Girl, 13, her boyfriend, 12, ordered to register as sex offenders [truncated title]

Your Jewish News ^ | Undated | David Ross

[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....

[Tax-chick]

nor do I think the child would have much choice in the matter

No, they don't. Over the centuries, a consensus developed that it was wrong for adults to use children for sexual gratification, even if they persuaded the children to go along with it "voluntarily." Almost everyone agreed that sex with children was wrong, and that wanting sex with children was perverse.

Unfortunately, we appear to be falling back to the past ... or something even worse. The value to society of having children born and raised in marriage-based families used to be so obvious that it didn't have to be mentioned. Now, bringing this up is "hate speech."

[Vigilanteman]

They do it for murder except in cases where the kid is charged as an adult. I’m not one to excuse underage sex even between underage kids, but I’m reasonably assured in saying it is a far lesser crime than murder.

[wardaddy]

Sex laws are so ridiculous these days

[Nowhere Man]

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.

I get into trouble on these things, I tend to be a Barry Goldwater type libertarian. First off, we do need an age of consent as a benchmark for society, I would choose 16, some might differ, but I think it would be a good compromise. I think overall the Europeans handle the matter of sex, generally better than we do. On other stuff, no, but I think on this one, they are ahead of us. I would have varying punishments (ranging from fines to limited incarceration, depending on the cases and circumstances) left up to the judge for the grey area between 13 to 16, anyone under 13, toss the book at them and throw away the key.

You hit the nail on the head. in the realm of nature, we are ready to reproduce at the ages somewhere between 13 to 16. First the parent should teach their values and such to give their children a good thought process to decide right from wrong and also that they will be held accountable and responsible for their actions as adults. Even at 13 I knew what was right and wrong, anyone tried persuading me to have sex back then, I would say no because I was taught that and can make decisions based on what I was taught. As a society, we are falling down and worse, extending adolescence until 25. We should not be doing that. We are tempting biology by not instilling values, accountability and responsibility to go with them.

Under ancient Jewish law, one is an adult at 13, in Rome, it was 14 and even i England, I think it was the same with the exception of making major business contracts. My grandfather quit school in 1914 at the age of 13 and got a real job.

I know I'm drawing a target on my back at times, since I come in from a different angle, but I always have to answer the questions on "what would the Constitution say" as well as address the reality of biology in cases like these.

Generally I do believe that once a person has serve their debts to society, they start with a clean slate. One thing I do disagree with Megan's Law is telling the general public they are a sex offender. I would even toss out the law on a Constitutional basis ideally. I guess due to the gravity of the situation, I can compromise where they should register with the police only, only the police would know and as long as they are following post release conditions set by the judge, they should be left alone. I just don't want to open the door to vigilante justice.

[WayneS]

Are you saying you agree that the purpose of the law is to “protect children from each other”?

If so, I will disagree with you no matter what court(s) uphold(s) this judge’s decision.

The purpose of the law is to protect children from ADULTS.

[DariusBane]

I don’t like your answer either. The fact is that humans have sex. I don’t understand kids this young having sex together. I have children that age and I really can’t understand how that occurred. I really can’t.

That being said what is done is done. How does putting the parents in jail mean anything? How is society served by putting parents in jail.

I think the law and order conservative has wrought enough heart ache on the world. Remember the law and order conservative created the war on drugs and prohibition. It also brought us Bill Clinton’s 100,000 new cops on the beat and all the busy work that it entails. Law and Order conservatives need to agree to punish crimes with victims harshly but stay out of stuff like this. Seat belt laws, cell phone laws, even the questionable DUI at .08 are questionable things.

MADD, another law and order conservative type whined and cried and got the .o8 passed. They created a whole industry of judges, cops, attorneys and prosecutors. What had happened previously was that drunk drivers were not held accountable even when they caused accidents. The solution from MADD was to create a whole industry around DUI. The better response would have been to throw out BAC levels until an accident occurs. Punish a drunk driver who causes an accident with permanent drivers license revocation huge fines and imprisonment for many many years. This approach requires a victim. That’s the point. A victim.

I have had quite enough of the Law and Order conservative.

[DannyTN]

[DannyTN]

[VerySadAmerican]

In the old days it was “I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours.” Now they just get on TV and show it.

[GraceG]

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....

Indeed, Zero Tolerance is this generation’s “Eye for an Eye” which leaves everyone stuck in a Gulag...

So instead of kleaving everyone half blind we are finding everyone fully guitly? Thanks a LOT zero tolerance.....

[GraceG]

MADD, another law and order conservative type whined and cried and got the .o8 passed. They created a whole industry of judges, cops, attorneys and prosecutors. What had happened previously was that drunk drivers were not held accountable even when they caused accidents. The solution from MADD was to create a whole industry around DUI. The better response would have been to throw out BAC levels until an accident occurs. Punish a drunk driver who causes an accident with permanent drivers license revocation huge fines and imprisonment for many many years. This approach requires a victim. That’s the point. A victim.

I have had quite enough of the Law and Order conservative.

NAILED IT!!!

Laws should ONLY be Punitative and NEVER preventative, otherwise they punish the Law Abiding!

Same damned way with Seatbelt laws, which in my opinion should be immedately repealed...

[GraceG]

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

Did House Leader Bonher sire a kid when he was 12 and get the above punishment, thos could explain a great many thing.... Like why he cries all the time...

[Nowhere Man]

I have had quite enough of the Law and Order conservative.

Yeah, I used to be one myself but realize it can be a double edged sword so I've gotten more libertarian as I've gotten older and wiser. I can understand the police pulling over someone who is weaving in and out but I stop at checkpoints, seat belt laws and other nanny state stuff.

[Nowhere Man]

I wanted to add something to my last message but I had to call work. I think what mellowed me out is I know what it is like to be accused of something even though I was innocent plus the same thing happened to my grade school buddy but much worse. He had a girlfriend with 3 kids and she got angry at my buddy so she called the cops and said he abused her kids. He was charged with child molestation, PHYSICAL NOT SEXUAL, and he had to spend a night in county lockup. His mother, who was on dialysis at the time, was in a tizzy and a wreck. Later on, her father told the truth and all charges were dropped and he was let free. I thank God that things were sorted out before things got legs. Even if judged innocent in a court of law or investigation, there will always be a stigma there that could follow the person the rest of his/her lives, I'm glad that did not happen with my buddy.

I also remember the last time this issue came up quite a bit back in the 1980's, I remember a couple who ran a day care center was accused of sexual abuse but was later found to be innocent. It seems like we are in the same cycle now. Yes, we need to protect the kids, but we must be careful in pointing fingers and just let the investigation run its course.

[cloudmountain]

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 ccompletely unaware of what she was up to.

I wonder why the parents were so CLUELESS. I taught the teenagers (13-17) and young adults (18-21) for 45 YEARS, the latter for 27 of those years.

Those parents knew her for all her life and the parents were "completely unaware." How much does that say for parents who were COMPLETELY UNAWARE of what their daughter was up to? Not much in my opinion.

LOL. The ONLY reason the girl didn't get away with it because parents ACCIDENTALLY got home early. Oh dear. What would have happened if said parents were their normal selves and left their daughter alone EVEN MORE?

Perhaps BOTH parents were working 60+ hours and too tired to deal. Happens.

They sure got THEIR wake up call, didn't they? 'Bout time.

The REAL loser is the girl whose parents have opted out of being involved in their daughter's life. MY upbringing was similar: both parents worked. Had to. We were poor. But I had to report to the neighbor across the street when I got home. When I was still in grammar school I had to GO OVER there and stay. My older sister took care of me a little later on.

[cloudmountain]

See my answer in post #95.

[DariusBane]

I was like you when young. Cops, Judges, got the benefit of the doubt in my mind. I thought of Miranda as a useless trick used by trick attorneys to get bad guys off.

But times have changed. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Murrah Building really got me thinking about the responsibilities of the Government. Violence begets violence. Lawlessness by the government breeds violence of all kinds.

The people will almost always choose safety over liberty and the politicians know how to sell bigger budgets, more regulations etc using this.

So here we sit with NSA running roughshod over the Bill of Rights. It started with Law and Order conservatives demanding a “fix” from the government for just about any conceivable problem they could come up with.

[cloudmountain]

Honestly, your view's not real conservative. The child should be raised by one of the families, preferably the girls. One shouldn't dismiss the possibility of the boy and girl becoming a loving couple as adults. Kids will be kids, and I hate it that they have sexual encounters so young. But it's not a crime when they're both that age, it's a response to the sexuality surrounding them in our culture when not being old enough to make responsible decisions.
How old were Romeo and Juliet, anyway? Hormones aren't something new. Christians deal with a situation such as this in a way that leads ALL children around to lead good lives.

Romeo and Juliet was written around 1591!! In those days "children" were married off. Americans invented the word TEENAGER.

"Children" of those days were married to cement ties and bonds with other families. There were dowries. Their lives were TOTALLY different than today's.

Families told the girls AND BOYS whom they would marry--NO choice whatsoever.

Today's "children" who are left alone day after day, week after week, month after month and/or are fatherless are at risk and you know it. With all the sexuality garbage shoved down their throats, it's no surprise that they "act out."

The "children" committed no crime. I agree with you. They are abandoned, neglected and forgotten. Keeping in touch with your kids via cell phone is worthless. Parents HAVE TO BE THERE.

The kids are getting screwed by their selfish parents who work their buns off for money, stuff, cars, house, rent, food, whatever, AT THE EXPENSE of their abandoned kids.

OFTEN, but not always: Absent parents = home-alone-kids-in-trouble.

By the way, animals and plants are RAISED; children are REARED. I laugh when I hear people say, "raising kids" because it makes me think of raising animals, baby goats, not REARING children. That is the CORRECT English. But, then, who cares about that? (Cynical remark on my part, not aimed at you.)

[DariusBane]

That’s correct. A simple distinction, yet somehow lost upon an educated man. The Judge cannot seem to see beyond his own nose.

[cloudmountain]

I don’t like your answer either. The fact is that humans have sex. I don’t understand kids this young having sex together. I have children that age and I really can’t understand how that occurred. I really can’t.
That occurred because parents were absent...a whole lot for her to feel so confident. Imagine if they HADN'T come home; they would STILL be clueless. See my answer in #95.

That being said what is done is done. How does putting the parents in jail mean anything? How is society served by putting parents in jail.
Jail for a few days MAY wake them up. I would prefer hitting parents in their MOST TENDER spot: the pocket book. If they were fined...oooo would that hurt!
Society is served by letting parents know that they have a HUGE responsibility to take care of their "children," even if those "children" are 13-17.