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.
I'm solidly on the side of prosecuting.
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.
At least in my state, Illinois, the prosecution could have filed a Juvenile Petition for Minor in Need of Intervention, and given the children an appropriate disposition, other than a felony and the possibility of having to register as a sex offender. The axiom, "tough cases make for bad law", seems true.
bkmark
"a person's ability to hold more than a minimum wage job for the rest of their natural life"
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'd be surprised if they were not on the dole for life.
Unintended consequence #456,841
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
I have a 13 yr old granddaughter and although I can't imagine her having sex at this age, especially since she is almost always with her family or in school, there would be serious family intervention but I'd avoid any contact with the legal system.
OTH, I've known people who married at 13 and lived a long prosperous life and raised children and had grandchildren and great granchildren, but that was another era.
In Illinois the children could have been made wards of the Court without there being a finding they had committed a criminal act, in essence the children were beyond the control of their parents for engaging in sexual activity at such an early age. The Illinois Sex Registry law would not have applied.
They're minors. Their records will be purged when they come of age.
I spent last night speaking to a criminal client who had her first child at 13. She grew up in the bad part of time that is over run with drugs. The life she has lead, she is 24 now, is one so desperate, that it could have occurred on another planet.
I have been a prosecutor for 13 years and a defense attorney for 13 and thought I had pretty much seen it all, but I was wrong.
Prosecuting this case is ludicrous. Many States include a 'difference in age' clause in their statutory rape laws, in order to avoid this sort of situation. There's a huge difference between an older kid abusing a younger kid, and two kids of (approximately) the same age 'playing doctor'.
You know, I may be a hiring manager not long from now. Tell me, how do I access records for a job candidate's juvenile convictions?
That would be useful information to have.
This is simply none of the government's business.
I don't know about Utah's Sex Offender Registry law, but that might be one way in a case like this.
That doesn't get wiped for minors?
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.