Megan's Law not intended for pranksters

[The Straight Story]

Often, the law is complex. A three-judge panel this week ruled that bullying by two 14-year-old Somerset County boys was serious enough to require them to register as sex offenders for the rest for their lives.

The crime? The two boys sat on the faces of 11-year-old and 12-year-old schoolmates, with bare buttocks.

One boy was convicted of criminal sexual contact. The other boy who was implicated pleaded guilty to the same offense and received the same penalty.

The trial court found that while the boys placed their buttocks on (or above) the victims’ faces, at least one of the boys’ penises touched the lips of a victim and might have parted the lips. Although that contact was unintended, it raises the act from horseplay and bullying to a more serious offense.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/07/megans_law_not_intended_for_pr.html

[gratuitous]

1. I am really glad I grew up when I did

Not that I ever sat bare-assed on someone's face, but there was quite a bit of private parts chicanery perpetrated on and around me during my growing up years. Now, in the age of zero tolerance, we've ceded all of our judgment to the most extreme interpretation of anything that happens to the point where 14-year-olds get to be lifelong registered sex offenders. The punishment is all out of proportion to the crime, and engenders the same contempt for the law that non-enforcement of a law does.

[MineralMan]

2. I can't really comment on whether they should be classed as

sex offenders or not, but this is a serious matter, not a prank. Most 14-year-old boys are well into puberty. When I was 14, I was 6' tall and fully an adult as far as my sexual development was concerned. 11 and 12-year-olds, are almost never fully pubescent. They're also smaller, and less strong than 14-year-olds.

What happened in this instance was not simple bullying or a prank. It was bullying with a distinct sexual intent. In fact, it was sexual assault, plain and simple, and against younger children who were almost certainly not in any position to defend themselves adequately.

Sex offenders? I don't know if that's appropriate, but these boys are sexual bullies. Such assaults need to be severely punished.

[Chimichurri]

3. I agree completely. If anyone is confused, just imagine if the ll year old were your chilld.

There's something really wrong that they took the time to remove their pants on top of already overpowering the younger kids.

[MineralMan]

4. Yup. Some 14 year old boys are capable of the nastiest sort of

sexual abuse, and don't always have the sense not to do really, really, cruel and stupid things. Taking assaults like this lightly is a very bad idea.

[damntexdem]

5. Looks like a sexual offense to me.

I think the ruling is justified. The issue is whether 14-year-olds should be treated like adults -- e.g., have the classification the rest of their lives, rather than being considered for having it expunged after further years of good behavior.

[MineralMan]

6. Exactly. I'm generally opposed to imposing lifelong labels on anyone

under 18. I'm not opposed to serious punishment for serious crimes, though, after puberty. Before puberty, not so much. There are just too many young teen gangbangers to not be able to punish violent crimes severely in that age group, when warranted.

[GoneOffShore]

7. Punished or treated?

Sounds like treatment (counseling/therapy) might be a better option.

[MineralMan]

8. Maybe. Maybe not. Each case is different.

Sometimes punishment serves as treatment. Sometimes not.