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.
"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?
is there anything that's no longer a crime?
"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".
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.
And sadly, that's the reality.
Some people just aren't bright enough to have figured that out yet.
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.
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?
Oh. Well, all right then. I sit corrected.
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 :-)
"I wasn't loitering," I said, "I was helping somebody else loiter."
probably violates some imam's right to not be offended, too.
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.
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??
If it goes on a web-bashed registry, google caches it forever.
No.
Today, the lawyers control everything. Everything!
CA....
From the people who brought you the war on drugs, now brings you the war on teenage sex.
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.
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.
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.