Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis - 13 Year Old Girl charged as both sex offender and victim

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - 13 Year Old Girl charged as both sex offender and victim (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=15783)

13 Year Old Girl charged as both sex offender and victim

Creepy pedo people can GTFO now.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4783650

Quote:

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 petitions 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 petition, saying her constitutional 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.

Before I read this I was like....I'll bet ANYTHING that this happened in crazy, bizarre ass Utah. Little did I know that I guessed it right.

Consensual sex! Oh no!

If it were me, I'd just throw out the case and dismiss all charges entirely. This is matter for parents to be dealing with, not the court systems. If the age gap was more than three years with the girl being 13, it might require intervention, but not 13 with 12.

Sounds like a waste of time for everyone involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capo

Consensual sex! Oh no!

Well, you can't normally expect a 13 year old to be able to gauge their own propensity for alcohol, nor can you really expect them to be prudent enough to engage in safe sex activities every time, all of this with the understanding that they're still just kids.

I'd say it's justified that some kind of action is taken, and throwing the case out reads more like an unwillingness to do his job than a decision to hand responsibility to the parents.

I hardly think two 13 year old kids fooling around is cause for prosecution.

At the same time, saying that it's not the state's business is kind of a cop out.

Here's a fun question - who's charging them with the crime? Ten bucks says it was one of the kids' parents, which says one thing to me - the parents can't do their job or deal with this themselves, and/or feel like they can't control their child(ren) ... I'm not surprised it happened in Utah. Almost EVERYONE I've talked to that lives here feels repressed, especially sexually. Yes, I said "here" ... but I actually like it in Utah. sup Drex :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skexis

At the same time, saying that it's not the state's business is kind of a cop out.

Sending this to the state is kind of a cop out. The parents need to do their damn job and reprimand the kids, if that's what they want. Again, taking this to court isn't going to solve anything.

LOL. Who brought this to the attention of the police? The parents?

Now I think I know why Canada has the "if you are 14 and the other person is at least 12 years old, you have sexual consent". I guess its to avoid a problem like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capo

Sending this to the state is kind of a cop out. The parents need to do their damn job and reprimand the kids, if that's what they want. Again, taking this to court isn't going to solve anything.

Fucking A.

Doesn't the combination of cases basically ignore the Fifth Amendment anyway? You can't send two people to jail for doing a consensual act with each simply because they're underaged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Wise Vivi

Now I think I know why Canada has the "if you are 14 and the other person is at least 12 years old, you have sexual consent". I guess its to avoid a problem like this.

Yes, but still eww. Kids these days... :confused:

Very true. Utah sure has a lot of weird stuff going on in this department...

She got fuckin' PREGNANT? Geez, that's crazy (I must be out of the times or something; I know it happens, but...)

I think this is a bit silly that this is happening IN COURT. Since (to my understanding) the girl was charged initially, I'd wager that the boy's parents filed this charge? Then, maybe the girl's parents were like "no way your son aggreed too!" type of thing, so this happened.

Ugh...I'm just...really disturbed and saddened at the same time.

Gotta love the general stupidity of the entire human race.

It's crazy now, but wasn't this pretty common "once upon a time"? Of course, that was before school was mandatory and women were people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cam

Gotta love the general stupidity of the entire human race.

Yeah, well, its a wonder how we even got this far with all the stupid stuff that has happened and will happen...

That is really stupid. The parents are the ones who've got to have brought the charges up against the others child. I can't believe a 13 and 12 year old are even having sex, even if it was consensual on both parts, its just a disturbing thought. And her getting pregnant too that just adds and entire different dimension. If they were so "ready" to have sex and consented to it you'd like they may've thought about the consequences. I want to know whats happened/happening to the unborn child.

Urg, I would have to agree that the parents must have brought this up to the courts.... the thought of kids that age doing it is a 'eww' factor to me, however I have heard of worse, I once watched a talk show (Sally) that interviewed 10 and 11 year old girls who where 7 months pregnant.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm leaning toward them being prosecuted... Not thrown in jail, persay, but receiving some sort of reprimand from the courts (community service, perhaps?).

What really struck me about this article was the use of the word "children." That's what they are... two children engaging in sexual activity with each other. That is very sick and should not be tolerated. They could be inflicting psychological damage on themselves that cannot be repaired (however unlikely). They clearly have no idea what a powerful and connective act it is. They have not been taught properly, and possibly their backgrounds have caused pain and rebellion to emerge at a young age. Punishing them, then, would be a sort of protection.

Now, I imagine that some of you had sex that young, and perhaps you don't regret it. But as someone who works with children frequently (including an 11 and 13-year-old boy, weekly), I cannot tolerate the thought. Children that age should not be allowed to engage in sexual activity any more than they should be allowed to get drunk. At least getting drunk wears off--losing your virginity at age 13 is something you can never shake.

How exactly would prosecuting them in the courts do anything to help them? Don't you think it should be the parent's job to reprimand them?

What a weird legal situation. I feel sorry for the child that was brought into the world from their foolishness.