex Offences charges should only come into play when its clearly a case of an older person manipulating, coercing or forcing themselves upon a younger person.

As wrong as it may be for a twelve and thirteen year old to be having consensual sex, there’s no way this should come under the “Sex Offences/Paedophilia” umbrella. Basically the court is effectively branding this young couple as “Sex Offenders” before they’re even old enough to fully understand what a “Sex Offence” is.

If the charge sticks, it will undoubtedly affect both their futures and personal development in a massively detrimental way. Depending on how long the charge stays on record for they may find it hard to get ahead, go to college, find good jobs etc when the only real “offence” they have committed was completely consensual act, albeit at a much younger age than they should have.

I know there are a core of Christians out there that would see what these kids have done as a huge social/moral/religious transgression, and that they should be punished accordigly for their heinous crimes against humanity..

However, I don’t think its right to ruin the lives of two children simply because of a black-and-white law which was originally put in place to stop adults from interfering with kids, a law which neither of these kids probably even knew existed.

How many laws relating to Sex Offences did you know when you were thirteen…?

The law needs to be clarified to account for the age difference between the “offenders”. Personally, I think that in cases where both parties are in their early teens should be treated as simple misdemeanour. Of course its wrong, but we can’t label them as “Sex Offenders” because of it. I think the “Sex Offence” tag should only come into play where there is a clear disparity in age between the parties, and if the younger person was manipulated, coreced or forced into the act by the older one.

Comment by Sam — 9 December, 2006 #
I would actually go so far as to say that it isn’t wrong…

I would also disagree with the laws being there in the first place. I think that consensual sex should never be illegal, determining “consensual” however, is more difficult, having to take into account coercion or other factors. This is why each case should be looked at individually.

The whole notion of “paedophiles” hunting your children has been overplayed and fearmongered by the media to no end.
As I said this is a different issue, but my thoughts briefly: It is actually completely natural, as several studies have indicated, for men to be attracted to pubescent females, starting from say 13 years of age…
It is those who act on their urges, who perhaps have a mental disorder/genetic differences and they need psychiatric testing and not to be thrown in jail.

It is perhaps somewhat similar to homosexuality except less accepted because of the threat that they may hurt children in non-consensual acts…
This is in no way saying that homosexuality and paedophilia are related… but perhaps they both arise genetically.

Comment by junaman — 9 December, 2006 #
the 12 yr old boy is not a teenager yet. the 13 yr old girl is the older of the couple, and we are constantly told that ‘girls mature faster than boys’ so, she is in no way the ‘victim, the boy is and she should be held responsible

Comment by me — 9 December, 2006 #
Why?

Responsible for what? Having consensual sex with her boyfriend?
Why is that a crime?

Comment by junaman — 9 December, 2006 #
This is what morons do. They classify all people of the same race,nation,or religion as that same. It is known as rascism and considered by anyone with a brain, as ignorance.

So Junaman once again is showing ignorance with another post in the “This is what Americans do” series. Sad part is, I do not think Junaman realizes how many laugh at this ignorance.

Comment by axewielderx — 9 December, 2006 #
Where would you suggest drawing a line? How would you draft a law to deal with children, that’s really what is involved here, having sex? Do you say that it is ok for children to have sex as long as they are the same age? Do you say that children of the same age cannot be predators?

These are difficult questions. Instead of just criticizing the law as written perhaps it would be more helpful to suggest a new legislative scheme.

Comment by cpenzien — 10 December, 2006 #
Totally ridiculous. Thank you for the post.

Blessings,

Shirley Buxton
http://www.writenow.wordpress.com

Comment by Shirley — 10 December, 2006 #
“Sad part is, I do not think Junaman realizes how many laugh at this ignorance.”

Sad part is, that you won’t find levels of absurdity like this in almost any other western nation.
The sad part is, that whacked out legal proceedings like this happen all the time in your country (see link).
Sad part is, that you’re the most fundamentalist nation in the western world, which, when combined with a powerful economy, and a high status take the world one step closer to being fucked.

This is not about the American people, it’s about your country, perhaps the top 1% that run your country, and really, yes, they’re all the same…

Also, I always thought that DIVIDING people by race, nation, religion etc. was racist… silly me.

@cpenzien

I believe that cases concerning consensual sex should not be subject to criminal proceedings.

The problem once again comes in determining what, and how “consent” was received.

Really, I feel that we should eliminate all “sex offences”. Sex is not wrong, contrary to Christianity. People abusing others is wrong, sexually or not is irrelevant. Penalties should be decided on a case by case basis…

Comment by junaman — 10 December, 2006 #
What would you call it if we eliminated “sex offenses”? Would you call it a battery?

As with anything sometimes sex is wrong. The whole point of the criminal sexual conduct statutes is that there was no consent.

Comment by cpenzien — 10 December, 2006 #
However, usually there is an age for consent, as with the above case, where both were trialled for consensual sex…

A name of a crime is quite irrelevant though… as I said, going to each case individually is closer to the ideal, than having blanket laws and sentences for each crime.

Sex is only sometimes wrong because societal norms and taboos dictates thus…

Comment by junaman — 10 December, 2006 #
But if you try each case on a case by case basis what happens when you are put on trial before a judge that thinks the sentence for the crime you committed should be death?

Remember not every judge thinks the same way!!

I would much rather be before a judge that is constrained by rules and regulations dictated by my elected representatives.

Comment by cpenzien — 10 December, 2006 #
Oh, no doubt rules and regulations are required to be in place, however by the same theory, what if those rules and regulations suggest death for the crime you committed…
Also, if the judges are appointed by the same people who make the laws, then really, something like the aforementioned should not happen…

Oh, and I do believe in the jury system, and don’t feel in giving undue power to a single person/judge.

Comment by junaman — 10 December, 2006 #
This is one of the most ridiuclous things i have ever heard. This shouldnt even be looked at by the law, theyre 12 and 13, seriously. And theyre both being called sex offenders and victims. For having sex with one another. wow. I really just can not wrap my mind around this. Its insanity.

Comment by Chelsea — 10 December, 2006 #
Junaman — This is exactly my point. The judges may or may not have been appointed by the same people who make the laws. For example in my state, Michigan, judges are elected county wide however the laws are passed by the statewide legislature. My county is near Detroit and would therefore be considered more liberal than much of the state. The neighboring county is one of the wealtiest counties in the entire US and is therefore very conservative. Accordingly the judges in these two counties often on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Again, I would rather not have a case by case analysis because I believe it would simply put too much power in the hands of individuals.

Comment by cpenzien — 10 December, 2006 #
But what happened to juries deciding your guilt?

As I said, there do need to be laws, and i’m not proposing anarchy. I’m talking about deciding a penatly based on the circumstances, which was not done in the case mentioned in the article.

The laws were obviously no in place to stop children from having sex, hence when the latter does happen, you need to take it with a grain of salt and some common sense…

Comment by junaman — 10 December, 2006 #
One last comment and I will leave it at that. Jurors decide facts. They decide whether or not a fact is true. In other words whether or not an act did or did not happen. After that is decided judges impose penalties. Generally under American law the only time this is different is with respect to capital murder crimes when a jury is asked to make a recommendation.

By the way, I think this stuff is too important to take with just a grain of salt!!

Comment by cpenzien — 10 December, 2006 #
Fair enough.

One more thing, sometimes juries also decide compensation amounts in civil cases…

Comment by junaman — 10 December, 2006 #
Ok so I have to add one more!

Juries always decide compensation in civil cases because damages are a question of fact. As in how much was the plaintiff damaged.

Comment by cpenzien — 10 December, 2006 #
Yes, but they also decide compensation for mental distress, which is much less a matter of fact…

Oh, and what I meant by the grain of salt comment, is that, obviously two children having sex is not a “sexual offence” and hence should not be considered so seriously…

Comment by junaman — 10 December, 2006 #
I would agree that this thing has been way out of proportion. Here, we have two underage kids having sex. Nothing more, nothing less. What should be done? This is where this careens out of control. The reality is that isn’t doesn’t have to.

Obviously, some emotional damage has been done to a 12 & 13 year old to have their minds on sex. Should they been held accountable? Yes. Enough to be criminalized? No. I agree the sex offender element should only come into play when there is a serious age difference. Sexual predators are looking for young, vulnerable victims. Two kids experimenting isn’t part of that. What the situation needs here is family counseling for both sides. An investigation to make sure there isn’t anything strange going on, and if nothing illegal; let the families deal with it.

There is a religious/moral element to this, but that would fall back to the parents/guardians. The original poster says sexual intercourse is “amoral” and “taboo” which is curious. If that were the case, where would be if we didn’t procreate? The Bible puts conditions on sex, but doesn’t rule it all out. The Bible is clear on adultery, fornication, onanism, and sodomy. However, sex between a man and woman in marriage gets the two-thumbs up from God himself, according to the Bible. Even if not specifically stated, victimizing – including sexually – is not in the spirit of the Bible. I won’t even get into the issue that God created sex. It must have some purpose besides fueling Internet usage and an adult video market.

The law is being used here, most likely, because it gives people a script of what to do. The parents of the kids probably are seeking to go after the other kid, instead of standing up to the plate and putting their foot down with their own kid. While I don’t know the exact circumstances for either family; statistically, I’d say it’s not as likely that the parents had as active of a role than they should have. I also speak as a parent, as well as an experienced childcare worker. Things like this STILL make me worry about the direction we are taking as humans sometimes.

It’s plain scary.

Comment by stjarna67 — 10 December, 2006 #
“The original poster says sexual intercourse is “amoral” and “taboo” which is curious.”

That was purely ironic… My views are the exact opposite.

Comment by junaman — 10 December, 2006 #
So Mr 80’s hairstyle

consensual sex should not be a crime?

So if a 60 year old man traded sex for chocolate with a 6 year old boy is that okay? The boy is willing to have sex with the old slob for chocolate. So it is consensual. But is that acceptable?

Hell no.

Comment by I hate Peter Garret — 10 December, 2006 #
Considering the fact that the example you brought up was in no way independently consensual, no, it would not be acceptable…

Comment by junaman — 10 December, 2006 #
Let me predicate by stating that I am……an American. .

Seriously: the idea that there can be any criminal charges of any kind associated with this case is just…ludicrous.

But, insofar as the law is concerned, here’s the crucial twist of logic as I see it—from the Post article:

For adolescents under 14, though, there are no exceptions or mitigation and they are never considered capable of consenting to sex.”

Therefore, according to Utah statute, children under 14 are not possessed of free will. If the law says that you can’t have sex with someone 13 and under, then that’s the law and you can be convicted of a crime if you break the law. But that either of these children could be cast as victims hinges on the legal definition of underage sex as necessarily non-consensual, which is nonsense. It is not. So, legally, they could each be charged with the crime of underage sex—although I don’t think they should be because they’re children, for God’s sake—but the absurdity of having a perpetrator and a victim of the same crime in the same person is a product of the absurdity of holding a consensual act legally non-consensual based purely on age.

And did anyone tell either of these kids that they didn’t have to press charges? That’s what I really want to know. I smell parental zeal.

The law really is totally absurd in this case (as in many others.)

Comment by Curtis — 10 December, 2006 #
There is a religious and moral element to this story that I think needs to be addressed. I know that Christianity has a viewpoint and opinion about this story.

I would simply offer than the Pagan viewpoint isn’t one of permissiveness. It’s not lawlessness, lack of accountability, nor does it endorse victimization. For those looking to attribute societal taboos to faiths other than theirs, I would recommend looking more deeply in academia before starting their own smear campaign.
Even if the cast of characters involved here were to tout any faith, it doesn’t mean they should be held as the example of that faith.

Unfortunately, with a story that’s emotionally flammable; the uncontrolled burn of information can go in many directions.

Sorry for turning into a PSA, but I thought something should be said.

-sj

Comment by stjarna67 — 11 December, 2006 #
As much as religion and the morality that religion implies upon each individual and action, laws need to have an element of black and white to them.
It would be great to judge every single crime on a deeper moral level, but an efficient courts system needs regulations to avoid being caught in a quagmire of philosophical debate.

Curtis:
“For adolescents under 14, though, there are no exceptions or mitigation and they are never considered capable of consenting to sex.”
Therefore, according to Utah statute, children under 14 are not possessed of free will.

Umm…no… The vast majority of society believes that sex is a serious choice in life (physically, emotionally, morally, whatever), and mostcountries’ laws reflect this widely held viewpoint. The law is simply saying that a child

Comment by porcelainmonkey — 17 December, 2006 #
Ahh wtf comment thing screwed up. continue.

The law is simply saying that a child

Comment by porcelainmonkey — 17 December, 2006 #
The real crime is that they had unprotected sex and she became pregnant. And the crime is perpetrated by the parents of both for not giving them enough info about not having unprotected sex. And by givinf enough info, I really mean beat some sense into them.

This ridiculous thing went up to the state supreme court? They don’t have anything better to do?

I sure wish I had some sex when I was 12. or 13. or 20 for that matter.

Victim AND offender. At the same time? For the same thing? Are you kidding?

Idiots.

Comment by Solo — 22 December, 2006 #