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 ...
Here is yet another judge who needs to be removed from the bench.
Wow, I sound ULTRA conservative, don't I?
Neither party can give consent.
what about all the ancient FLDS perverts in Utah who ‘marry’ a bevy of 13 year old girls.
But it was 10 years ago...she’s now 23.
I think most people instinctively recognize that either children can have “consensual” sex, or they can’t. Saying they-can’t-but-they-can-you-know isn’t working out.
So?
Wow, I sound ULTRA conservative, don't I?
Why not shoot their parents, castrate the boy, give the girl a hysterectomy, and put the baby in an orphanage?
If you going to hide behind idiocy and call it conservatism you might as well go all the way....
“Neither party can give consent.”
Obviously that is the law, but the question is, is it a sensible one? I think in many European countries these laws take into consideration the age difference between the parties, like if it is less than 2 years, then it is not considered a criminal act regardless of the age of the children. I guess (I don’t know for sure) a court could order counselling or whatever, but they would not be branded as sex criminals.
Seems like a more reasonable approach to me.
Thank you.
If the judge applied the law as written, and it appears that he did since his ruling was upheld on appeal, why should he be removed? Change the law if you don’t like it.
If they can’t give consent, how can they be charged with the crime of consenting?
Religious faith in government is far crazier than religious faith in God.
That’s how the law is written in Texas, although the maximum difference in age is 3 years, rather than 2.
They can’t. But if a 13 year-old girl can give consent to a 12 year-old, she can give consent to a 50 year-old.
Consent is consent.
This is just another classic example of feminism and feminist jurisprudence run amok. These gals are well funded by things like the Unconstitutional “Violence Against the Majority of Voters Act (not a constitutional Act like “The Anti-Domestic Violence Act.”)
Herein lies the danger with taxpayer dollars funding activism by radicals whose roots are not in fairness and equity, but Marxism, socialism and special privilege for the protected “group de jour.”
‘If they can’t give consent, how can they be charged with the crime of consenting?”
An excellent point even if though it’s not accurate to say they were charged with consenting. They would have been charged with various sex offences.
What the judge is saying in essence is they were old/mature enough to act with criminal intent, but not to have consensual sex. It’s absurd.
“I used her, she used me, but neither one cared ...”
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.