Let it never be said that state legislators give a damn about ensuring that the laws they write always result in logically sound legal situations. I have been waiting for a case like this ever since the specter of this scenario was brought to my attention about ten years ago while I was in high school.
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.
The whole thing is an exercise in pure, unadulterated stupidity. In other cases, other jurisdictions have adopted the attitude that we must "prosecute and imprison the child to save the child." It's nothing less than a real perversion of justice to use laws that were intended to be used on full-fledged pedophile sex predators to prosecute tweens and teens caught having sex. If anything, it is more likely to cut off their future possibilities, which is going to give them a further inclination to break the law.
This is stupid.
I wonder who the prosecutor is and what is driving him to bring this case to trial. Prosecutors don't HAVE to try every case. Who made the complaint that must be acted on? What evidence is there, other than the word of the children, which should be inadmissable in every case?
Event the judge should have thrown this case out before jury selection. It seems sometime that the whole judicial process is on autopilot for some cases.
The evidence is that the girl got pregnant from their screwing around. It is of course, very stupid for this to be taken to trial, but then many prosecutors make their careers by putting large numbers of people behind bars, not by showing great discernment and throwing out what could be another superficially good notch on their belt.
I think the judicial process is indeed on autopilot. Much more so than what we want to admit sometimes. The quality of the arguments seems to be going down and becoming more caprecious and arbitrary.
Something's definitely wrong here - jail is not the appropriate solution.
That said, the crux of the problem was missed by the summary: the sex between the two kids was described as "consentual." However, a child cannot consent - that's an important distinction. Perhaps "mutually desireable" would be a better description.
I don't think that it's a good idea for children to be having sex with each other, but I don't know what the right answer is in this case (other than perhaps to ask the parents why they weren't supervising their children...)
I would have to disagree there on the grounds that the "discovery" that 12 year olds who are not retarded are mere children, not adolescents (half-adult, half-child) is a very recent one in human history. Judging by its results, it has not exactly been good to our civilization.
I agree that it is not desirable for them to be having sex, but then I think you are putting too much weight into the meaning of "consensual" here. A 12 year old is old enough to agree to agree to do it with the full understanding that it is not an amoral act. This is part of the Judao-Christian tradition with the age of accountability.
I don't think a young person needs to understand the full ramifications of the act to understand that it is immoral for them to engage in it. Our ancestors certainly cared more about them understanding the moral ramifications (it is sin, don't do it) than understanding all of the ins and outs of what could result from the act.
Judeo-christian mentality? The same one that arranged marriages as young as nine?
Or the one that likes to throw rocks at people for silly crimes?
Or the one that blames the devil for everything?
Be a little more specific please.
The heck are you talking about? That's an Islamic cultural practice.
It is rare that any prosecutor will try a statutory rape case in this country. The primary reason is a broad recognition that high school girls ARE consenting and it doesn't make any sense to imprison men for accepting the consent.
Again, I can't see the children being prosecuted for anything. The closest analygy is not dueling but "mutual fray". Neither party in a mutual fray can claim assault later. Police won't arrest, prosecutors won't bring to trial and judges won't hear it.
Mike T, if they are not old enough to consent to sex, they should also not be old enough to form the necessary intent to commit a sex crime.
At least they are not just prosecuting the boy. Must have been the differences in their ages. I'll take odds if the Boy was 13 and the girl was 12, the boy would be the only one prosecuted.
@gocart mozart
"the necessary intent to commit a sex crime."
Intent is no longer necessary to be prosecuted for any crime in America.