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

Skip to comments.

Teen, both a perpetrator and victim of sex offense, presents legal puzzle
Salt Lake Tribune ^ | Dec 06 2006 01:14:42 AM MST | Pamela Manson

Posted on 12/07/2006 7:14:53 AM PST by newzjunkey

Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old Ogden girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.

The girl was put in this odd position because she was found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14. She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her.

"The only thing that comes close to this is dueling," said Justice Michael Wilkins, noting that two people who take 20 paces and then shoot could each be considered both victim and offender.

And Chief Justice Christine Durham wondered if the state Legislature had intended the "peculiar consequence" that a child would have the simultaneous status of a protected person and an alleged perpetrator under the law.

The comments came in oral arguments on a motion asking the high court to overturn the finding of delinquency - the legal term in juvenile court for a conviction - against Z.C., who became pregnant after she and her boyfriend engaged in sex in October 2003.

State authorities filed delinquency petitions in July 2004, alleging that each had committed sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony if committed by an adult.

The girl appealed the petition, saying her constitutional right to be treated equally under the law had been violated.

Her motion noted that for juveniles who are 16 and 17, having sex with others in their own age group does not qualify as a crime. Juveniles who are 14 or 15 and have sex with peers can be charged with unlawful conduct with a minor, but the law provides for mitigation when the age difference is less than four years, making the offense a misdemeanor.

For adolescents under 14, though, there are no exceptions or mitigation and they are never considered capable of consenting to sex.

A juvenile court judge denied the motion by Z.C., who then admitted to the offense while preserving her right to appeal to a higher court.

The Utah Court of Appeals last December upheld the judge's refusal to dismiss the allegation.

At Tuesday's arguments, Matthew Bates, an assistant Utah attorney general, argued the prosecution of the girl was not unreasonable. He said the statute in question is designed to prevent sex with children who are 13 and younger, even if the other person is in the same age group.

By passing that law, legislators were sending a message, Bates said: Sex with or among children is unacceptable.

Randall Richards, the girl's attorney, argued that prosecuting children under a law meant to protect them is illogical.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: moralabsolutes; sexoffender
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: newzjunkey

"The girl was put in this odd position because she was found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14. She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her."


I have to say this is strange.

Usually, doesn't such a law pertain only to people ABOVE that age limit?

I.e., noone OVER 14 could have sex with someone UNDER 14?


21 posted on 12/07/2006 7:54:39 AM PST by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
"... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ......just pass the the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - p.411, Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, Signet Books, NY, 1957

is there anything that's no longer a crime?

22 posted on 12/07/2006 7:55:27 AM PST by Rakkasan1 ((Illegal immigrants are just undocumented friends you haven't met yet!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rakkasan1

"One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."


"is there anything that's no longer a crime?"


Well, when everyone started adopting mandatory-seat-belt-usage laws, I pretty much figured "we've arrived".


23 posted on 12/07/2006 7:59:17 AM PST by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

From a California Law Review article in 2003 (91 CALR 163):

Since 1996, every state has enacted legislation requiring certain sex offenders to register with law enforcement and have their personal information available to the community, often for life ("Megan's Laws"). Slightly over half of all states require registration and community notification for juveniles adjudicated delinquent of sex offenses. This inclusion is a marked departure from the traditional juvenile justice system of maintaining separate procedures and consequences for juveniles and adults. In treating juveniles like adults under Megan's Laws, states have failed to consider the distinct characteristics of juvenile sex offending, such as the exceptionally low recidivism rate and culpability complications arising from age-of-consent laws. This Comment argues that applying community-notification requirements to juvenile sex offenders is an ineffective tool for preventing future offenses but rather creates new harms for the very children the laws claim to protect.


24 posted on 12/07/2006 8:02:13 AM PST by Lawgvr1955 (You can never have too much cowbell !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
"By passing that law, legislators were sending a message, Bates said: Sex with or among children is unacceptable."

Thats all well and good, but the fact that the girl became pregnant, and the boy impregnated her argues that both are post pubescent and therefore no longer children. Anyway,what are they going to do? lock them up? Sentence them to hard labor?

It seems to me that any punishment greater than grounding them would do more harm than good. Do you really want to send these kids to prison with juvenile offenders and gang members who are on their way to becoming hardened criminals?
25 posted on 12/07/2006 8:04:27 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rakkasan1

And sadly, that's the reality.

Some people just aren't bright enough to have figured that out yet.


26 posted on 12/07/2006 8:07:48 AM PST by mgstarr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Rakkasan1
is there anything that's no longer a crime?

I was going to say one could possibly sit in a corner somewhere motionless and silent with their eyes closed, but that's probably either trespassing or loitering.

27 posted on 12/07/2006 8:07:57 AM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

If there is no mitigation for sex with children under age 14 because it's understood they can't rationally make a decision under that age, how can they (kids under 14) be prosecuted (and convicted) under the same statute, indicating they knew right from wrong?


28 posted on 12/07/2006 8:10:17 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (What's the one elected position Ted Kennedy has never held? Designated Driver.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lawgvr1955

Oh. Well, all right then. I sit corrected.


29 posted on 12/07/2006 8:12:00 AM PST by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ExpatGator
These two are doing the 2 headed snakedance at 12 and 13. Do you really suppose that they might hold any jobs other than minimum wage?

I doubt there is any relationship bewteen earning potential and when you first had sex. Heck, the guy must have good people skills if he seduced the girl in the first place. He could probably go on to own a car dealership :-)

30 posted on 12/07/2006 8:13:04 AM PST by krb (If you're not outraged, people probably like having you around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
I once told a friend that I had been arrested for being an accessory to loitering.

"I wasn't loitering," I said, "I was helping somebody else loiter."

31 posted on 12/07/2006 8:13:26 AM PST by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

probably violates some imam's right to not be offended, too.


32 posted on 12/07/2006 8:15:34 AM PST by Rakkasan1 ((Illegal immigrants are just undocumented friends you haven't met yet!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

This is - and I am choosing my words very carefully here - very stupid.

Our country is completely incapacitated by fatal schiziphrenia.

Our culture is effectively dead and impotent, but many don't know it yet. It is like the freshly cut off head of a rattlesnake, still able to do some last bits of damage as it assumes room temperature.

It's been a fascinating ride and an interesting thing to watch. The change is like a parabolic curve and we have moved into the virtually verticle line in just the last few years.


33 posted on 12/07/2006 8:24:52 AM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Naziism was in 1937.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Utah has a history of allowing youth to marry at 13. I knew a girl that got married in Utah at 13 because they would allow there with parental consent. Where the heck were the parents??


34 posted on 12/07/2006 8:27:39 AM PST by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

If it goes on a web-bashed registry, google caches it forever.


35 posted on 12/07/2006 8:42:44 AM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Rakkasan1
is there anything that's no longer a crime?

No.

Today, the lawyers control everything. Everything!

CA....

36 posted on 12/07/2006 8:48:39 AM PST by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've once again found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

From the people who brought you the war on drugs, now brings you the war on teenage sex.


37 posted on 12/07/2006 8:49:37 AM PST by garbanzo (Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Kinda of sad in that it demonstrates where our society is going, but other than that, not new.

Prosecuting these kids would be a big show for the DAs careers... a clown show.

It's sad, but it's not news, and only a fool interested in the dog and pony show itself, and not the kids, would try to prosecute this case. Making sex offenders out of some young teenage couple... that is insanity. Not that I condone what they did... but do you want to mark these kids as "sex offenders" for the *rest of their lives* for what is nothing but young teenage hormones? SOmebody needs to be slapped around. There is no "vitim" there is no "perpetrator".. just sme missing or incompetant parents.


38 posted on 12/07/2006 8:50:35 AM PST by Bones75
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lawgvr1955
My belief is the legislature never gave this scenario the least bit of thought, making certain juvenile actions a misdemeanor and for younger children a felony.

I think they thought alot about it and decided they couldn't politically deal with it. What happened was that the legislature could not bring themselves to say publicly that there was any possibility that a 12-year-old would want to have sex or that anyone but an older pervert would want to have sex with a 12-year-old and therefore that two 12 or 13-year-olds would ever engage in sex with each other. Imagine the reaction voters would have had if it were explicitly made legal that two 8-year-olds could have intercourse? Better to just pretend it never happens and let the courts deal with it.
39 posted on 12/07/2006 8:52:14 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
Exactly. Minors cannot legally give consent to having sex. That is the basis of statutory rape laws.

If minors cannot give consent to their own sex act, how can two minors be guilty of a crime of having sex with each other?

Such a law makes no sense.

The sane thing here is to have a JUVENILE level legal approach to such cases.

40 posted on 12/07/2006 8:54:23 AM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 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