Thursday, September 26, 2013

UT - Girl, 13, and her boyfriend, 12, are both labelled sex offenders after having consensual sex with each other

Juvenile Sex Offenders
Original Article



Utah Supreme Court justices have dubbed a 13-year-old girl and a 12-year-old boy both sex offenders and victims for having sex with each other.

The Ogden girl and her boyfriend were each found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14, after the 2003 encounter which resulted in the girl becoming pregnant.

The unnamed girl, who is now 23, is asking the high court to overturn the juvenile conviction, claiming the consensual sex shouldn't qualify as a crime because it doesn't for 16 or 17-year-olds who have sex with someone in their own age group, and she has a right to be treated equally under the law.

Oral arguments on the motion began this week and on Tuesday, the justices acknowledged they were struggling with the concept that the girl could be both victim and offender.
- What about the boy being offender and victim?  Why only point out the female?

'The only thing that comes close to this is dueling,' said Associate Chief Justice Michael Wilkins, referring to two people who take 20 paces and then shoot each other.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Chief Justice Christine Durham labelled the predicament a 'peculiar consequence' and wondered if legislators had intended it.

State authorities filed delinquency - the term used for juvenile convictions - petitions in July 2004.

These alleged the boyfriend and girlfriend had each committed sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony if committed by an adult.

The girl appealed the petition, saying that because her boyfriend was the same age as her she shouldn't be penalized.

Children aged 14 or 15 can be charged with unlawful conduct with a minor if they have sex with a peer, but mitigation renders the offense a misdemeanor.

But for juveniles under 14, there is no mitigation as the law deems them incapable of consenting to sex.

A juvenile court judge denied the motion brought by the girl and the Utah Court of Appeals last December upheld the judge's refusal to dismiss the allegation, saying the law had to protect minors from each other as well as from older teens and adults.

The girl then appealed to the state Supreme Court.

During Tuesday's hearing, assistant Utah attorney general Matthew Bates argued that the law was designed to prevent sex with children who are 13 and younger, even if the other person is in the same age group.

He said legislators were sending a message with the law that sex with or among children is unacceptable.

However, Randall Richards, the girl's attorney, claims prosecuting children under a law meant to protect them doesn't make sense.

'A child (victim) cannot also be a perpetrator in the exact same act,' Richards said, according to the Tribune.

The Utah Supreme Court will issue a ruling at a later date.


dlc said...

How is it possible to check your online entry? In California it is illegal for a sex offender to check his/her own entry. That is a felony. It makes no rational sense for the offender to be denied, but that is the law in California; go read the page that you must agree too to verify this claim. What are you going to do, go in and tell them that you "accidently" saw your entry and its wrong? The sex offender laws are not about rehabilitation. They are about continued punishment and ways for law enforcement to put the offender back into prison for increasingly longer periods of time..

Sex Offender Issues said...

That is why we said at the end that California is illegal to do this, but you can always have a family member or someone else check it for you.

nathan rabalais said...

I know every time I register they ask me if anything is in order and if it's not then I tell them what they need to fix so as much as I want to get out I read everything

deathklok said...

Apparently our gooberment never tires of shamelessly embarrassing itself by creating lifetime criminals out of children with natural sexual curiosities through a paradox of legislation that's riddled with ironies.

nathan rabalais said...

Sad thing is I know Richards

dlc said...

Unfortunately, that does not work either. Immediate family can also get into trouble according to the web page. I don't know of any cases where they have prosecuted anyone, yet. But its a risk most are not willing to take. I, just find this outrageous that it is not possible to look at something that affects someone so much to make sure its accurate. This is just another reason why the system is so broken, and the public refuses to see it.

Loneranger said...

I wonder are they now damaged for the rest of their life. Well according to all the victims advocates they are. And you know they are right. However it was not the sex that did it. We want to save the children and one would think if we have laws that harm them and have a guarantee to ruin their lives we might want to think about the damage these laws do. We must follow the letter of the law. Frankly DA's want every conviction they can get. Never mind if it doesn't make sense. If they were really concerned about the welfare of children this wouldn't happen. However when 30 percent of the sex crimes that are prosecuted are committed by children it makes for an easy day in court for the DA's. Yet another notch on their gun.
One has to wonder why and we all know this has been used for political gain. Once in awhile it backfires and then we can't tell who is the victim and who isn't. So instead of calling it a draw they have to prosecute and persecute for life. This brings something to mind and I wonder if anyone has ever looked at this. Given children eventually explore sex and sometimes do it with a sibling or a neighbor kid they play with. Are they all pedophiles? If so shouldn't we worry about everyone? I would think that unless the child were brought up in a total vacuum what I have said would be true in most families. However we most often turn a blind eye and write it off as normal learning explain why they shouldn't be doing this and go on.

However when you look at this article and these two we must apply all the myths and lack of logic our politicians have promoted. The truth is out there. We just haven't heard it yet.

ccp said...

Some ideas for avoiding the Megan's law web page ban in California.
Easiest way is to have a friend in the know about your offense goto your profile and print the page to a .pdf then email it.
keep the email address visible so they can see you didn't access it yourself.
Remember the only thing cops need is Reasonable suspicion to arrest you for a felony.

No crime in that.

I also believe Ca. RSOL will check it for you if you ask I think I did read it on their site. Double check that info and just give them enough time before you have to renew.

NJ45143112 said...

2 lines stand out here as purely disgusting:
"...the law had to protect minors from each other as well as from older teens and adults" and "...legislators were sending a message with the law that sex with or among children is unacceptable."

So, in essence, what these two morons are alluding to is that they will take no responsibility for their actions nor question laws that do far more damage than sexual experimentation!
At what point does consensual sex between minors constitute a threat to society? Who is the victim? Both parties become victims of the police state when they are now labeled with the worst of the worst (and most of them aren't all that bad)...
I've said it before and it's continually true: when you become obsessed with the enemy (an enemy invented purely by the obsession), then YOU become the enemy. I simply cannot understand how these people can sleep at night knowing that they are condemning innocent children to a life of misery for doing things that are natural. What's more, I'm betting these high and mighty legislators and judges committed the same acts when they were kids...

Loneranger said...

Exactly right when you mention Judges and legislators. However you don't see them admitting it. Oh some will to a point but then will change the subject and go ahead and pass some law that if in effect years ago would have landed them in jail as well as on the registry. Thank God for statutes of limitations. Without them who would make all these laws. Fact is no one is perfect and secrets are kept for some and they end up our judges and legislators. Our public officials should hope their skeletons never rattle or they do away with the statutes of limitations as someone might air their dirty laundry and then game over.

NJ45143112 said...

Too often the cries of the oppressed are silenced by the rattling of sabers...
"He will triumph who knows when to fight and when not to fight" - Sun Tsu
Fighting for the sake of fighting accomplishes nothing and damages everybody. It involves the invention of an enemy who otherwise would not exist. Then, in pursuit of that enemy, many innocents are injured along the way. In this case, it's the same innocents that are supposed to be protected from the enemy. In the end, it is not the "enemy" that was ever the threat but the institution that invented the "enemy" to fight!!
The fact is that society is held together by common beliefs. Whether religion, ideals or goals. Unfortunately, by virtue of our skewed media and corrupt government, the common goal of America seems to be hatred.
In the past, Whites thought they were superior to Blacks... Not true... This often erupted into acts of violence against innocent families...
In WWII, we hated the Germans because we saw them as evil...
During the Cold War, we hated communists because they were evil (how many innocents were irreparably hurt during that time?)...
Now we have the "evil" sex offenders...
Are we now so afraid of ourselves that we can't even look at ourselves in the mirror without cringing? Obviously not if you are in government or law enforcement. They are higher up the food chain than the rest of us so, logically, they must be closer to God. As such, they are above the sinful lusts and depravity of the rest of us loathsome scrounges...
Conversely, the higher your position, the farther you have to fall. As I see it, they will fall a very long way one day when faced with the consequences of their actions...

Mark said...

Of course the Utah Supreme Court would rule this way. Do any of you really think that that court would open a legal door for any other conduct of this nature to escape the strangling tentacles of sex offender registration and the court give license to young teens being intimate??? This is classic judicial "Cover their a__. Yet another reason why I left the business after 18+ years. I became so disillusioned after just 10 years, I still try to uncross my eyes from spinning. I have maintained m,any many times, it really is not the legislators to carp about, but the true danger is the "INTERPRETERS" of the laws that go before them. They are the final "social engineers."

CCP said...

Went back and checked again. CA. RSOL will also help you file paper work with the CA. DOJ to correct any errors FREE of charge.

MC said...

THAT is simply not true (about family). The second page of the CA Megans Law web site (right before you get to the search screen) cites PC 290:

"Any person who is required to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290 who enters this web site is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment. (Pen. Code, § 290.46, subd. (k).)"

There is absolutely nothing about immediate family having restrictions. It should also be noted that there is useful information on the first two pages of the CA ML web site (about not having to provide email addresses currently, internet exclusion, etc). This is BEFORE getting to the disclaimer. But yes, I have seen at least one conviction for illegally accessing the web site.

And I seem to remember that CA RSOL will help you CORRECT any errors or get the DATES ADDED to your profile (this is important as in CA people have be registering since the 1940s, I have seen dates from the early 1950's), but not check per se.