Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim . . .

[OneBlueSky]

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650

Salt Lake City - Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old 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 Ogden, Utah, 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 Associate Chief 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.

- more . . .

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650

[bluerum]

1. Ok. These people have too much time on their hands.

They need to turn these kids over to their parents and go back to dealing with crime.

[Sequoia]

2. Utah? Where dirty old men marry loads of women, some almost as young

as she? That doesn't sound very Mormanish to me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. That's the point.

Young girls are supposed to save themselves for dirty old men, not play around with same-age counterparts.

[Horse with no Name]

3. Making fucking illegal WILL stop teen sex

:rofl:

[Deja Q]

4. LOL

Gone are the days when a girl can sexually assault a boy and get away with it.

(and before anybody asks, I was once assaulted by a 15 year old girl (and I was 14 at the time)... she assaulted, I ran. Not fun. Joke all you like.

She ultimately found someone else to tinker with, and 9 months after that gave birth. Children having children. I can't think of anything sadder than that.)

So much for "boys will be boys". Or "girls will be girls".

The law can do what they want with both of them. I just don't see how an offender can be a victim. The difference is, I was assaulted. Those two wilfully, of their own accord, acted stupid.

[RobofSWVA]

6. too young to fully understand

They know the consequences. They do not understand them. Something like this seems victimless to them. 13 is NOT the new 18. That's just a silly talking point. Charging these 2 with crimes is beyond crazy. If anything, the parents/guardians are the ones who failed.

[TahitiNut]

18. Junior High School. Old enough for sex education ... but not there, of course.

:eyes: Gee ... d'ya think they figured everthing out except for the condoms?

[Deja Q]

26. And when parents fail, who is to make up for it?

:(

[BattyDem]

7. HUH???

Ok ... so it's illegal to have sex with someone under the age of 14. Doesn't that law actually mean that it is illegal for someone OVER THE AGE OF 14 to have sex with someone under the age of 14?? How f*cking stupid do you have to be to NOT realize the actual intent of the law? All states have an "age of consent" and if they all followed this precedent, then all teen sex would be punishable by law! Are they insane?!

I'm certainly not condoning sex between a 13 year old and a 12 year old, but to prosecute either one of them for a crime when they were both willing participants is absolutely ridiculous! What's next? Prosecuting 5 years old for sexual harassment and/or abuse when they are simply playing doctor?

Enforcing the law without applying good, old-fashioned common sense makes justice virtually impossible. Someone needs to send the Utah SC a copy of "Billy Budd." :eyes:

[Ganja Ninja]

8. Your tax dollars at work. n/t

[ComerPerro]

9. so apparently the boy is offender and victim as well, then

[BattyDem]

11. Yes ... he was found guilty, too!

:shrug: :eyes:

[ComerPerro]

13. funny how that doesn't get mentioned here...

[BattyDem]

14. It's in the OP

"The Ogden, Utah, 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."

[ComerPerro]

17. see, no its not. The post is about the girl, not the boy

[rman]

24. "her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation"

... it's in the OP

[ComerPerro]

25. yeah, but the OP was written in such a way to bring attention to the girl

no mention by the OP on the boy. Just the girl. That's it

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Would the article have been written the same way if the boy were the older? n/t

[B Calm]

36. I've always heard that girls are more mature than boys at that age

[ccorces1]

10. Similar NY law?

I always interpreted it as it's illegal to have sex with someone UNDER that age if you are OVER it.

Then again, I remember being told that's in NY it is illegal to have sex if you are under 16, so I guess it's along those lines.

[KitSileya]

12. Isn't the law supposed to protect kids who are too young to consent?

If she was too young at 13 to consent to sex, she is also too young to be culpable - the same with the boy. Neither are guilty of anything illegal, even if their parents should have taught them better about sex. (According to studies, kids who are taught about sex have later sexual debuts than kids who get the abstinence-only spiel or no sex ed at all.) Had she been above 14, that would have been another matter enitrely - especially if she had been a lot over 14 - say 18 - and the boy was still 12.

[Selatius]

23. I don't think they teach sex education in Utah. I imagine they have abstinence-only programs, though

Mississippi, where I live, also does poorly in this area as well. We have one of the highest if not the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the nation.

[Xithras]

15. Reminds me of that Florida kiddie porn case a few years back.

If I remember the details correctly, a 13 year old girl and her 14 year old boyfriend videotaped themselves having sex. The videotape got out, and both were arrested and charged with "sexual exploitation of minors" and felony "producing and distributing child pornography". According to the charges, both were vitims because they had been used to create sexual material, and yet both should be convicted because they were also the victimizers. Both eventually plead out.

There have also been numerous cases in recent years when kids (mostly girls) have been arrested on kiddie porn charges because they took nude photos of themselves and gave them to boyfriends. In the age of camera phones and cheap digitals, the photos are easy to take and kids tend to not consider the consequences. In those cases too, the kids are generally considered to be both the victim and the victimizer.

[BoneDaddy]

16. Gee why don't we just kill them with stones

or how bout we return them to their families and let this alone. The things people spend time on.

[nashville_brook]

19. that's called a "NANCY GRACE multiple ORGASM"

[Ron Green]

29. Bingo. This is what's really driving stories like this.

It's salacious entertainment, and the same portion of the brain that kept Ken Starr's pornography in the public eye for so long demands this stuff.

[DuaneBidoux]

20. Jesus. Give them lessons and counseling and keep them on a short rope.

These are kids for Christ sake. This is total BS.

[Wiley50]

21. What's The Matter With Utah?

This Neo-Puritanism has just gone too fuckin' far.

[piedmont]

22. Geez...once again literal-minded people come to the most insane conclusion.

The law was meant to protect minors from exploitation by people who should know better-- this case CLEARLY does not merit prosecution under that law.

[madmusic]

27. Victim and Offender

Just happened on this today and haven't read it yet...

Here's another thought provoker. http://ncpc.typepad.com/prevention_works_blog/2006/12/robbing_drug_de.html">Prevention Works asserts that victims who are offenders themselves deserve the same treatment and empathy as our usual picture of "victim" in our heads, that we shouldn't say there are some victims the state protects and some they don't. IOW, they raise the question of whether or how much the victim's own culpability should count in our judgments and responses. They take the "there but for the grace of God" view, but there's also the "pragmatic" view that letting violent types take each other out actually serves a positive social goal. Again, something to take your brain out for a spin.

source: http://correctionssentencing.blogspot.com/

[Vidar]

28. Unfortunately par for the course from Utah.

[Giant Robot]

32. It is not just Utah

This is a possibility in my state of Michigan as well, but as far as I know has not happened yet. I know protective services people and they admitted that this was a possibility here as well.

[Vidar]

37. My state as well. Very sorry to hear this.

[mykpart]

31. From your subject line

and before I read the OP, I thought maybe they had caught the little girl masturbating! I think both these children should either be sent to serve as Congressional pages or to work for Catholic priests! That'll teach 'em!

[terisan]

33. Overzealous prosecutor can't see the forest for the trees.

Undoubtedly prosecutor is planning to run for congress as a Republican.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

34. The Law of unintended consequences

Usually there is an escape clause if the two children having sex are within two years of age. Apparently they don't fall within those ages; they are too young. Somebody in the thread already brought up lack of consent which is also a HUGE consideration.

This is caused by idiot legislators who are NOT lawyers, and don't know how to properly draft laws so that weird stuff does not happen. An awful lot of Repub legislators on all levels are non-lawyers (we won't even mention the draft dodgers). They have a course in law school for this called "Legislation".

Often they will draft bad legislation that is "void for vagueness". That's the legal term. Or they leave out a key phrase. And then they wonder why somebody affected by it (person with standing) sues and they have a big court fight over it.

Right now one of the biggies is the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution versus gay marriage, legal in Mass. and not in some other states.

Hell, in Texas, we managed to outlaw hetero marriage in the law they passed to outlaw gay marriage.

There was some line about no legal status "identical to marriage" could be passed in the Lege.

So I guess all marriages in Texas after the effective date of that statute are illegal???

[Giant Robot]

35. I don't really think that it is necessary

for someone in Congress to be a lawyer, like it seems you are implying. A little common sense and the ability to think things through however would be priceless.

[kiahzero]

38. It certainly helps. (n/t)