RSS 2.0 FeedSex Offender Insanity
by Doug MataconisIn a case currently before the Utah Supreme Court, the justices are trying to reconcile a case where a 13 year-old girl has been branded a sex offender:
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.
Yes, that’s right. A 13 year old girl fooled around with her 12 year-old boyfriend and now both of them are being branded as sex offenders and charged with a crime that would a felony if they were adults.
Can this really be what the Utah legislature intended when they passed this law ? The attorney general certainly thinks so:
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.
But can you really say that the law was intended to put 12 and 13 year olds in jail in situations like this ? Mr. Bates may think he’s “protecting the children” by making this argument, what he’s really doing, though, is ruining their lives.
H/T: Hit & Run
Ok, so stop me if I’m off base here but:
1. The states justification for banning sex with or by someone under the age of 14, is predicated on the fact that a 14 year old cannot make informed consent.
2. By this same logic, would it not then be impossible for that person under 14 to have formed requisite culpable intent?
If someone under 14 CAN have culpable intent; would this not also mean they were qualified to consent?
Comment by Chris Byrne — December 8, 2006 @ 10:00 amDoes this conviction mean that they will have to be put on a sex offender’s registry? If so, these children will have a very iffy future when it comes to being accepted by a university, the military or professions that require licensure or certification–like attorneys, doctors, nurse aides, etc..
This is legalism run amok!
Comment by Sue Bob — December 8, 2006 @ 2:48 pmJust one more result of “feel good” legislation for headlines and votes that has done nothing to protect anyone.
This whole insanity needs to stopped, thught out and started again in the right direction based on facts and real life.
Until we the people make our legislators do that, this will be more and more common place and clog our court system.
Comment by C. Johnson — December 9, 2006 @ 12:36 amAmericans finally realize the try-before-you-buy works just as well with sex as it does with commodities. Rather than marrying and then shacking up with hot sex coming after the nuptuals, Americans are increasingly putting out before putting on the wedding rings.Women are just as likely as men to get it on before matrimony.
Comment by Daniel — December 27, 2006 @ 3:43 pmI think this is just the sign of the times. I mean, we like to test things, try them out, before making a purchase. Why should sex and marriage be any different? The stigma associated with pre-marital sex is dead. Long live free love!