What I heard is that the girls did try to get the school to stop it, but the school didn’t stop it. Hence, the cops were called.
As I’ve said before, what they did met the legal definition of sexual assault. As for any defense that the acts were not intended to be sexual in nature, I suspect that the dry-humping would put the lie to that.
I don’t think that sexual assault is trivial just because it was committed by 13 year olds.
I’m just astounded that there are so many here defending it, and acting as if it’s just a situation of “boys will be boys.”
I always wondered why the recent teacher-student sex scandals didn't get more attention than just the "what was the harm to the boy" attitude. Could the boys be motivated by what they see in the news about teachers sexually seducing their students?
Regarding that, why haven't the schools, the media, and the law, not treat the teacher seduction stories as hostile workplace incidents instead of teacher-student hijinks? What does it do to the other teachers when a teacher is caught having relations with a student? How do the other students perceive teachers when one is found out? Does it make it harder for teachers to maintain discipline in a school where a teacher incident has occured? Do students begin to emulate the behavior of their teachers when the news punditry seems to excuse this behavior when the teacher is female?
Just some slightly off-topic thoughts.
-PJ
Many a child has aped adult behavior without understanding it’s significance or social acceptance/non-acceptance.
I haven't heard anyone say it's trivial; except for you.
The Law might be "a ass", but it shouldn't act like it.
If 13 is too young for consent, logic and reason should indicate that it's equally too young to be labeled a "registered sex offender" for life.
For precisely the same reason.
If you have a group of 13 year old boys together that are at best loosely supervised, it's a reasonably high probability that if they are doing what they consider to be joking around, it is somehow sexual in nature. Arguments that this wasn't sexual in nature ring hollow to me even if it were not for the dry-humping.
Some of that is boys being boys. However, there are boundaries, and in this case they were definitely crossed.
I don’t think that sexual assault is trivial just because it was committed by 13 year olds.
I don't believe it is a trivial matter. I don't however, believe it's a matter that requires action by the criminal justice system, unless it is repeated after the school makes an attempt to put an end to it.
What I heard is that the girls did try to get the school to stop it, but the school didn’t stop it. Hence, the cops were called.
I just did a google search and read another article. It sounds like the school administrators tried to get the boys to stop, but they kept doing it anyway.
That does sound like good reason to bring criminal charges. It doesn't sound like the school overreacted and called the police as a first resort.
I still question filing felony charges against them, but I withdraw my objections to them filing the misdemeanor charges. Their actions were stupid and harmful to begin with, but when they refused to stop when not only the girls told them to stop, but the administrators told them to stop, they reached the level of criminal acts even for a 13 year old.
I’m just astounded that there are so many here defending it, and acting as if it’s just a situation of “boys will be boys.”
I think that many are assuming that the press was sensationalizing and exaggerating the situation, which is what they usually do. I find myself being skeptical of news reports on such issues because they are usually not very balanced and don't bother doing anything but repeating accusations.
However, it sounds like in this case it was more than boys being boys.
It does sound like that by the time the settlement was reached, these boys were quite aware that what they did was wrong, and they paid a price for their actions. I'm not talking about the trivial $250 cash part of the settlement, but what they went through before the settlement was reached.
As far as the legal system goes, it does sound like they got off pretty light, but hopefully that is because the parents involved were satisfied that these boys would not do this again and that the issue was properly addressed.
As I’ve said before, what they did met the legal definition of sexual assault. As for any defense that the acts were not intended to be sexual in nature, I suspect that the dry-humping would put the lie to that.
Allegedly did. No trial.
And-- hearsay.