Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Girl, 13, her boyfriend, 12, ordered to register as sex offenders [truncated title]
Your Jewish News ^ | Undated | David Ross

Posted on 09/30/2013 5:37:50 AM PDT by expat1000

..In this ironic case, the 13-year-old unidentified girl, and the 12-year-old boy, are both on the sex offender list and are the victims in the case, because they had consensual sex with each other.

The two violated a Utah state law that criminalizes having sex with a person under 14 years of age. Although they were both children, Utah State officials found them guilty of sexual abuse of a child....

(Excerpt) Read more at yourjewishnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: minors; moralabsolutes; sexoffenders; teens; zerotolerance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last
Full Title: Girl, 13, her boyfriend, 12, ordered to register as sex offenders after having consensual relationship with each other
1 posted on 09/30/2013 5:37:50 AM PDT by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: expat1000
A juvenile judge initially denied the girl’s appeal and the Utah Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, claiming that the law was to protect children from each other.

Here is yet another judge who needs to be removed from the bench.

2 posted on 09/30/2013 5:42:03 AM PDT by WayneS (Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
I think their PARENTS should be put in jail.
Their baby should be given up for adoption.
And the two of them need some intense counseling.

Wow, I sound ULTRA conservative, don't I?

3 posted on 09/30/2013 5:43:08 AM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Neither party can give consent.


4 posted on 09/30/2013 5:44:27 AM PDT by AppyPappy (Obama: What did I not know and when did I not know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

what about all the ancient FLDS perverts in Utah who ‘marry’ a bevy of 13 year old girls.


5 posted on 09/30/2013 5:46:26 AM PDT by Vaquero ( Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain

But it was 10 years ago...she’s now 23.


6 posted on 09/30/2013 5:47:19 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy; expat1000

I think most people instinctively recognize that either children can have “consensual” sex, or they can’t. Saying they-can’t-but-they-can-you-know isn’t working out.


7 posted on 09/30/2013 5:47:27 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I'm not crazy ... I'm just not you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

So?


8 posted on 09/30/2013 5:49:35 AM PDT by cloudmountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain
I think their PARENTS should be put in jail. Their baby should be given up for adoption. And the two of them need some intense counseling.

Wow, I sound ULTRA conservative, don't I?

Why not shoot their parents, castrate the boy, give the girl a hysterectomy, and put the baby in an orphanage?

If you going to hide behind idiocy and call it conservatism you might as well go all the way....

9 posted on 09/30/2013 5:51:46 AM PDT by freebilly (Creepy and the Ass Crackers....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy; Tax-chick

“Neither party can give consent.”

Obviously that is the law, but the question is, is it a sensible one? I think in many European countries these laws take into consideration the age difference between the parties, like if it is less than 2 years, then it is not considered a criminal act regardless of the age of the children. I guess (I don’t know for sure) a court could order counselling or whatever, but they would not be branded as sex criminals.

Seems like a more reasonable approach to me.


10 posted on 09/30/2013 5:53:43 AM PDT by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freebilly

Thank you.


11 posted on 09/30/2013 5:54:29 AM PDT by OKSooner (What's the NCAA gonna do, suspend OSU from the first half of its first game next season?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

If the judge applied the law as written, and it appears that he did since his ruling was upheld on appeal, why should he be removed? Change the law if you don’t like it.


12 posted on 09/30/2013 5:56:55 AM PDT by Cincinnatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

If they can’t give consent, how can they be charged with the crime of consenting?


13 posted on 09/30/2013 5:57:15 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
Government is the most greedy, corrupt, ignorant and murderous force on earth.

Religious faith in government is far crazier than religious faith in God.

14 posted on 09/30/2013 5:57:37 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Religious faith in government is far crazier than religious faith in God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

That’s how the law is written in Texas, although the maximum difference in age is 3 years, rather than 2.


15 posted on 09/30/2013 5:57:44 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

They can’t. But if a 13 year-old girl can give consent to a 12 year-old, she can give consent to a 50 year-old.

Consent is consent.


16 posted on 09/30/2013 5:58:24 AM PDT by AppyPappy (Obama: What did I not know and when did I not know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
Although they were both children, Utah State officials found them guilty of sexual abuse of a child

So if two kids get in a fight and punch each other, they are both guilty of child abuse.
17 posted on 09/30/2013 6:00:28 AM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

This is just another classic example of feminism and feminist jurisprudence run amok. These gals are well funded by things like the Unconstitutional “Violence Against the Majority of Voters Act (not a constitutional Act like “The Anti-Domestic Violence Act.”)

Herein lies the danger with taxpayer dollars funding activism by radicals whose roots are not in fairness and equity, but Marxism, socialism and special privilege for the protected “group de jour.”


18 posted on 09/30/2013 6:01:15 AM PDT by Ex-Pat in Mex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

‘If they can’t give consent, how can they be charged with the crime of consenting?”

An excellent point even if though it’s not accurate to say they were charged with consenting. They would have been charged with various sex offences.

What the judge is saying in essence is they were old/mature enough to act with criminal intent, but not to have consensual sex. It’s absurd.


19 posted on 09/30/2013 6:03:16 AM PDT by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

“I used her, she used me, but neither one cared ...”


20 posted on 09/30/2013 6:06:30 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana (There's no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

The other side of it is that a 50 year old should know better.

The assumption is a 12 year old isn’t mature enough to deny their baser instincts.


21 posted on 09/30/2013 6:06:57 AM PDT by MortMan (Disarming the sheep only emboldens the wolves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy; expat1000; BykrBayb
But if a 13 year-old girl can give consent to a 12 year-old, she can give consent to a 50 year-old. Consent is consent.

Exactly. The concept behind statutory rape laws is that a 13-year-old is fundamentally incapable of consenting to sex. As soon as one says, "... except if the other party is (fill in the blank)," then one is contending that a 13-year-old is fundamentally capable of consenting to sex, and all rules other than "not by physical force" can be considered arbitrary restrictions on liberty.

22 posted on 09/30/2013 6:07:06 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I'm not crazy ... I'm just not you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mmichaels1970
So if two kids get in a fight and punch each other, they are both guilty of child abuse.

Interesting point.

23 posted on 09/30/2013 6:08:21 AM PDT by TYVets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Regardless of the laws passed or on the books, boys and girls are going to be doing stuff that boys and girls do together.

/johnny

24 posted on 09/30/2013 6:09:11 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Well, yes. However, the legal standard is self-contradictory. In my opinion, that leaves the situation open, in today’s moral climate, for ever greater legal permission for adults to have sex with children.


25 posted on 09/30/2013 6:11:57 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I'm not crazy ... I'm just not you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Uh-Oh. Does ‘petting’ count? Wait, I don’t think I had “Sex-Sex” or perhaps I fell under Clinton’s comment that what they did “wasn’t sex” and he was right, it was sodomy! It’s all so confusing these days. Hope these kids come out OK. I did (I think)


26 posted on 09/30/2013 6:14:03 AM PDT by AKinAK (Keep your powder dry pilgrim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

The establishment is gonna ‘water down’ the abuser list(s) so much that it/they becomes irrelevant and ignored as time ticks on.


27 posted on 09/30/2013 6:14:34 AM PDT by George from New England (escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Then s/he is also fundamentally incapable of having criminal intent and cannot be charged with a sex crime. You can’t have it both ways.

And, BTW, many countries and states disagree with your stated assumption of the purpose of these laws. That is why they do make a distinction according the ages of the parties involved.


28 posted on 09/30/2013 6:15:52 AM PDT by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

Either way, she cannot give consent.
It’s not consensual sex. It’s an important distinction.


29 posted on 09/30/2013 6:20:05 AM PDT by AppyPappy (Obama: What did I not know and when did I not know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
Then s/he is also fundamentally incapable of having criminal intent and cannot be charged with a sex crime. You can’t have it both ways.

I agree.

... many countries and states disagree with your stated assumption of the purpose of these laws

I didn't say anything about the purpose of the laws. I remarked upon the reasoning supporting such laws, at least in general in the United States.

30 posted on 09/30/2013 6:20:42 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I'm not crazy ... I'm just not you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Exactly!


31 posted on 09/30/2013 6:21:50 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
I don't even recall even having had the ability to “perform” at the age of 12....if ya catch my drift (family audience here).
32 posted on 09/30/2013 6:22:52 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Osama Obama Care: A Religion That Will Have You On Your Knees!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

That is similar to the law in California, although here the law states that one party must be of age.


33 posted on 09/30/2013 6:24:08 AM PDT by ZirconEncrustedTweezers (My sweet talk is also savory and creamy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

13... 12.... Utah. Is the problem that they were too young, or that they weren’t married? /S


34 posted on 09/30/2013 6:26:54 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Dear Tax-chick,

I imagine that if one is, by definition, incapable of giving legally-valid consent to sex, then one is, by definition, incapable of forming legally-recognizable culpable intent to have sex. Thus, neither child could be charged with a crime, if intent has any meaning in the process. I'm not fond of criminal laws that dispense with the need that the “criminal” actually have some sort of culpable intent.

So, to me, the obvious solution is that neither party could be held criminally liable for statutory rape (or its equivalent), as neither had the capacity to form a legally-valid intention to have sex.

If force had been involved, if one party had forced the other, one could charge the offending party with some sort of assault, since there is nothing in the law that suggests that minors can't form the intent to commit acts of violence.

Just my two cents.


sitetest

35 posted on 09/30/2013 6:27:07 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cloudmountain
Wow, I sound ULTRA conservative, don't I?

Actually you sound nuts. I strongly suspect that the parents were not aware of what was going on. Reminds me of a case that happened here several years ago. Some parents came home and found a guy in their 15 YO daughter's bedroom. Called police he was arrested and convicted. HOWEVER, it turned out that the girl had set the whole thing up on the internet. Far from being the victim, she was the one who organized the entire thing, lured the guy in (dumbass), and wanted to have sex with him. The DA publically stated that he was very frustrated because there really wasn't anything he could charge her with. Until the girl miscalculated how long her parents were going to be out, they were completely unaware of what she was up to.

36 posted on 09/30/2013 6:27:51 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: George from New England
The establishment is gonna ‘water down’ the abuser list(s) so much that it/they becomes irrelevant and ignored as time ticks on.

The sad part of that is that the really dangerous pedophiles and the like will be buried in swarms of kids caught messing around...or running out into the yard without a diaper (public nudity).

There is no discretion any more, just jackbooted following orders.

37 posted on 09/30/2013 6:28:33 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

I do not disagree with you.

I’m just pointing out that the 12yo boy couldn’t consent, either, whereas the 50yo man is supposed to be more judicious in his decision making.

It was not consensual sex in this case - even though it appears to have been voluntary.


38 posted on 09/30/2013 6:28:48 AM PDT by MortMan (Disarming the sheep only emboldens the wolves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: freebilly

Thanks for saying what I was thinking. It seems like a lot of people equate conservatism with (irrational) authoritarianism, when it has always been quite the opposite.


39 posted on 09/30/2013 6:30:51 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

That’s reasonable. As others have suggested, maybe a better legal approach would have been to charge the parents with neglect, as if the children had committed vandalism or something like that. There should be some accountability, in aid of motivating people to use better judgment!


40 posted on 09/30/2013 6:34:34 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I'm not crazy ... I'm just not you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Dear Tax-chick,

I don't think I'd hold parents accountable for the randy acts of young-uns on the verge of physical maturity. I'm old enough to know folks (older than me) who married, yes, married, at age 15. And stayed married. And raised good families, and grew to old age with each other.

I read a headline the other day announcing adolescence extended to 25. Culturally, that's where we may be at. Psychologically, that's perhaps what our society has done to younger folks.

But physically, most boys and girls are ready for parenthood no later than age 14 - 16, and plenty, a whole lot earlier. Passing laws to punish the parents of children who figure that out doesn't seem to me to be wise.


sitetest

41 posted on 09/30/2013 6:40:29 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

Testing.....


42 posted on 09/30/2013 6:40:54 AM PDT by Therapsid (t)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

So, what about the mentally handicapped. If two of them date each other, and wind up having sex, do we send them both to jail for being rapists?


43 posted on 09/30/2013 6:41:43 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
I don't know how kids of today are supposed to navigate between the "anything goes" attitude of the current media culture and gayism and the "nothing goes" stance of laws and feminism.

As much as I was initially inclined to leave the 13-year old lovers alone, the fact is that young people can become pregnant, contract diseases, it's very risky and they are not mature enough, mentally and financially, to deal with the consequences. Their parents will be paying if anything happens.
Maybe laws that says that NOBODY can have sex with someone below age of consent is what we need to protect our children from the oncoming attempts to normalize pedophilia.
Anything else muddles the message too much.

44 posted on 09/30/2013 6:42:41 AM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Passing laws to punish the parents of children who figure that out doesn't seem to me to be wise.

I'm not thinking in terms of "punishing," but more of "incentivizing" adults.

It may be that there's nothing useful to be done. However, when a 13-year-old and a 12-year-old have produced a child, we at least ought to be able to agree that something has gone wrong.

45 posted on 09/30/2013 6:43:33 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I'm not crazy ... I'm just not you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sitetest; Tax-chick

If they are old enough for sex, they are old enough to get a job and move out and take care of themselves.

Tell them that too. Make it a rule.


46 posted on 09/30/2013 6:44:44 AM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

I wonder when their public school sex education started....


47 posted on 09/30/2013 6:45:43 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Dear Tax-chick,

“I'm not thinking in terms of ‘punishing,’ but more of ‘incentivizing’ adults.”

Well... I guess it depends on definitions of words. To me, filing charges of neglect against folks sounds more like “punishment” than “incentive.”

“However, when a 13-year-old and a 12-year-old have produced a child, we at least ought to be able to agree that something has gone wrong.”

Certainly. Unfortunately, our society has mostly lost its moral order.


sitetest

48 posted on 09/30/2013 6:47:56 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Durus; OKSooner

You’re welcome. Stay free.


49 posted on 09/30/2013 6:50:59 AM PDT by freebilly (Creepy and the Ass Crackers....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
It's cultural. They have different standards in the stans
50 posted on 09/30/2013 6:52:55 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson