The predatory justice of juvenile sex-offender laws

Original Article

01/20/2013

By Michael Zoorob

When lawmakers crafted laws to combat sexual violence, they probably never expected that children as young as 10 would end up on public sex offender registries. Law enforcement probably never expected that they would have to notify neighbors that a 13-year-old sex offender lived nearby. Yet that is the reality of America’s sex offender registration laws: Though the judicial system tends to distinguish between youth and adult offenders, 35 states subject minors convicted of sex crimes to the same registration, notification and restrictions as adults. Seven states require juveniles to stay on the registry for life. These crimes aren't always violent, either: A recent Human Rights Watch report notes that teens have found their way onto sex offender registries for benign acts like sexting, public urination and consensual sex with other teens.

In fact, 36 percent of all sex offenders who victimize children are themselves juveniles — and more than half of these juvenile offenders are 14 years old or younger, according to a recent study commissioned by the Department of Justice. It is understandable that laws should be created to curb sexual violence — but imposing the stigma of longtime and sometimes lifelong sex offender registration on juvenile offenders creates unnecessary harm both to them and their families. Juvenile offenders often experience emotional problems, difficulty securing employment, social ostracization and difficulties at school. There are, incredibly, cases of teens being barred from attending school due to their presence on sex offender registries because they sexted, the act of which the law considers child pornography. As adults, these offenders can expect restrictions on their residency, employment and mobility, and a significant minority will be fired, harassed, assaulted or even murdered because of their sex offender status.

Registration may also hinder crime rehabilitation of youth offenders. Depriving juvenile offenders of access to education, employment, religious services and healthy relationships — all common consequences of sex offender registration — could actually raise the probability that these children become lifelong delinquents. Unfortunately, registration requirements may deter families from reporting sex crimes committed by their child against a sibling for fear of the legal consequences, thus denying access to rehabilitative services.

Registration of juveniles has also been shown not to reduce sex crime. Studies by Elizabeth Letourneau of the University of South Carolina have found that registering juvenile offenders neither reduced overall rates of offenses nor reduced recidivism. This makes sense. It’s hard to argue, for example, that public safety was enhanced by the eviction of a 26-year-old married woman from her home in Georgia because a daycare center opened nearby. Her crime was that she had oral sex with a 15-year-old when she was 17.
- The same applies to adults.  Sex laws do nothing to reduce recidivism.

Moreover, juvenile offenders are distinct from their adult counterparts. Children who commit sex crimes, even violent ones, usually do so as a way of “acting out,” not because they eroticize aggression. Consequently, psychologists have found that rehabilitation is very effective for juvenile sex offenders, and very few juvenile offenders re-offend as adults. Most studies find the recidivism rate of juvenile sex offenders to be less than 5 percent.
- Recidivism rates are the same for adults as well.

Sex offenders deserve special opprobrium in our society. But we shouldn't let our visceral disgust with sex crimes bar us from making sensible public policy. Children are not miniature adults, and the law should not treat them that way.

---

FL - Controversy: Child charged as adult

Original Article

01/16/2013

A 13-year-old Florida boy has been charged as an adult with first-degree murder in the beating death of his half-brother, age 3, and the sexual abuse of another half-brother, age 5.

If this case is heard, Christian Fernandez could be facing life in prison.

In this video clip, HLN’s Dr. Drew talks about the boy’s very troubled past. If convicted, should he get a second chance or is life in prison justifiable?

---

PA - 2 Westmoreland Co. Teens Charged Under New Law Regulating Sexting

Original Article

01/03/2013

GREENSBURG (KDKA) — Two Greensburg Salem Middle School students are among the first to be charged under a new state law that regulates sexting among teens.

“A 13-year-old girl took a photo; she was naked from the waist up, took a picture of herself and sent it to a 14-year-old boy at his request,” said Detective Sgt. Henry Fontana, of Greensburg Police.

The boy deleted the photo and did not forward it to friends. It was the girl’s mother who later found the photo on her phone and called police.

“Under the new law that just went into effect on Christmas Eve, that is a summary offense,” said Detective Sgt. Fontana.

The new law creates a tiered system for adjudicating sexting cases that differentiates between those who make bad decisions and those who have bad intentions.

Under the new law, minors over the age of 12 charged for the first time will get a summary citation. A second offense will result in a misdemeanor charge.

Felony child pornography laws remain on the books and could still apply if the photos are distributed with malicious intent.

Attorney Anthony Bompiani, who does not represent anyone involved in the Greensburg Salem case, says this is important for young people who may make a bad decision without realizing the potential consequences.

“Now with the times and the technology and the way students interact between each other, they make mistakes, they make bad judgment calls, stupid calls; and instead of having a felony record, they’re going to have a summary offense, which is going to be like a traffic ticket – won’t be on the record, it won’t affect them later in life,” said Bompiani.

The law also provides an important tool for police who previously had no alternative to a child pornography charge when dealing with less serious sexting cases.

“It’s still wrong, it’s still against the law and the kids need to know that, but this makes it a little easier to cope with,” said Detective Sgt. Fontana.

---

UK - Jamie is 13 and hasn't even kissed a girl. But he's now on the Sex Offender Register after online porn warped his mind

Original Article

04/25/2012

By John Woods

Jamie was ten years old when he saw his first pornographic sex scene. During a sleepover, a classmate offered to show him ‘some funny pictures’ on his laptop.

‘At first I found it a bit scary and a bit yucky,’ Jamie told me as he shifted uncomfortably on his chair during our therapy session.

‘I didn’t know it was possible for people to do those sort of things — and there were lots of nasty close-ups. But it gave me funny feelings and the pictures started to stick in my head.’

For the next three years, while his parents assumed he was using his computer for his homework, Jamie visited porn websites for up to two hours a night.

Even when his school performance began to suffer, they had no idea of the murky world their shy, quiet son was inhabiting while upstairs in his bedroom.

While it’s not his real name, Jamie is typical of the young men I meet. He explained: ‘The websites led me to other websites and soon I was looking at even weirder stuff I could never have imagined — animals, children, stabbing and strangling.'

‘I stopped leaving my room and seeing my friends because when I was away from the pornography, I was dying to get back to see what else I could find.’

And it was only when the police came knocking one morning that Jamie’s secret life was exposed.

After identifying that someone in the house was accessing child porn, they took Jamie’s laptop away for examination. Jamie is only 13 — and he still hasn’t even kissed a girl, let alone had sex.

Though he is only a child himself, the result is that he has been put on the Sex Offender Register, blighting his life for the foreseeable future.

Even with intensive therapy, Jamie still suffers from deep shame — ‘as if it is written across my forehead’ — which has led him to fear he will never be able to form a healthy relationship with a woman.

As he told me at a recent session: ‘It still makes me think I might never have a proper girlfriend — because the pictures still come back to me sometimes. It make makes me want to shout, “Stop, stop.” But sometimes they still won’t go away.’

Jamie’s story is not unique. He is just one of the growing number of young patients referred by social services, youth offender services and police to the Portman Clinic — where I work as a psychotherapist. I would never normally consider speaking out in this way. But after much thought, I have come to the conclusion this is no longer just a private problem. It is a public health problem.

For the past 70 years our services, which are part of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, have been available to anyone who has committed any kind of offence.

But an increasingly large part of our caseload is taken up with young people whose behaviour has become out of control due, largely, to compulsive internet porn use.

This year alone, this has included 50 referrals of children under 18, and that’s just for North London, where we are based.

Yet even though we are one of the very few units in the country dealing with these issues, funding cuts mean mental health services are having to make drastic efficiency savings that significantly reduce our service.

Our patients are the young people for whom seeing thousands upon thousands of sexually explicit images is still not enough.

I regularly see boys as young as 12 who have convictions for looking at child porn because they did not realise they had crossed the line.

I also treat children who are so frustrated at being unable to live out their fantasies in everyday life — and so confused by the message of endless sexual availability on the web — that they have committed rapes or sexual assaults.

Another example would be Paul, 12. He has been referred to us because his obsessive sexual viewing habits have now spilled into the real world.

At school, he has been repeatedly exposing himself to teachers and other pupils in lessons.

And, at home, his appalled mother has found him walking around the house naked in a constant state of sexual excitement.

Another case is Andrew, aged 13, who was referred to the clinic because he has been abusing his five-year-old half-sister. Due to his two years of constant porn use, he has built up a complex fantasy world — so it was no big step for him to try to involve her.

Our research at the clinic has found that although the internet doesn’t create these problems, it can release interests which would never have surfaced otherwise.

Without virtual pornography, it’s my belief that Andrew would not have acquired his compulsion to abuse, let alone dreamt up the idea of involving his sister.

One of my regular patients, Jude, was referred to me at the age of 18 by social workers who were concerned that years of web porn use had not only made him socially isolated but a danger to others, too.

When a girl he liked did not return his feelings, he told me: ‘I feel like stabbing her.’ He also threatened to kill himself because he felt he would never be able to have a normal relationship, and admitted he liked ‘seeing women being hurt’.

A particular scenario he enjoyed thinking about was a man grabbing a woman’s throat and punching her in the face.

Chillingly, he had already taken to following women late at night, and maintained he would become more of a risk to them if he was forced to give up watching porn.

All these cases are only the tip of the iceberg. For every young person who has come to the attention of police or social services, there will be tens of thousands more who manage to keep their habit under wraps — but who still face long-term consequences for their mental and emotional health. After all, we are rearing a guinea pig generation — a generation of boys and young men raised in a world where internet porn is freely on offer at any time.

Of course, critics who oppose restrictions will say pornography has always been with us; young boys have always looked at risque magazines.

Yet the advent of the internet — and particularly broadband over the past decade — means that never in human history has such a vast and relentless amount of it been so easily and freely available to all.

Read the rest of the article

---

NE - Nebraska - A State of Shame (Part 1)

Video Link | Nebraskans Unafraid

---

GA - 13-Year Olds Charged With Child Molestation - The Allen Hunt Show (02/21/2011)

Full show, including callers


Video Link

---

A Father's Sexting Teen: The Brian Hunt story

A Father's Sexting Teen: The Brian Hunt story (Kindle)
A Father’s Sexting Teen provides surprising details about the story of Brian Hunt, a father who courageously defended his 13-year-old son, after the teenager made national headlines and faced felony child pornography charges and the possibility of having to register as a sex offender for “sexting” when he sent via cell phone an explicit image of a female student. Now, for the first time, Brian Hunt publicly unveils the dramatic and compelling account of his media-based defense strategy to protect his son and also help other parents and families avoid the same nightmare.

More Books Here

---

GA - Mom Outraged Over 13-Year-Old's Molestation Charge (for kids being kids)

Original Article

02/19/2011

JONESBORO - A Clayton County mother says local police went too far in charging her 13-year-old son and three friends with aggravated child molestation.

"I am appalled by that," said the mother, only identified as Yolanda.

The four admitted to going behind a vacant house where a girl preformed consensual oral sex on them.
- What the hell?  She performed the oral sex on them, and they are charged with a crime and not her?

According to the arrest warrant, obtained by Channel 2’s Tony Thomas, the arresting officer discovered the group when the girl was “adjusting her clothing.”

"Who is the victim?” asked Yolanda’s mother.
- Yes, who?  But like usual, the male gets slammed with the modern day scarlet letter!  And what about the other kids?

Yolanda said it was hours before she found out where her son was, and that was because she filed a missing persons report. She said the next time she saw him, he was in adult court. A judge set a $10,000 bond and the teen was sent to the regional youth detention center until the family came up with the money.
- Keeping the money flowing, by charging kids with felony crimes for being kids!

A former metro Atlanta prosecutor told Thomas the charges were legal under the state's Seven Deadly Sins laws -- but rarely followed through on.

"My biggest concern is the charge being on their record. The records are sealed. Yeah, that's what you say," Yolanda told Thomas.

Her doubts were confirmed after Thomas easily found the names, charges and court dates for all four juveniles listed on the county's court website Friday night.

A Clayton County police spokesperson said they will not comment about the case. The child’s mother said her son was just doing what children do.

"They are children. Children explore the world by hands-on," she said.

The 13-year-old has entered a plea in juvenile court to sodomy and public indecency. He will have to undergo counseling and serve one year of probation.
- For being a kid!

---

TN - Children committing sex crimes against children

Original Article

03/06/2010

By Mary Jo Denton

PUTNAM COUNTY -- They are children who have committed serious crimes, and their victims are other children. And it's an epidemic, Juvenile Court officials say. They are talking about child sex offenders, children raping other children.

"We currently have three child rape cases on the Juvenile Court docket, and there have been so many of these cases in the past couple of years," said Greg Bowman, administrator of the Juvenile Court here. In the current three cases, which are unrelated, a 16-year-old boy is charged with two counts of rape of a child under 13, a 14-year-old boy is charged with rape of a child under 13, and a 17-year-old is charged with rape of a child under 13.

"Unfortunately, this type of case is becoming an epidemic, and the offenders seem to be getting younger all the time," said Juvenile Court Judge John Hudson. Asked for his opinion on the cause of this increasing problem, the judge said, "It's Internet access -- and the fact that the traditional family structure of the previous generations doesn't seem to exist any more."

Administrator Bowman said he finds Internet access and cable TV channel access play a big role in the problem, exposing children to sights and activities from which children used to be sheltered.

What about the parents of these children who are charged with sex offenses?

"Many seem to be in denial or unaware of what's going on with the children," Judge Hudson said. He said the problem of children committing these type offenses is much more widespread than it once was and said, "They come from all types of homes and socio-economic levels -- it's across the board."

What happens to these children in court? "They get evaluated for psychological and mental health issues, and we develop a treatment plan in each case," Bowman said. Some offenders are sent away to inpatient sex offender treatment programs which can last for months or years, depending on "the level of their issues," he said.

Some offenders react to being caught and brought to court in a "remorseful way," while others seem indifferent, he said. The cases come to the Juvenile Court usually through the investigative work of Child Protective Services and law officers assigned to work "all types of child abuse cases," Bowman said.

The purpose of the Juvenile Court is to rehabilitate children, but this court also has a duty to "protect public safety," he said. Children in court for any reason make a sad spectacle, but cases in which the victims are also children are doubly painful for those who work in this system.

And to see these cases continue to increase is a problem that Juvenile Court officials worry deeply about. "I don't know what the solution is," Judge Hudson said.

---

"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." - Abraham Lincoln
More Quotes

---

WA - Another child (11 years old) ruined for life, before it even began!

Original Article

03/04/2010

By Tony Lystra

A 13-year-old Castle Rock boy was sentenced Thursday to up to nine months in juvenile detention for raping a 6-year-old boy in 2008.

The 13-year-old will have to register as a sex offender for life, although he has the option to petition the court to drop the requirement after two years, the prosecutor's office said.

Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge Jill Johanson found the boy guilty of first-degree rape Feb. 23 after a bench trial. Prosecutors said the boy was 11 when he sexually assaulted the 6-year-old, who was a family friend and resident of Castle Rock.

The Daily News is withholding the names of those involved because they are juveniles.

Defense attorney Ryan Jurvakainen questioned Thursday whether an 11-year-old has the capacity to understand the impact of his sexual conduct.

"He had not even hit puberty yet," he said.

Jurvakainen, who showed the judge a picture of the defendant taken when he was 11 to illustrate his youth, said after the hearing that he hopes the Legislature will reform juvenile sex-crime laws to take into account a child's understanding of sex.

"Should it require him being affected his whole life?" Jurvakainen asked.

The young defendant's family insisted Thursday that he is innocent, saying information about the victim was not allowed to be heard at trial.

"I truly disagree with your decision," the defendant's grandmother told Johanson. "We are going to appeal."

She said her grandson is "a very good kid. He's never been in trouble. I feel that he doesn't deserve this."

But Johanson said she's confident in her verdict. "I had so much evidence that I have no doubt in my mind that the child was raped."

It's also clear, she said, that the defendant was the one who raped the 6-year-old. Johanson pointed out that the victim made "excited utterances" that the defendant was responsible.

"I could see the dynamics that occurred throughout the trial," Johanson said. "I have no doubt in my mind that that was the correct ruling."

The defendant sat up straight throughout the hearing, his hands clasped in front of him, his bangs falling across his eyes. He did not react to the sentence and declined to speak.

Deputy Prosecutor Amie Hunt recounted Thursday how the victim, now 8, "shivered" as he told the court what happened to him. "He's had anger issues," Hunt said of the victim. "He's just not able to express himself like he used to."

Hunt also noted that the defendant has not taken responsibility for his crime and that his family isn't helping him own up to the act.

"He's not admitting it," Hunt said. "He's not coming around to have any remorse."

As Hunt spoke, some of the defendant's family cried in the audience while others guffawed and muttered about Hunt's remarks. Johanson stopped the proceedings and threatened to hold those who couldn't keep quiet in contempt.

One of the victim's family members said the victim "doesn't' even like going to school anymore. He doesn't have any friends. He can't even play around the house without being tortured by neighbor kids."

Another of the victim's family said: "There's a big change in him. It hurts to watch him, the torture and the pain that he's had to get through. ... It's sad to watch a little kid grow up like that."

Johanson sentenced the defendant to between 15 and 36 weeks of sex offender treatment at the Echo Glen Children's Center in Snoqualmie. The prosecutor's office said the state's Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration will decide how much of that time the defendant will serve based on his behavior and treatment progress.

---

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

---

WA - Three Middle School Students Facing Criminal "Sexting" Charges

Original Article

02/17/2010

By Dana Rebik

Three teens could be forced to register as sex offenders for life for texting out a nude picture of a classmate at their middle school.

LACEY - Three teenagers in Lacey, Washington could be labeled sex offenders for life.

They're facing criminal charges for "sexting" a nude photo of a classmate around Chinook Middle School.

_____'s 13-year-old daughter is one of the teens charged.

"This could crash everything for her. This could ruin her whole life," says _____.

The girl in the nude picture told investigators she took the photo of herself and sent it to her boyfriend.

When they broke up, he allegedly texted the photo to other students.
- So is the boy being charged as well for distributing child porn?

_____ knows what her daughter did was wrong, but thinks she and the two other suspects aren't the only ones who should be answering for this.

"If that picture wasn't out there to begin with, we wouldn't have this problem. How do you charge one or two or three children with what they are charging them with and not charge everyone who was involved?" asks the mom.

What most kids don't think about before they "sext" is that in most states, including Washington, texting a nude or semi-nude picture of someone who's under 18 is considered child porn. If you're caught doing it you could wind up a registered sex offender for life.

University of Washington sociology professor Pepper Schwartz specializes in teen sexuality and says the conversation can be simple.

"If you send something out into cyber space you can never pull it back. You cannot control where it goes and it could come to haunt you literally forever," says Schwartz.

_____ is worried how this will all turn out for her daughter, but says if nothing else, this case can be a good lesson for all families.

"I think it does need to be out there that parents need to be a little more particular about what their kids are doing with their internet and their phones."
- Stop buying your kids phones with all the abilities, buy them a standard phone, period, then it won't be an issue!

In March 2009, an 18-year-old girl in Ohio hung herself after a nude photo of her was texted around her school.

Interestingly, her parents later supported a proposal to eliminate the sex offender label for teen offenders. Vermont and Utah are among the other states that have looked at lessening the penalty for "sexting".

Video Link

---

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

---

WA - Destroying kids lives to teach them a lesson about not making poor judgment is asinine!

Original Article

01/30/2010

A 14-year-old boy and two 13-year-old girls will spend the rest of their lives paying for a error of judgment made in their teens.

This is the opinion of many people who have commented on the 'sexting' incident involving the three minors in a town in the U.S. state of Washington.

The Chinook Middle School students were formally charged Friday in juvenile court with felonies stemming from an incident in which they allegedly used their mobile phones to pass on nude photos of a 14-year-old girl.

Within the North Thurston school district, part of the Thurston County, the photo has become viral, spreading even to the Olympia High School, Olympia being the capital of Washington.

“It’s everywhere,” said the girl’s mother, identified to The Olympian only by her first name, Toni, to protect the victim’s identity.

Toni said her daughter showed a lack of judgment when taking the nude photo of herself and sending it to her then-boyfriend, but does not deserve the repercussions that have followed.

Each of the three students involved have been charged with a single count of dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. It is a class C felony, and carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in juvenile detention.

However, anyone convicted of the offense is required to register as a sex offender, which means the three teenagers’ names will be on a potentially public list, and for the rest of their lives, whenever they move into a new community, that community will need to be informed that a sex offender has moved in.

The implications are severe. In thirty years time, they may still be haunted by their juvenile bad judgment, including whatever treatment they might receive in detention when registered as sex offenders.
- They will be haunted by this the rest of their lives, and probably won't be able to get a job and support themselves either, and may potentially become homeless due to the draconian laws.

Toni has said she and her daughter do not think that the three teens deserve to have to register as sex offenders, or to have felony records follow them into adulthood.

“That isn’t going to solve anything,” she said. “But we both agree that there need to be consequences – stiff consequences.”

The boyfriend sent the photo to one of the girls charged in the case after he had broken up with the alleged victim. That girl sent it to the other girl who has been charged, and she sent it to other students, according to police.

“The 14 year old girl who took a sexually explict photo of herself should be charged/disciplined with consequences as well” (sic) commented one reader on theolympian.com.
- What?  She is not being charged with creating and distributing child porn?  That is not right at all!

Another insisted that “these charges seem very harsh. they are kids, we have all done stupid things as kids” (sic).

For others it is a sad reminder that the law designed to protect children, so often lets them down.

“Parents, please take time to use this incident to talk to your children about the importance of treating others with respect and dignity no matter how angry they may be”, a Chinook Middle School Parent wrote.

Video Link

---

IN - 13- and 12-Year Old Charged With Sexting Nude Photos

Original Article
PEW Study (PDF)

01/28/2010

By BJ Lutz

A 13-year-old girl and a 12-year-old boy from Valparaiso have been charged with possession of child pornography and child exploitation after it was discovered they were using their cell phones to exchange nude pictures of themselves with each other.

The "sexting" case is being dealt with in Indiana's juvenile court system. In adult court, they could have faced 11 years in prison and been forced to register as sex offenders.

The images were discovered last week when the girl's phone sounded during class and the teacher confiscated it.

An investigation revealed the boy sent the girl an explicit photo of himself Jan. 17 and asked her to use her cellular phone to send back a similar picture of herself, which she did, police said. Police also learned the girl showed the picture of the boy to a seventh-grade friend.

Porter County Deputy Prosecutory Cheryl Polark told the Northwest Indiana Times that young people don't understand the ramifications of texting nude pictures or posting certain material on social networking sites like Facebook. She said a nude picture could end up being shared with half the school and could get in the hands of people who seek out child pornography.

A recent study from the Pew Research Center reported that 30 percent of 17 year old's who reported having cell phones have received sexually explicit texts or cell phone messages.

Indiana's House and Senate are both considering bills to separate "sexting" from child pornography laws.

Sen. Jim Merritt's (R-Indianapolis) bill would make sexting a juvenile offense instead of placing it in adult court. It would also require parents to attend counseling sessions with their children.

---

FL - Atlanta Teen Killed in Daytona Beach

View the article here
Dad May Have Been Intended Target In Son's Murder

07/20/2009

ATLANTA (MyFOX ATLANTA) - A 13-year-old from Atlanta was murdered while visiting family in Florida. Police said the boy was shot in the face early Monday morning by someone lurking around his family's home.

Thirteen-year-old Lloyd Robinson, Jr. had just finished 7th grade and was spending the summer with his dad before heading back to school.

"It's just a total period of pain for me and I wish this on nobody. I fear burying my kids and I am making funeral arrangements for my son and I shouldn't be," said the teen's father, Lloyd Robinson, Sr.

Daytona Beach police said there was a knock on the door at the Robinson's home just after 4:00 a.m. A woman asked for someone who wasn't there and the teen's father told the woman to go around to the glass door. When Robinson, Sr. tired to open the door a man came around the side of the house and fired two shots inside.

One bullet grazed Robinson, Sr., the other one killed his son.

"It's very sad they would come into a house and shoot and kill nothing but a child," said Martha Hamilton.

Robinson Sr. said he is a registered sex offender and it is possible someone went after him because of those charges, but he said it was probably a case of mistaken identity.

Police said there was no motive in the case.

Chief Michael Chitwood said he was pretty sure that it wasn't a random shooting, and the woman and the shooter were looking for Robinson, Sr., but killed his son instead.

The teen's mother drove from Atlanta to Daytona Beach Monday. The teen was originally supposed to return to Atlanta Sunday morning, but decided to stay a little longer.

---

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution)

---

UT - Kid is Sex Offender AND Victim

View the article here

06/13/2009

It's downright paradoxical that a person can be both a victim and the perpetrator of the same crime, and simultaneously be charged with the crime and treated as the victim of it. Nonetheless, that is what can and does happen in the wacky world that is "status crime" offenses. Recently a 13-year-old girl in Ogden, Utah has been in such a paradox after having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend. Utah law makes no mistake: sex with anyone under the age of 14 is prohibited, regardless of who's doing it. Her boyfriend also has been hit with the same paradoxical charge.

There comes a point where one has to wonder who these laws are attempting to target. Are they really meant to prohibit all sexual conduct with AND between young people, or are they meant to protect minors from "sexual predators?" As the law explicitly stands, it seems the former more than the later. So long as that is the case, we'll continue to see children and teens becoming registered as "sex offenders", and no one will do anything about it because "it doesn't happen often enough."

The worst part of this story seems to be that the court only found out about the incident after the girl became pregnant. In that predicament, she not only received little support as a "new mother," but was slapped with a conviction in juvenile court for "sexually abusing" her "underage boyfriend"--who also was hit with the same charge against her. She appealed this conviction back in 2004.

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.

So essentially, the younger the kid is, the more severe the charge they receive if they have sex with kids their own age. Kids under 14 get charged with felonies, while kids over 14 get charged with misdemeanors so long as their victims/offenders are aged within 4 years of them. For kids aged 16 and 17, there is no crime. How does this serve to protect children--particularly younger kids? Doesn't it stand to reason that if a child can not be considered capable of having any sex (be it consensual or not), then they can't be held responsible for sexual "offenses?" The law in Utah is obviously designed to weigh the criminalization of the sexual exploitation of younger children more heavily but obviously wasn't intended to make the children themselves into criminals.

But do the courts listen to reason? Apparently not, and they denied her appeal with this decision, almost acknowledging the fact that their own laws don't make any sense and abiding by them anyway:

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.

Maybe she'll have better luck with the Supreme Court...but don't count on it. According to an assistant to the Utah Attorney General, "Matthew Bates," the statute is not unreasonable, and is DESIGNED to, and I quote: "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." With this glaring admission, the last piece of the puzzle is in place. The Utah courts don't care about protecting children, they simply don't want children engaging in sexual acts with one another, consensual or not, and will go to any lengths to criminalize all those who do.

Randall Richards argued that prosecuting children under a law meant to protect them is illogical.

It's left up to the girl's attorney to be the sole voice of reason, but he's wrong on one count. By their own admission, the statute is NOT there to protect kids after all. It's there to prosecute them--in which case, it ceases being all that "illogical."

---

"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of a civilization. We must have a desire to rehabilitate into the world of industry, all those who have paid their dues in the hard coinage of punishment." - Winston Churchill (Bill Of Rights)

---

UK - Dad’s Not Alfie

Click the image to read the entire article

---

CO - Registered sex offender, 13, arrested in school incident

View the article here

04/09/2009

By John Aguilar (Contact)

BOULDER - A 13-year-old male student and registered juvenile sex offender was arrested Wednesday on suspicion of attempted unlawful sexual contact with a girl in one of his classes at Manhattan Middle School, police said Thursday afternoon.

Sarah Huntley, a spokeswoman with Boulder police, said the boy attempted to place his foot underneath the girl's skirt in class last week. After she pushed him away, he asked her if he could touch "particular parts of her body."

The alleged victim then told a teacher, Huntley said, and police and Boulder Valley School District officials were alerted.

The April 2 incident was investigated for nearly a week and the boy turned himself into officials at the juvenile detention center in Boulder on Wednesday.

Police aren't releasing the names of either student because they are juveniles.

Huntley said she is restricted from releasing information about any prior sex crime convictions the boy has because such revelations could be considered identifying information.

She could only say that the boy was a registered juvenile sex offender when the incident allegedly occurred.

---

MA - 12-14-Year-Old Boys Face Child Porn Charges

View the article here

02/27/2009

This time it's in Massachusetts (CNN, 2/16/09). The last time it was Pennsylvania. This time a boy took a phone photo of his partially clad 13-year-old girlfriend and texted it to his friends. Now he and they are up on charges of distributing child pornography. If convicted, they'll be labeled sex offenders, possibly for the rest of their lives. In the Pennsylvania case a few weeks back, it was the girl who texted her photo to the boys, but they were still charged. What the girl's involvement was in the MA case, if any, is not clear. Did she cooperate in what her boyfriend did or not?

In a sane world, we'd know this for what it is - immature boys and girls being immature boys and girls. And we'd punish their behavior accordingly. Chances are we'd let their parents do it, depending on the circumstances. It's interesting that, at least in the video linked to above, it's the parents who understand that this should not be viewed as a criminal matter.

But nowadays, possession of a photograph of a naked or partially naked person under a certain age is deemed to be a serious crime, irrespective of the circumstances. Some people can't seem to tell the difference between adult perverts pimping children to other adult perverts, and children 'sexting' other children. The laws may have been passed to catch the former, but they end up catching a lot of the latter as well. The DA? Chances are he/she just wants another scalp. And if it has to come from a child, well, asi es la vida.

And another thing. Hasn't this all come about in part because of the Great Internet Sex Predator Scare? You remember the one that was designed to terrify police, parents, teachers, legislators, etc. into believing that online pervs lurked behind every PC and Mac.

Sure enough, a police captain in the Pennsylvania case informed us that sexting is "very dangerous. Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture."

That's the same Great Scare that was investigated thoroughly and found, to far less fanfare, to be essentially non-existant. (I reported on that in the blog post "Why Did We Already Know This," 1/25/09) Yes, those photos could be posted to the Internet and that could be embarrassing for the person in the photo, but we now know that there's little danger.

And it looks suspiciously like the ones most in danger of having 'sex offender' slapped on their records are males. It's a lot like marijuana laws in that way. About equal numbers of men and women use pot, but men are far more likely to go to prison for it. And so it is when boys and girls send each other photos of themselves. They both do it, but my guess is that the ones who stand to lose their freedom, future jobs and career opportunities are mostly the males.

---

UK - 13-Year-Old Dad Defiant Over Paternity Claims

View the article here
Kid is not the father (05/19/2009)

02/20/2009

By HODA FARHANGHI, ABC News London

“[Alfie] should be able to live his life and return to school."

With those words, High Court Judge Mrs Justice Baron imposed a media ban on the story of 13-year-old dad Alfie Patten, expressing "serious concern about the level of media interest."

The Sun was the first newspaper that published Alfie’s story a week ago and, in its latest story, it shows the 13-year-old in a personalized sweater with the text, “Alfie Patten, I’m the daddy, and if I’m not, f--- you all, I’ll still be there.” The newspaper says it is not a publicity stunt but “a news story.”

The Alfie Patten story has become the most popular story in the history of The Sun’s Web site. More than 1 million people watched the video of Alfie and his girlfriend Chantelle Steadman, 15, cradling their newborn daughter Maisie.

The media frenzy became even worse after allegations that Alfie’s parents had sold his story to tabloid newspapers and claims from two other teenage boys that they were the father of little Maisie Patten.

According to the Press Complaints Commission’s editors’ code of practice, British newspapers are not allowed to pay minors or their parents for material about their children, unless it is in the child’s interest. The Press Complaints Commission is investigating whether The Sun breached that rule.

The Sun says it will cooperate with the PCC, adding that, “we think that the story is in the public interest. The Sun will not publish more stories about Alfie now that there is a media ban.”

But Alfie and Chantelle’s story is just one of many in Britain as the country’s teenage pregnancy rate is the highest in Western Europe. Jules Hillier, the spokesman for Brook, a national sexual health advice and services provider, says that “sex education is very important. We should start talking to our children and educate them as soon as they start asking questions, even before they go to primary school.”

Sex education is not provided in all British schools but it will become compulsory in 2011. Hillier says “it will make a big difference in preventing teenage pregnancies. We should tell children more about friendship and relationships, now all they learn is the biology of it.”

Little Alfie may take a DNA test to determine whether he is the father of baby Maisie. In the meantime, there will be no press for the first time in baby Maisie’s life, at least not until the ban is lifted on March 10.

---

UK - Britain's 13 year old father, and potential sex offender

Full Story Here

---