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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 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