Reply With Quote
get these criminals OFF OUR STREETS!
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.
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.
State authorities filed delinquency pe ions in July 2004, alleging that each had committed sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony if committed by an adult.
The girl appealed the pe ion, saying her cons utional right to be treated equally under the law had been violated.
Her motion noted that for juveniles who are 16 and 17, having sex with others in their own age group does not qualify as a crime.
Juveniles who are 14 or 15 and have sex with peers can be charged with unlawful conduct with a minor, but the law provides for mitigation when the age difference is less than four years, making the offense a misdemeanor.
For adolescents under 14, though, there are no exceptions or mitigation and they are never considered capable of consenting to sex.
A juvenile court judge denied the motion by Z.C., who then admitted to the offense while preserving her right to appeal to a higher court. The boy did not appeal.
The Utah Court of Appeals last December upheld the judge's refusal to dismiss the allegation, saying the law's "rigorous protections" for younger minors include protecting them for each other. Z.C. then appealed to the state Supreme Court.
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.
Randall Richards, the girl's attorney, argued that prosecuting children under a law meant to protect them is illogical.
"A child (victim) cannot also be a perpetrator in the exact same act," Richards said.
The Utah Supreme Court will issue a ruling later.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650
Last edited by BacktoBasics; 12-20-2007 at 02:48 PM.
get these criminals OFF OUR STREETS!
I do not think they ed in the street.
the kids dont have sex on the streets these days, huh?
Not since the Beatles.
damn i missed out
What a tragic situation. Children being parents. So yeah, let's make them juvenile delinquents too.
I would have an easier time with this if their parents had been charged with neglect and the children removed from their homes. That would make a of a lot more sense than prosecuting a 12 and 13 year old for having sex with each other.
This is a perfect example of why we shouldnt abolish the death penalty....damn criminals.
ur a dumbass
What does this make them...sixth graders?
Must be Spears fans.
Why? Because I said the charge made no sense, and that I might be able to understand a related charge, but even that made limited sense? Eh, off.
No, because you think the two kids having sex is somehow the parent's fault and that this warrants them being taken away from them.
"We cant help ourselves, the government needs to step in!"
I do not think they ed in the street
I do not think they ed in some wheat
I do not think they ed in a car
I do not think they ed in a bar
I do not think they had green eggs and ham
I do not think so, Sam I am.
Sex at age 12 these days?
Sorry, then I wasn't clear.
I was not advocating the government charging the parents or taking away the kids. Just saying that if charges were going to be brought, that would be the logical charge.
My point was there shouldn't be any charges, because all such charges are utterly ed up.
Ahhhh...
Fair enough then. IMO, no charges for anyone invloved.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
