Posted on 09/30/2013 5:37:50 AM PDT by 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....
(Excerpt) Read more at yourjewishnews.com ...
The other side of it is that a 50 year old should know better.
The assumption is a 12 year old isn’t mature enough to deny their baser instincts.
Exactly. The concept behind statutory rape laws is that a 13-year-old is fundamentally incapable of consenting to sex. As soon as one says, "... except if the other party is (fill in the blank)," then one is contending that a 13-year-old is fundamentally capable of consenting to sex, and all rules other than "not by physical force" can be considered arbitrary restrictions on liberty.
Interesting point.
/johnny
Well, yes. However, the legal standard is self-contradictory. In my opinion, that leaves the situation open, in today’s moral climate, for ever greater legal permission for adults to have sex with children.
Uh-Oh. Does ‘petting’ count? Wait, I don’t think I had “Sex-Sex” or perhaps I fell under Clinton’s comment that what they did “wasn’t sex” and he was right, it was sodomy! It’s all so confusing these days. Hope these kids come out OK. I did (I think)
The establishment is gonna ‘water down’ the abuser list(s) so much that it/they becomes irrelevant and ignored as time ticks on.
Then s/he is also fundamentally incapable of having criminal intent and cannot be charged with a sex crime. You can’t have it both ways.
And, BTW, many countries and states disagree with your stated assumption of the purpose of these laws. That is why they do make a distinction according the ages of the parties involved.
Either way, she cannot give consent.
It’s not consensual sex. It’s an important distinction.
I agree.
... many countries and states disagree with your stated assumption of the purpose of these laws
I didn't say anything about the purpose of the laws. I remarked upon the reasoning supporting such laws, at least in general in the United States.
Exactly!
That is similar to the law in California, although here the law states that one party must be of age.
13... 12.... Utah. Is the problem that they were too young, or that they weren’t married? /S
I imagine that if one is, by definition, incapable of giving legally-valid consent to sex, then one is, by definition, incapable of forming legally-recognizable culpable intent to have sex. Thus, neither child could be charged with a crime, if intent has any meaning in the process. I'm not fond of criminal laws that dispense with the need that the “criminal” actually have some sort of culpable intent.
So, to me, the obvious solution is that neither party could be held criminally liable for statutory rape (or its equivalent), as neither had the capacity to form a legally-valid intention to have sex.
If force had been involved, if one party had forced the other, one could charge the offending party with some sort of assault, since there is nothing in the law that suggests that minors can't form the intent to commit acts of violence.
Just my two cents.
sitetest
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 be out, they were completely unaware of what she was up to.
The sad part of that is that the really dangerous pedophiles and the like will be buried in swarms of kids caught messing around...or running out into the yard without a diaper (public nudity).
There is no discretion any more, just jackbooted following orders.
I do not disagree with you.
I’m just pointing out that the 12yo boy couldn’t consent, either, whereas the 50yo man is supposed to be more judicious in his decision making.
It was not consensual sex in this case - even though it appears to have been voluntary.
Thanks for saying what I was thinking. It seems like a lot of people equate conservatism with (irrational) authoritarianism, when it has always been quite the opposite.
That’s reasonable. As others have suggested, maybe a better legal approach would have been to charge the parents with neglect, as if the children had committed vandalism or something like that. There should be some accountability, in aid of motivating people to use better judgment!
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.