Skip to comments.Girl, 13, her boyfriend, 12, ordered to register as sex offenders [truncated title]
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 ...
Here is yet another judge who needs to be removed from the bench.
Wow, I sound ULTRA conservative, don't I?
Neither party can give consent.
what about all the ancient FLDS perverts in Utah who ‘marry’ a bevy of 13 year old girls.
But it was 10 years ago...she’s now 23.
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.
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....
“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.
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.
If they can’t give consent, how can they be charged with the crime of consenting?
Religious faith in government is far crazier than religious faith in God.
That’s how the law is written in Texas, although the maximum difference in age is 3 years, rather than 2.
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.
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.”
‘If they cant 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.
“I used her, she used me, but neither one cared ...”
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.
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.
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.
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)
The establishment is gonna ‘water down’ the abuser list(s) so much that it/they becomes irrelevant and ignored as time ticks on.
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.
Either way, she cannot give consent.
It’s not consensual sex. It’s an important distinction.
... 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.
That is similar to the law in California, although here the law states that one party must be of age.
13... 12.... Utah. Is the problem that they were too young, or that they weren’t married? /S
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
I wonder when their public school sex education started....
“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.
You’re welcome. Stay free.