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.

The law is simply saying that a child

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

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

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.)

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.

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

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.

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…

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

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

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

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…

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.

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

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.

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…

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

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…

Blessings,

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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…