Bear with me on this.
Two kids had sex that was against the law.
It's odd because there situation is clearly unique. I mean I don't expect a lot of 12 & 13 year old kids to be CAUGHT having sex right? Okay so It's not likely you'll see a lot of these prosecutions.
They broke a generally good law as laws go, attempting to protect kids (or at the least punish adults). That all sounds great.
But what to do, oh what to do with this peculiar situation?
It's simple and it's called judicial discretion. The judge can probably see this is an odd case, fine them both, give them some community service or maybe force them to go to a parenting class or some such thing and leave it at that.
Anyway, I find it funny that, so often, people what to be found innocent of some technicality because, well it would exonerate them, even if they DID commit the crime.
They had sex, it was a crime, not a huge deal, but a crime just them same. Even if the judge throws out the law as unconstitutional (I'm not sure how) it wouldn't mean they didn't get knocked up and do something generally considered wrong in this society. It doesn't mean their actions are undone. Suck it up, take the conviction, and move on. I mean does anyone seriously expect either of these kids to do time?
9
 5
|
Re: much ado about nothing
Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 08:53:47 AM EST
|
It's odd because there situation is clearly unique. I mean I don't expect a lot of 12 & 13 year old kids to be CAUGHT having sex right? Okay so It's not likely you'll see a lot of these prosecutions.
Which part is unique? The fact that they were caught or that they were having sex? Either way, I believe it happens all the time, the rare (not unique) part is the resulting prosecution.
They had sex, it was a crime, not a huge deal, but a crime just them same.
The law is nowhere close to being a good law in that it fails in transparency, in justice, and in logic aka common sense. Humans having a sex drive is basic to their humanity -- criminalizing sex is like criminalizing breathing air, and just as useful.
Your approach of "suck it up and move on" is very much akin to the chinese system of justice, and is antithetical to individual freedom. It is my hope that the chinese system will eventually fall...hopefully through bloody revolution.
Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.
... 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.
This is Alice in Wonderland stuff. But notice the "and." So while I can continue to agree that a child under a specific age is not capable of consent, I would advocate adding the exception and mitigation of proximity in age. Such a change would still protect the more vulnerable among us from those who are mature adults seeking prey yet not make felons of two kids engaging in sexual activity.
"The law may upset reason, but reason must never upset the law. "-Eijasu
(Wait...this isn't Japan of the Shogun era...)
This is what comes from the law automatically presuming that minors are incapable of informed consent. Had the kid been given the opportunity to offer a defense of consensual sex, this whole story wouldn't be an isuse.
Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.
Let the conviction stand & rot, for all I care. z.c. shouldn't do a millisecond of time for the state. She'll be doing life with the little bundle of joy.
Wouldn't all the records be expunged at 18, anyway?
Poor, stupid kids.
-----
The earth may fail, but we will quiver
10
8
|
Re: Too Young To Have Sex; Old Enough To Prosecute
Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:29:36 AM EST
|
She'll be doing life with the little bundle of joy.
Did I miss something here? Is she pregnant?
In any case, I don't see this as some big symbol of anything other than a screwed up law that needs tweaking:
Chief Justice Christine Durham wondered openly if Z.C.'s plight of being a victim and a perpetrator was envisioned when the state legislature crafted the specific law under which she was prosecuted.
I certainly don't think it will -- or should -- change society's basic premise regarding the protection of those under a specified age from adult sexual predators. Even aside from this case, this particular territory really demands careful consideration by the legal system -- i.e., mitigation, consideration of extenuating circumstances, and leeway in charges and, if necessary, in sentencing.
11
10
|
Re: Too Young To Have Sex; Old Enough To Prosecute
Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 10:37:39 AM EST
|
According to the story, the only reason anyone knew she had sex with the boyfriend was because she got pregnant. I didn't see anything about whether she had an abortion, carried the baby to term, or if she has custody of the child (if it was born).
Illegitimi non carborundum.
13
11
|
Re: Too Young To Have Sex; Old Enough To Prosecute
Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 05:15:59 PM EST
|
Jeez, how did I miss that. I reread the article twice.
14
11
|
Re: Too Young To Have Sex; Old Enough To Prosecute
Thu Dec 14, 2006 at 07:01:14 PM EST
|
I didn't see anything about whether she had an abortion, carried the baby to term, or if she has custody of the child (if it was born).
Regardless of those possible outcomes, I'm sure the memory is going to be indelible for her. I certainly don't think she should be punished for an act that is, as wetkarma says, is as natural as breathing (though waayyy too young for my prude mind). It's just a sad situation, and the court hullabaloo is pretty sickening.
-----
The earth may fail, but we will quiver
