The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-21-2003, 12:13 PM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Unrepentant pair of 14 year old humpers face jail. Fair or not?

I don't know. 14 year olds doing it is not particuarly wise on a several levels but jailing them seems bit harsh in this instance.

Teens have right to have sex, lawyer argues

Quote:
When an Oak Creek woman found her 14-year-old daughter nude in the woman's bed with a 14-year-old boy, the teens didn't strike her as being overly concerned.

"They both freely admitted that their intention was to 'have sex,' " records quote the woman as saying. They "were confrontational and remorseless." The teens even "challenged" the woman to call police. So she did.

Now, the couple's would-be sexual encounter in October has both of them facing serious criminal charges. Their case takes a course through the intersection of morals and law, a bustling crossroads at a time when sexuality has become a greater focus of youth culture. While authorities say their prosecution is meant to help, not punish, the teens, a lawyer for one of them contends 14-year-olds have a right to privacy that allows them to consent to sex with each other, and has challenged the constitutionality of the law.

The boy is being held in secure detention on a charge of attempted second-degree sexual assault, a felony that carries a possible juvenile prison term.

The girl pleaded guilty to fourth degree sexual assault, a misdemeanor, but is charged with violating her probation; a warrant has been issued for her arrest.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 08-21-2003, 12:26 PM
merge merge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
One question, why is the boy being charged with more than the girl?

What is the law btw.. what is the age of consent for 2 minors?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-21-2003, 12:27 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 31,731
Absolutely ridiculous. How can two people sexually assault EACH OTHER?

This is a travesty of justice and a waste of money.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-21-2003, 01:02 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 44,275
No cite unless you make me research it, but there's a California case directly on point with this contention, only a few years old, and holding that children do NOT have a constitutional right to have sex.

Of course, that's not binding at all on a Wisconsin court, but they may well find the reasoning pursuasive.

Two people CAN sexually assault each other, RickJay. Two people can assault each other, after all - why should it be different if sex is involved? Neither can consent to sex.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-21-2003, 01:05 PM
Jimson Jim Jimson Jim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Legislating or litigating morality is always a bad idea, but these two were literally asking for it. Sounds like at least the girl has been in legal trouble before. It must have been a slow news day when this made the paper.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-21-2003, 02:04 PM
Otto Otto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Madison WI
Posts: 22,506
Quote:
One question, why is the boy being charged with more than the girl?

What is the law btw.. what is the age of consent for 2 minors?
He's being charged. She's pled guilty. My WAG is that they were both charged with the same offense but she pled to the lesser charge as part of a plea bargain.

"Child" is defined in Wisconsin criminal law as a person who has not attained the age of 18 years. Wis stat s. 948.01(1). Second degree sexual assault of a child is defined as having "sexual contact or sexual intercourse with a person who has not attained the age of 16 years". Wis stat s. 948.02(2). Sexual contact and sexual intercourse are defined thusly:
Quote:
948.01
(5) "Sexual contact" means any of the following:
_
(a)_ Intentional touching by the complainant or defendant, either directly or through clothing by the use of any body part or object, of the complainant's or defendant's intimate parts if that intentional touching is either for the purpose of sexually degrading or sexually humiliating the complainant or sexually arousing or gratifying the defendant.
_
(b)_ Intentional penile ejaculation of ejaculate or intentional emission of urine or feces by the defendant upon any part of the body clothed or unclothed of the complainant if that ejaculation or emission is either for the purpose of sexually degrading or sexually humiliating the complainant or for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying the defendant.
_
(6) "Sexual intercourse" means vulvar penetration as well as cunnilingus, fellatio or anal intercourse between persons or any other intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person's body or of any object into the genital or anal opening either by the defendant or upon the defendant's instruction._ The emission of semen is not required.
The problem here is one of proof. Did the mother witness the two touching each other or were they lying on the bed not in contact with each other? I would guess that part of the girl's plea agreement is that she testify against the boy.

Agreed that it's a waste of time and money but hey, the law is the law.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-21-2003, 02:11 PM
bobkitty bobkitty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The end of the tunnel
Posts: 2,620
Quote:
Originally posted by merge
One question, why is the boy being charged with more than the girl?
The girl pled, and in most situations when the party agrees to plead it's because it's to a lesser charge. The boy is probably refusing to plead out (or the boy's parents/lawyer are refusing).

You know, I'm gonna be snarky here and say I think they deserve whatever they get just based on this:

Quote:
When an Oak Creek woman found her 14-year-old daughter nude in the woman's bed with a 14-year-old boy, the teens didn't strike her as being overly concerned.
(bolding mine)

The kid didn't even have the decency to go somewhere OTHER THAN MOM'S BED????? EWWWW.

To be less snarky, I think it's a waste of time and money but if the kids had been less obnoxious about it it probably wouldn't have come to this. Hope they learn a pretty valuable lesson.
__________________
pointedly does NOT cop a cheap feel from bobkitty, who he imagines has sharp claws and can hiss like a pissed-off bobcat-iampunha
Baroness Junior Grade of Furry Wilderness Creatures.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-21-2003, 02:23 PM
Eve Eve is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Find 'em both guilty and sentence them to sex-education classes and public service in preemie and AIDS wards.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-21-2003, 02:26 PM
Doomtrain Doomtrain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by bobkitty
Hope they learn a pretty valuable lesson.
Do it in the car like every decent, god-fearing American teenager?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-21-2003, 02:32 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 31,731
Oh, well, they were obnoxious about it. Well, shit me tingle, that changes everything. Lock 'em up! As we all know, incarceration is great for teenagers.

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-21-2003, 02:49 PM
belladonna belladonna is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
The boy's charges were actually going to be dropped provided he stay out of trouble for a certain length of time (6 mos. IIRC). But his father called the law on him for disobedience.
So in actuality, the girl was the one facing harsher charges and was already sentenced to a sort of house arrest/home intervention program which she has violated leading to an arrest warrant.

Do I think the sex charge is right? No. I wasn't much older when I became active and never once felt like a criminal. However, from the sounds of it, it doesn't seem like either kid has a real clear appreciation for how to follow the rules or at least behave in a manner which minimizes unpleasant consequences, so I don't have a ton of sympathy for them either.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-21-2003, 06:16 PM
CanvasShoes CanvasShoes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nearly Mile High
Posts: 9,182
I had to think about this one for awhile. Ideally, both kids should have had some sort of age appropriate sex-ed long before this, as well as support for the natural curiosity about their bodies and hormone based sexual urges.

While I certainly don't think what they did was "dirty" or that sex is dirty etc. I think that to protect children from something they're not perhaps emotionally or psychologically prepared for (no matter whether their bodies are ready), is not only a parent's perogative, but their responsibility.

In my state, children don't have a legal right to privacy. In the interest of protecting a child from him/herself, a parent can go to whatever lengths they feel will work, regarding "privacy" and keeping an eye on their child etc, obviously not regarding undue punishment and/or abuse etc.

I don't know what kind of upbringing these kids had. Maybe their parents were "springerites" that didn't give them a good knowledge and moral base. Maybe they're latchkey kids whose parents care more about overtime and the almighty buck than about keeping an eye on them and giving them support and love so that they DON'T seek it out in inappropriate ways.

Or, maybe these two kids are just bull-headed brats, with no respect for themselves, or anyone else.

Whatever the reason they ended up getting in on in mommies bed, if they're underage, and the law states what a previous poster says it does, I'd say, throw the book at them.

And THEN keep them close observation and on a short leash.

In addition, at the very least some family counseling and perhaps some parenting help for the kids' parents.

Now, before I come off sounding goody two shoes, I realize that kids are curoius, and that sex is natural, and that yeah, lots of teens have loving, not harmful sex.

I think what bothered me about this case was not that they were caught getting it on, but the sheer gall of their attitudes once they were.

Something's not right there. And imho, it needs to be addressed.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-21-2003, 06:19 PM
Master Wang-Ka Master Wang-Ka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Hell, we live in a society where you can damn near get jailed for raising a hand to your child. Why should you NOT call the cops if they flat out tell you they don't intend to obey you, and that they will do as they please?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-21-2003, 06:39 PM
Ryle Dup Ryle Dup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
[semi-hijack]

Can someone please tell explain why every 14 year is not emotionally equippeed to deal with sexual encounters?

I fully believe the overexaggeration of sex is the only thing that makes it so emotionally devastating.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-21-2003, 07:45 PM
CanvasShoes CanvasShoes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nearly Mile High
Posts: 9,182
I don't think anyone in this thread has said that, or suported it Ryle.

As to why it's the law? IANAL, but imho, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, And I think that that is how those in the legal system arrive at an "age of consent".

As parents we keep a sharp eye on our toddlers and preschoolers so that they don't wander out into the roadway or get snatched by some pervert.

I'm sure this seems pretty unfair to the toddlers/preschoolers, who WANT to go outside the fence to pick the pretty flowers over there, or who WANT to go off to the toy section by themselves.

Studies have shown that even small children who get the full-on, well informed "talk" about bad strangers etc, are STILL likely to wander off with the nice man "looking for his puppy'.

WE, as parents know what the dangers are, even if the children chomping at the bit to be independent may not.

Now, take teens (PLEASE! badum pAH ), don't you remember when you were one? When you knew EVERYTHING, and were 10 feet tall and bullet-proof?????

Deciding upon and age of consent for sex and enforcing it is done for the same reasons as protecting toddlers and preschoolers from THEIR dangers etc.

Sexual activity with each other is NOT a life or death need, (no matter how teens feel otherwise). Our jobs as parents aren't to be "the buddy" they're to make sure that the child reaches adulthood in the best health; mentally, emotionally, psychologically and educationally possible.

Our job isn't to make sure that they "have fun". It's to keep them safe, even if what we have to do, to make that happen is unpopular.

Hell, my sister and me just KEPT after and KEPT after my dad to let us drive. He sent us to school driver's ed, AND to a professional driving school. And GOD was it embarrassing.

HECK, why is every teen supposed to not be "mature enough" to drive until an age that the parents deem okay??

Sure there are kids who are probably far and away more mature and more than emotionally and psychologically "readier" for sex than most of their peers.

To keep the majority of kids as safe as possible, SOME sort of standard needs to be imposed. For the tiny minority of children that are thrrowbacks to our ancestor's who married at 13 and 14 and moved out west on the wagons? That's a shame. By and large, though, it's a good thing that protects the children from themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-21-2003, 07:56 PM
Orange Skinner Orange Skinner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
In my opinion, this is not a matter for the courts at all. To say that these children sexually abused each other is a lot of bull shit.

One of the children in question is this woman's daughter. Why isn't her mother the one deciding what an appropriate punishment is for her own child? Forbid her to see the boy, not let her go out, and, I don't know, gee, maybe educate her about sex in the first place?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-21-2003, 07:57 PM
bobkitty bobkitty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The end of the tunnel
Posts: 2,620
Quote:
Originally posted by RickJay
Oh, well, they were obnoxious about it. Well, shit me tingle, that changes everything. Lock 'em up! As we all know, incarceration is great for teenagers.

Well, gee Rick, if you're going to be a jerk about it, I'll endeavor to express myself in a manner which you may find more acceptable.

"The teens, instead of having the good sense upon being discovered to get dressed, sit down at the kitchen table with mom, apologize for the mess they were about to inflict upon her bed, and have a discussion about how they cared for one another and felt they were ready for sex, chose to act childishly, in a manner consistent more with spoiled brats than mature individuals, and demand that mom call the police. Perhaps if they had chosen the first option- which, incidentally, would have gone a long way to prove they were indeed adult enough to engage in sexual relations- then mom would not have been provoked into calling the police, the young man would not be incarcerated, and the young woman would not have a warrant out for her arrest. Therefore, their actions/choices are unfortunately going to dictate their consequences."

Better?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-21-2003, 07:59 PM
bobkitty bobkitty is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The end of the tunnel
Posts: 2,620
Quote:
Originally posted by GMRyujin
Do it in the car like every decent, god-fearing American teenager?
I was actually thinking more along the lines of "keep a better eye on the clock for mom's impending arrival at home and make sure you lock the door." But the car thing works too.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-21-2003, 08:53 PM
CanvasShoes CanvasShoes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nearly Mile High
Posts: 9,182
Quote:
Originally posted by Orange Skinner
In my opinion, this is not a matter for the courts at all. To say that these children sexually abused each other is a lot of bull shit.

One of the children in question is this woman's daughter. Why isn't her mother the one deciding what an appropriate punishment is for her own child? Forbid her to see the boy, not let her go out, and, I don't know, gee, maybe educate her about sex in the first place?
I agree with the "she should have been disciplined/taught about sex before" part, but as to the why get the courts involved?

Sometimes teens just get out of control. You can "ground" them, or take away all their toys, but you really have no physical control over them.

From the sounds of the article, this child was already a disrespectful little hellion bound and determined to do what she wanted when she wanted.

Now, imho, mom bears some (likely a LOT) of responsibility for the fact that she got this way, but now? Now that she's face to face with it? Unless the child is willing (and it didn't sound like it) to adhere to regular punishment, like grounding and curfew, I don't see that she has much choice than to seek help from the court.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-21-2003, 09:03 PM
elfbabe elfbabe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
This is a wonderful demonstration of just how bizarre age of consent situations can get. (Not that I think that 14 year olds ought to be having sex, especially not 14 year olds this obnoxious.) Legally, neither of these kids can consent to having sex. They are being prosecuted for doing something that neither of them consented to doing. Gaaaah!

Perhaps it's just the language that's usually used to justify these sort of laws. We never say that people under the age of 18 can't consent to buying cigarettes, we just say it's illegal to sell them to someone under 18. If the justification of the laws focused more on "Nobody can do That to someone under (local age), period" rather than on "People under (local age) can't consent to That, and you can't do That without consent", situations like this would make more sense.

Fortunately, I myself made it to adulthood without Qadgop ever prosecuting anyone I'd dated. Though the statute of limitations won't run out on it 'till I'm 23... Hmm...
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-21-2003, 09:22 PM
Ryle Dup Ryle Dup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by CanvasShoes
[B]I don't think anyone in this thread has said that, or suported it Ryle.
Eh, seems to be the logical conclusion since you yourself prety much think 14 year olds are not ready to have sex.
Quote:

As to why it's the law? IANAL, but imho, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, And I think that that is how those in the legal system arrive at an "age of consent".
The age of consent is there for people of different ages, none of the courts business if 2 14 year olds want to get it on, IMO.
Quote:

As parents we keep a sharp eye on our toddlers and preschoolers so that they don't wander out into the roadway or get snatched by some pervert.


I'm not a parent, but theres a difference between protected sex (which I'm all for) and possibly dying / being molested. You can't compare the two.
Quote:

I'm sure this seems pretty unfair to the toddlers/preschoolers, who WANT to go outside the fence to pick the pretty flowers over there, or who WANT to go off to the toy section by themselves.

Right, I agree toddlers/preschoolers cannot comprehend it themselves, but teenagers may be able to, why not instead explain your reason to them?
Quote:

Studies have shown that even small children who get the full-on, well informed "talk" about bad strangers etc, are STILL likely to wander off with the nice man "looking for his puppy'.

Completely different with teenagers and our rebellious characteristics.
Quote:

WE, as parents know what the dangers are, even if the children chomping at the bit to be independent may not.

You'll get alot farther explaining the actual reasoning behind decisions rather than talking down at teens saying this is how it is.
Quote:


Now, take teens (PLEASE! badum pAH ), don't you remember when you were one? When you knew EVERYTHING, and were 10 feet tall and bullet-proof?????

I still am, yes sometimes I can feel that way due to hormones but at heart I'm a rational logical person, as are most teens. You're correct that they may decide to act towards their hormones more than towards themselves, but it doesn't justify the iron fist of punishment without reason.
Quote:

Deciding upon and age of consent for sex and enforcing it is done for the same reasons as protecting toddlers and preschoolers from THEIR dangers etc.

Frankly, I and other teenagers are willing to learn the dangers of sexual relations. Yes I know about pregnancy, STD's, protection, and birth control. Assuming all of the these factors are taken into consideration, I can't see a logical arguement as to what is so dangerous about it.
Quote:

Sexual activity with each other is NOT a life or death need, (no matter how teens feel otherwise). Our jobs as parents aren't to be "the buddy" they're to make sure that the child reaches adulthood in the best health; mentally, emotionally, psychologically and educationally possible.

Maybe it isn't to you, but to some teens it may feel like that, and teen suicide is no joke. I'm glad you think you know whats best, but how about a reason for it? Also, most parents do think that, but act contrary to the childs best interest.
Quote:

Our job isn't to make sure that they "have fun". It's to keep them safe, even if what we have to do, to make that happen is unpopular.


Once again, please explain how stopping people from having sex when protected in several methods is keeping them safe.
Quote:


Hell, my sister and me just KEPT after and KEPT after my dad to let us drive. He sent us to school driver's ed, AND to a professional driving school. And GOD was it embarrassing.

HECK, why is every teen supposed to not be "mature enough" to drive until an age that the parents deem okay??

Because adults can be idiots too. If children learned to drive smaller cars from a younger age, they would be more aware of driving and be all over better drivers. Learning a skill past the age of 14 is alot more difficult then learning it as a child.
Quote:
Sure there are kids who are probably far and away more mature and more than emotionally and psychologically "readier" for sex than most of their peers.

To keep the majority of kids as safe as possible, SOME sort of standard needs to be imposed. For the tiny minority of children that are thrrowbacks to our ancestor's who married at 13 and 14 and moved out west on the wagons? That's a shame. By and large, though, it's a good thing that protects the children from themselves.
See above on safety.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-21-2003, 10:41 PM
Blalron Blalron is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
Originally posted by Bricker
Two people CAN sexually assault each other, RickJay. Two people can assault each other, after all - why should it be different if sex is involved? Neither can consent to sex.
I thought the theory behind statuatory rape laws was that an older party would, by virtue of extra years of maturity, be able to unduly coerce a young person into having sexual relations.

How can two consenting (and when I say consenting, I mean actually consenting, even though they aren't legally consenting) 14 year olds unduly coerce each other?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-21-2003, 10:43 PM
CanvasShoes CanvasShoes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nearly Mile High
Posts: 9,182
ARRRGGGH, You sure can write a lot! I'll try to answer all your questions.

I thought you might be a teen, but wasn't sure and didn't want to assume.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ryle Dup
Eh, seems to be the logical conclusion since you yourself prety much think 14 year olds are not ready to have sex.

You're right, I don't. But I don't "automatically think ALL 14 year olds shouldn't have sex" as in your original question. I'll allow as how, as in all of life there are exceptions.

Quote:
The age of consent is there for people of different ages, none of the courts business if 2 14 year olds want to get it on, IMO.
What can happen is that the children make bad judgment calls. Yes, YOU seem to be a together young teen (boy?), but many teens, especially ones as young as 14, aren't that responsible.

In the case of these two, who seem (and I could be wrong, of course the paper may be biased), to be "Springer" candidates of the type seen during "I'll be whore if I want an' my momma cain't stop me" variety. THIS is one of the things we as parents try to protect kids from doing. No, it may not be life threatening like a toddler going out into the street.

At any rate, a bad decision like having sex too young can be "life" threatening, as in potentially ruinous to a college career, unwanted pregnancy, their education being threatened (due to the potential emotional upsets of "breaking up" etc etc).

Quote:
I'm not a parent, but theres a difference between protected sex (which I'm all for) and possibly dying / being molested. You can't compare the two.
[/b]
Again, perhaps YOU are responsible enough to remember a condom in the heat of the moment, but hell hafl the 20somethings don't want the hassle of the "raincoat," as the parent of teens (well one is full grown now), I seriously doubt that most teens can be responsible enough on a consistant basis.

Quote:
Right, I agree toddlers/preschoolers cannot comprehend it themselves, but teenagers may be able to, why not instead explain your reason to them?
[/b]
Well, I didn't put what I would say in my post, but were it me, (and it has beent) I definitely WOULD explain the whole thing to my children. I actually started when they were about 5 or 6.

Not the WHOLE thing of course, but age appropriate stuff as they got older. And I generally followed THEIR lead (based on questions etc), or my instincts to know when they were ready for what.

Quote:
Completely different with teenagers and our rebellious characteristics.
[/b]
Oh HONEY!! Believe me, I know, I've raised one, and I've got one about to turn 13.

Quote:
You'll get alot farther explaining the actual reasoning behind decisions rather than talking down at teens saying this is how it is.[/b]
Actually, I didn't do that here, I simply didn't elaborate. But yes, during and actual situation with an actual teen and their actual parent, of COURSE you would explain your reasoning and feelings to the child.

Quote:
I still am, yes sometimes I can feel that way due to hormones but at heart I'm a rational logical person, as are most teens. You're correct that they may decide to act towards their hormones more than towards themselves, but it doesn't justify the iron fist of punishment without reason.
[/b]
You misunderstood my post, or perhaps didn't read all the way. I don't necessarily think that any teen caught in the sex act needs to be punished with "the iron fist". I took my daughter to the doc when she was 16 and I found out she was sexually active. I wanted her healthy and pregnancy free.

IMO? I would rather make sure she had protected sex, than go ahead and do it behind my back and end up pregnant, or with AIDS.

Quote:
Frankly, I and other teenagers are willing to learn the dangers of sexual relations. Yes I know about pregnancy, STD's, protection, and birth control. Assuming all of the these factors are taken into consideration, I can't see a logical arguement as to what is so dangerous about it.[/b]
Yes, I believe that teens ARE willing to learn about sexual safety. Where the problem lies is in the "want it now/instant gratification" type attitude. Knowing, and doing in the heat of the moment are two different things.

{quote]Maybe it isn't to you, but to some teens it may feel like that, and teen suicide is no joke. I'm glad you think you know whats best, but how about a reason for it? Also, most parents do think that, but act contrary to the childs best interest.
[/b][/quote]
Remember, I DID say that it might FEEL like a life or death matter to teens (I've been there, I didn't hatch a full-grown mommy and get to skip all that). Lack of sex with another person isn't going to kill you. And the "threat" of suicide, no matter how mild, or "for example" you meant it, is a bit of an example of what I mean by "not ready emotionally or psychologically. In fact, as bobkitty says VERY eloquently here:....

Quote:
"The teens, instead of having the good sense upon being discovered to get dressed, sit down at the kitchen table with mom, apologize for the mess they were about to inflict upon her bed, and have a discussion about how they cared for one another and felt they were ready for sex, chose to act childishly, in a manner consistent more with spoiled brats than mature individuals, and demand that mom call the police. Perhaps if they had chosen the first option- which, incidentally, would have gone a long way to prove they were indeed adult enough to engage in sexual relations- then mom would not have been provoked into calling the police, the young man would not be incarcerated, and the young woman would not have a warrant out for her arrest. Therefore, their actions/choices are unfortunately going to dictate their consequences."
The "if I can't get sex, It could add to my natural teenage depression so much I could commit suicide, is a milder, but still in the ballpark of spoilledly demanding one's "way" or else.

Besides, I've been clinically depressed. TRUST me, sex doesn't "save you".

Quote:
Once again, please explain how stopping people from having sex when protected in several methods is keeping them safe.[/b]
Safe meaning safe to reach their absolute full adult potential, hich having sex too early CAN get in the way of (doesn't mean it always will, for every teen), of COURSE you aren't in the same physical danger as a toddler or preschooler who isn't getting constant adult supervision.

Quote:
[b]Because adults can be idiots too. If children learned to drive smaller cars from a younger age, they would be more aware of driving and be all over better drivers. Learning a skill past the age of 14 is alot more difficult then learning it as a child.[/[b]
Oh, ABSOLUTELY adults can be idiots!! It's likely that your parents WERE idiots, in one way or another, that they want better for you (collective you, not YOU).
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-21-2003, 10:50 PM
CanvasShoes CanvasShoes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nearly Mile High
Posts: 9,182
ARgggh!

Make that last phrase of the last sentence "AND that they want better for you.........."
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-21-2003, 11:14 PM
Nightime Nightime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
As we all know, it is better for a teenager to be incarerated and get a record as a sex offender than to (god forbid) have consensual safe sex with their girlfriend or boyfriend.

Don't they know that the teenage body is not made to have sex? They should take a clue from nature.

Seriously though - these parents obviously are not looking out for their kids. This law really needs to be changed so that it cannot be abused like this.

If the kids are going to school, passing all their classes, and having safe consensual sex with someone their own age, then it is nothing short of evil for their parents to abuse this law to have them arrested, imprisoned, and registered as sex offenders.

If they are skipping school and can't be stopped, then by all means get the government to help with that. But consensual sex between 14 year olds should not be illegal, and therefore this law should not even exist for such parents to abuse.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-21-2003, 11:21 PM
Doomtrain Doomtrain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by bobkitty
I was actually thinking more along the lines of "keep a better eye on the clock for mom's impending arrival at home and make sure you lock the door." But the car thing works too.
Ahh, the "scramble to the bathroom and get dressed in a hurry" move. I know nothing about that. Nothing at all.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-21-2003, 11:31 PM
CanvasShoes CanvasShoes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nearly Mile High
Posts: 9,182
Quote:
Originally posted by GMRyujin
Ahh, the "scramble to the bathroom and get dressed in a hurry" move. I know nothing about that. Nothing at all.
Huh?? What "move" are you talking about?

I know from the "where the hell can we park, it's still broad daylight and I have to be home at midnight" dilemma!!

(psst, for those who don't know, I live in AK).
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-21-2003, 11:37 PM
yosemite yosemite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
The key for me is safe sex, which is a hard thing to prove these teenagers are having, and a hard thing to guarantee. One would hope that they are always having "safe sex," but what about that one time that they "forget"?

The issue that many teenagers forget, I suspect, is that if there is an "oopsie" pregnancy, they have adult responsibilities to face. And how many 14-year-olds are up for that (if they don't choose abortion)? And how many of these "overly protective" parents are probably thinking, "I sure as hell don't want to have to support my 14-year-old's kid, dammit." Because we all know, that's what often happens. The kid has sex, "thinks" they are mature enough to handle the responsibility, but when they have the baby, oh wait! I guess parenthood isn't all they expected it to be. So either the taxpayers or the 14-year-old's parents end up picking up the pieces.

I'm not saying that this excuses charging these two kids (but their obnoxious and willful behavior doesn't win any sympathy points), I am just saying that I suspect that many parents are thinking ahead and seeing how they could end up supporting a grandchild that they really can't afford. (And yes, I know, the parents wouldn't have to support the grandchild, but someone will—them, the taxpayers, someone.)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-21-2003, 11:46 PM
Nightime Nightime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
You know, you guys are right.

Any kind of even marginally obnoxious behavior should result in conviction for a sex crime.

Tailgating? Not giving up a seat on the bus? Sex crimes. Let's see them get a job as a registered sex offender.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-21-2003, 11:53 PM
Duckster Duckster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,841
I wonder if the local prosecuting DA has higher political ambitions?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-22-2003, 12:03 AM
Orange Skinner Orange Skinner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
I had a post typed out earlier, but I was logged off and it was lost. Fortunately, Ryle Dup and Nightime have posted in between then and now, and said the majority of what I was going to, and did a much better job than I would have, at that.


The only thing I have left to add is, if these children are as problematic as one would assume, considering the steps the girl's mother has taken--have any other options for highly rebellious teenagers been looked into before this rush to the police when it was discovered they were having sex? An attempt to control the child by parents, contact with the school, possibly counseling, etc? If this were the case, I might have a slightly easier time swallowing the fact that this is now a legal matter and not an issue between the kids and their parents than I do right now.

Even if these steps had been made, (and again, assuming these kids really are that insanely out of control), I still would have a hard time bringing my child before a court of law with these charges...especially considering the case would be setting a new precedent in consent laws, and therefore, it that it would be a case of national interest. I know I would not subject my daughter or my family to that kind of scrutiny. Especially when you consider that if convicted…your child will be a sex offender. And even if she isn’t convicted, she’ll have that stigma attached to her for the rest of her life…and good luck trying to establish a relationship with her after all this.

Lastly, I'd just like to say that I'm with Blalron: Making a case for secondary sexual abuse is ridiculous, and in two ways: first because, as Blalron said, it implies that these teenagers coerced each other into have sex...come on! And secondly, because these charges make an absolute mockery of the victims of real sexual abuse.

If you were to twist the law even further in the direction the prosecutor in the case is currently taking it, you could argue that a couple of 15 year olds that were making out had also sexually abused each other, as the passages Otto provided state that just touching can be a form of secondary sexual abuse--if the defendant becomes aroused.

And it's true. Many teenagers are not responsible enough to handle sex, especially not many that 14 year-olds--though some are. But by the same token, there are also a lot of adults that aren't mature enough to handle sex responsibly, either. No matter what age you set as the consensual cut-off, there are still going to be exceptions both above and below that point. The only thing that you can do is educate teenagers about the dangers (and most teenagers are today), and, as a parent, be open, and honest. Anything past the point of education and possibly parental punishment, I feel, has the potential to trample all over the basic freedoms of those of us who are mature enough to handle the responsibility.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-22-2003, 12:13 AM
Master Wang-Ka Master Wang-Ka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Since I can't speak for anyone else, I will speak for myself.

At age thirteen, I fell into bad company. I discovered booze, marijuana, and worked very hard at discovering tawdry sex. It would be a couple more years before I actually managed this, but not for lack of trying.

At age fourteen, I was quite sure I knew better than my parents did in regards booze, drugs, sex, and so forth.

At fifteen, I got a driver's license and became pretty much a raving rampaging zoo animal. At least, most fathers of fifteen-year-old girls would have thought so, and now, having raised a teenage daughter myself, I would be inclined to agree with them.

Anyone who's read any of the weird-assed tales of my youth I've posted here from time to time has a general idea of what I mean. If you AREN'T, then run a search using my username, as well as the words ASS, WATERMELON, WATERBED, CONVERTIBLE, DILDO, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, BEER, ALLIGATOR, EXPLOSIVE, KRAZY GLUE, and CHICKEN... and you will have but the barest glimpse into the depravity and madness that was my gleefully misspent youth.

And I am here to tell you, right goddamn now, WHY there are laws about this sort of thing on the books. They're there to protect YOU from ME.

Or, rather, to protect YOUR daughters from guys LIKE me. Or like the guy I was when I was a teener, anyway.

I never got busted. I never went to jail. I never got anyone pregnant. I was a GOOD kid, in my own eyes... and I was quite careful. At least, as careful as I knew how to be.

Years later, I look back at the young man I was, and I seriously wonder how in ghod's name I made it out alive. Or at least without having to pay any heavy dues. Friends of mine from that time frame weren't so lucky -- a couple are dead, one's a burnout, a couple got AIDS, and three others wound up with surprise children.

I wasn't really any smarter than any of those guys and gals. I was a combination of careful....

...and smart...

...but most of all, LUCKY. And while luck is a peachy thing, depending on it will ultimately result in Bad Things Happening. Particularly when you're playing for high stakes.

...but I was young, and I was too smart for my own good. I was smart enough to realize how dumb all the adults were, and I did as I pleased...

...while making sure nobody ever found out. Nobody who could lay any kind of consequences on me, anyway.

Why are there laws about sex and minors? After all, who's to say a fourteen-year-old isn't equipped to make the right decisions? Who's to say he's not emotionally mature enough to manage it?

Nobody, really. At least, not the folks who don't KNOW him. But he's not going INTO this alone. He's presumably planning on having sex WITH someone, yes? And this doubles the chances of SOMEONE screwing it all up... and resulting in consequences of some kind.

...and this is why we have the laws. Are they fair? No. Not really. Quite a few laws aren't fair. To this day, I have yet to figure out how the government forcing me to pay taxes so THEY can give MY money to SOMEONE ELSE is fair.

It ain't. But then, that's life. The best you can hope for is parity. And if you don't like the damn laws, then grow the hell up, go into politics, and change them (or become insanely wealthy, buy some politicians, and have them change the laws FOR you.)

At least this way, we have some sort of handle on the fourteen year olds who would merrily begin breeding, right there in someone else's bed.

Sure, the parents might well have handled this one themselves. As they are RESPONSIBLE for the children, one might consider that they have AUTHORITY over them, as well.

But sometimes, that ain't an option. At fourteen, I was still pretty nervous about my old man, because if it came down to it, I was fairly sure he could still f*ck me up, if he really had to. And I was quite certain he'd throw me out on my ear if I really got seriously out of line.

Did it stop me? No. But I was sure as hell a lot more careful about not getting caught, and about cleaning up my messes afterward, so to speak. And he did not take a swing at me, nor did he pitch me out. He paid for a good chunk of my college education, in fact, as well as for at least three major beer blasts and one lost weekend, but we won't tell him about that, now, will we?

...but in this day and age, not all parents have that kind of power or authority... or even INFLUENCE... over their kids. I have known entirely too many parents whose kids (or teachers) have dropped a word in Child Protective Services' ears, and have suddenly found themselves being interrogated by well meaning but stern social workers.

Kids WILL do that. Seen it lots of times. And it certainly does make one think twice or three times about using any kind of force on the little bastards, I'm told.

And if one hesitates to use force... and your fourteen-year-old spits in your face and says, "I'll do as I like, and you won't stop me," ... well... what the hell ARE you supposed to do?

...and that's where it becomes a matter of law.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-22-2003, 12:32 AM
robertliguori robertliguori is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
It ain't. But then, that's life. The best you can hope for is parity. And if you don't like the damn laws, then grow the hell up, go into politics, and change them (or become insanely wealthy, buy some politicians, and have them change the laws FOR you.)
Laws have no moral weight. Laws that hurt people require one heckuva justification to be moral. Statuatory laws do have the benefit of protecting kids from adult predators, but that's about it.
Quote:
(5) "Sexual contact" means any of the following:
_
(a)_ Intentional touching by the complainant or defendant, either directly or through clothing by the use of any body part or object, of the complainant's or defendant's intimate parts if that intentional touching is either for the purpose of sexually degrading or sexually humiliating the complainant or sexually arousing or gratifying the defendant.
Well, bugger. That's several thousand charges of sexual assualt against myself.

Hmm. Lawyers, am I reading this wrong, or is masturbation forbidden by this law? Also, are children legally obliged to obey their parents?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-22-2003, 12:32 AM
CanvasShoes CanvasShoes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nearly Mile High
Posts: 9,182
Quote:
And if one hesitates to use force... and your fourteen-year-old spits in your face and says, "I'll do as I like, and you won't stop me," ... well... what the hell ARE you supposed to do?

...and that's where it becomes a matter of law.
EXACTLY, and as usual HEAR HEAR to the rest of your post too (I'm pretty sure I was one of those girls you dated in your misspent youth ).

At any rate, to those having a hissy fit over these children being "charged as sex offenders" or registered as sex offenders.

Come on folks, think about it. Their records will be expunged when they are 18.

Though, if I were the parent, I think I'd like the option to take a less drastic route. But as wang-ka says, when they decide that you "can't" stop them. What are your options?

And FTR, I agreed in my previous posts, that the parents SHOULD have done something long before it got to that point.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-22-2003, 12:35 AM
Master Wang-Ka Master Wang-Ka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
.......are children legally obligated to obey their parents?

Good question. I dunno.

But if I am to be held responsible for the actions of my child (as I would, no doubt, if my theoretical son knocked up your imaginary daughter, and then decided he wanted nothing to do with your daughter or their child)

... then I had damn well BETTER have SOME totally legal method of controlling my child's behavior.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-22-2003, 12:55 AM
CanvasShoes CanvasShoes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nearly Mile High
Posts: 9,182
I don't now either, but I DO know that in many states, parent's of minors ARE held legally responsible for their child's actions.

So, I second wang-ka's post. I'd be interested in knowing how many of you that are utterly aghast at the "cruel" treatment and "stigma" these children are facing are parents of teens.

I mean that in a curious "please tell me more" way. Not a snide one. I'd especially be interested in Ryld up's thoughts as he is a teen, boy I suspect? And I've got one JUST about to be an official teen.

Though I can't imagine mine being interested in sex yet. He's such a "parent's boy" if that makes sense. Just loves us to death, even though we have been split up for years. His interests are mainly computer games and hunting/fishing/snowmaching with his dad, or playing wargames out in the woods with his friends.

My daughter, who is grown, was SO different as a teen (duuuUUH), so I'd be interested in a young teen boy's outlook.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-22-2003, 01:40 AM
Orange Skinner Orange Skinner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
You're right, CanvasShoes, about the record getting cleared. I'd forgotten about that. However, I still wouldn't want my son/daughter at the focal point of this now-national known story, regardless, and I would not want to have to send them to school in the fall when everyone of their classmates knows what happened.

Regarding whether or not I have any teenagers myself, no I don't. Like Ryld Up, I still am one myself. I'm seventeen. To clarify, though, I wasn't concerned only with the stigma the kids would face as a result of this case being made public. I'm also concerned with the siblings (if any) of these kids. And, If I were a parent, I don't believe I would want that kind of coverage. Everone would assume you were a horrible parent, had no control, etc, etc...I have assumed this of the mother, as I'm sure many of the others in this thread have assumed, as well.


What I've been trying to get at is this: In my opinion, it should come down to the parents. The courts should back whatever disciplinary actions said parents feel are necessary, to avoid such instances as wang-ka- mentioned. My problem is not that these kids are being punished for having sex at 14. More likely than not, they shouldn't have been. But rather than see the court get involved in this case and cases like it, I'd rather the parents handle it in their own way, with the court backing them up.

Only in extreme cases should the legal system have to decide on what should be done for the parents, and with the information we've been given, I'm not ready to say that this is one of those extreme cases. I think that last is the reason I have such a problem with the fact that this is going to trial: I'm not satisfied that it was necessary. If they are that out of control, and the parents have tried alternate methods of dealing with them in the past, then I support the choice to try them.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-22-2003, 04:33 AM
Nightime Nightime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
But if I am to be held responsible for the actions of my child (as I would, no doubt, if my theoretical son knocked up your imaginary daughter, and then decided he wanted nothing to do with your daughter or their child)
Is this even true? If your son gets a girl pregnant, can you be held liable for child support?

I don't think it is true.

Quote:
And I am here to tell you, right goddamn now, WHY there are laws about this sort of thing on the books. They're there to protect YOU from ME.
This is not true either. These laws were clearly not written to protect 14 year olds from safe consensual sexual contact with other 14 year olds. This case would not even be news if that is what the law was for, because we would already have millions of kids in jail under the same law.

Quote:
EXACTLY, and as usual HEAR HEAR to the rest of your post too (I'm pretty sure I was one of those girls you dated in your misspent youth ).
Here is a question for you and Wang-Ka: Do you think your lives would be better if your parents had had you arrested and convicted of sex crimes?

Honestly?


The main point is this: The parents in this case are abusing this law in a way that never should have been allowed. This abuse could have wide-reaching consequences for many other people. The law needs to be changed so such abuse is not possible.

Another question: Do you honestly wish that you had not had sex until after college? Would it have been worth it to you to spend those years in prison for a sex crime so that you couldn't have sex? Why shouldn't you be sent to jail now for the "sex crimes" you just confessed to commiting?

You want to stop your kid from having safe consensual sex with someone their own age? Fine. But you should not be able to have them convicted of a sex crime in order to do it.

Are kids really so universally bad, and adults so universally good, that we can allow kids to be completely at the mercy of any adult who wants to have them arrested for sex crimes? No, this is just sick. I can see it now: an adult blackmailing a teenager who had consensual sex with someone their own age, threatening to have them convicted of a sex crime if they don't do whatever the adult says. No, this cannot be allowed.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-22-2003, 05:00 AM
yosemite yosemite is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
I don't know if a parent can be held legally responsible for a teenaged "deadbeat dad," but I do know that many parents are mighty concerned that their teenaged kids may breed, and yet be incapable of handling the responsibility.

So what does the parent do if there is an unwanted pregnancy? Pressure the kid (if it's their daughter) to have an abortion? That's not right. Pressure their daughter or son to give the kid up for adoption? Sure, they can try, but I think both of the baby's parents have to consent to that. And I am pretty sure that if one parent nixes the adoption idea, both parents are on the hook for support.

So, how is a 14-year-old going to support a baby, exactly? Go on welfare? Well, that certainly seems terribly "fair" to the rest of us taxpayers, huh? Will this 14-year-old parent live by themselves in some apartment, hold down a full time job and support their baby single-handedly? Do you see that happening often? So who often ends up looking after the 14-year-old and the 14-year-old's baby? You guessed it, the parents. I won't say it happens each and every time, but we know it happens, and that it is not uncommon.

So, I think that many parents have a really important reason to be concerned about their child's sexual habits. I'm not advocating prison or convicting them of a "sex crime," but I can really understand why some parents want to discourage their teenaged kids from having "consentual sex." They are worried to death for their kids, and they don't want their own lives disrupted in a really huge way. Because the risk is there—their teenager's "consentual sex" becomes the parent's "Oh boy, now I have to feed and take care of my 14-year-old's baby, and I have to watch my 14-year-old lose part of his/her childhood because they are now a parent." That possibility is real to the parents, but often isn't nearly as "real" to the kids who think that the grown-ups are real meanies for trying to hamper their love lives.

And yeah, I know that it's possible to teach them to be "safe," but really, what are the odds that your average 14-year-old will always be responsible and safe? Each and every time?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-22-2003, 05:49 AM
Nightime Nightime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
yosemitebabe - I agree that parents have good reason to try and stop their kids from having sex (especially if they are not practicing safe sex).

However, that is not the point. The point is that these particular parents are abusing the law to have their 14 year old kids convicted of sex crimes for planning to have sex with each other.

There are many strategies they could use, but this particular strategy is both extremely uncommon and extremely bad.

Think about it: could not *anyone* use this ruling to blackmail a teenager? Say an adult takes pictures of two teenagers of the same age having sex. Now he can threaten to turn them in for commiting a sex crime. You think this is a good thing?

Are teenagers universally evil and adults universally good? I don't think so. I don't think adults, even parents, should have the power to have teenagers arrested and convicted of sex crimes at will. That would be extremely dangerous and wrong.

No, there are many things the parents would be justified in doing, but arrest and conviction for a sex crime is decidedly not one of them.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-22-2003, 06:48 AM
Bibliovore Bibliovore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
I don't see why this is so complicated. If we leave morality out of it for a moment, the fact is that the age of consent in this case is 18. If these kids flout the law and then dared the Mom to call the police, then why on earth shouldn't they be punished? Yes, jail time is probably too harsh and unhelpful, but community service and some sexual education might be a good idea.

If the age of consent was 14 then it would be the kids' business what they got up to with each other and this wouldn't even be an issue. But since the law was broken intentionally, it becomes a matter for the authorities...
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-22-2003, 07:14 AM
Phnord Prephect Phnord Prephect is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
If two adults, ie over 18, actively consent to do so, they may legally have sex.

If one adult and one minor, ie under 18, have sex, it is illegal. One person, the minor cannot legally consent. The adult can, and has, and is therefore charged with a crime.

If two minors have sex, neither one can legally consent. If neither one consented, no act can have taken place, can it? For an action to occur, one must initiate it. If nobody initates it, it didn't happen. Or it was an accident. Or an 'act of god', that's good too.

Even better question: What is the minimum age at which this law is effective?

If two 14yo's (pronounced: forteenieos) can be charged for having sexual contact (is intercourse required? I doubt it), what about 13yo's? 12? 8? 6?

Two or more 6-year-old children, involved in a game of 'show me yours and I'll show you mine', are sexual offenders and should be prosecuted? What about a 3 year old bathing with her newborn brother, curious about the dangly bits he has? She deserves JAIL?

America, where hath thine common sense gone?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-22-2003, 07:21 AM
robertliguori robertliguori is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
I'd also like to hear on the legality of teen masturbation. I have something of a vested interest in it.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-22-2003, 07:28 AM
TeaElle TeaElle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Here's my problem: if the law presumes that a 14 year old doesn't have the mental competency to meaningfully understand the consequences of sexual behavior in a fashion consistent with informed consent -- and it doesn't -- then how can the law presume that the same 14 year old has the mental competency to meaningfully engage in the intentional act of sexual assault? Either a 14 year old knows what they want sexually or they don't; by charging these kids with assaulting one another, those enforcing criminal penalties against these kids are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They're saying "They weren't old enough to be able to say that they really wanted to have sex together, but they were old enough to be able to say that they wanted to have unlawful sexual contact with one another, unlawful defined solely by their ages." It's circular logic.

I'm also concerned that the girl cut a plea on 4th degree sexual assault. It seems that the statute limits 4th degree s.a. to those older than 16. I get this from a U. of Wisc. site, bolding mine:

Quote:
Fourth degree sexual assault is defined as sexual contact,without consent, with a person age 16 or over. A person who commits fourth degree sexual assault can be fined up to $10,000 and/or imprisoned for up to 9 months in the county jail. Fourth degree sexual assault is a misdemeanor.
The facts of the case do not support this charge being offered the girl in a plea arrangement. You cannot plead guilty to a crime that you could not, by definition of the statute, commit.

Where are these kids' lawyers?!

And more importantly, why are people accepting the story of the prosecutor at face value? She's claiming that these kids were charged because she wanted to get them into the system to get them help because they were both from less than ideal home situations and because she didn't like their attitudes, because, of course, having crappy parents and a bad attitude is criminal

Does this woman really think that the kind most likely to turn these kids around and give them a chance of not being parents in a year or not dropping out of high school or not ending up permanently screwed is unlikely to come in the form of criminal records, incarceration, diversion programs and the like?

Social services could have dealt with these kids, gotten them into counseling, taken a look at what was going on in the homes, gotten the parents some training and assistance too. Now it seems just a tad too late. That's the tragedy of this whole thing: if these kids had "bad attitudes" before, how much better are they really going to get in juvie? All of this criminalization of behavior which isn't even abnormal is probably going to end up hurting these kids a helluva lot more than their having sex (so long as they were using contraceptives) ever could have.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-22-2003, 10:11 AM
zuma zuma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
The police, in this case, should have given the mother a reprimand and told her to do her fucking job.

The mother of a 14-yo whore who brings the little asshole home, then CHALLENGES her mother to call the police (and let's not even get into the 14 yo stud who dared sass the mother) should have immediately been razor-stropped. Where in the hell was the father when this went down?

This is not a police or legal issue. A negligent parent who let her child turn into a sassy whore is the issue. Again, where was the father to threaten and physically remove the boy from the house?

The mother of the whore should have, oh I don't know, grabbed her by the hair and dragged her into her room, immediately ground her, maybe give her a slap or two, and not ever allow her out of the house until she's 16 or so? Does she have internet access? cut if off. Does have a tv? take it away. Does she have makeup, cds, any other luxuries? take them away. This thing is silly on so many levels. That she let her child even get into this situation is telling of her and her husbands' parenting abilities.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-22-2003, 10:14 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 31,731
I guess what it boils down to is that you can't solve every problem with the legal system. Some people seem to think you can.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-22-2003, 11:32 AM
Earl of Sandwhich Earl of Sandwhich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally posted by yosemitebabe
I don't know if a parent can be held legally responsible for a teenaged "deadbeat dad," but I do know that many parents are mighty concerned that their teenaged kids may breed, and yet be incapable of handling the responsibility.
Before we start planning any baby showers, let's bear in mind that teen pregnancy is currently at record lows in the United States.

cite:http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-22-2003, 11:33 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 25,556
The link to the article gives me a "page not found", but as far as I can tell, no father seems to be present in this case.

Which is most of the problem, I suspect. The mouthy little bitch of the OP has decided that, in the absence of someone bigger than she is, she doesn't have to do what her mother says. And, unfortunately, there has been no one in her life for the last few years who was willing to take on the task of making her sorry when she mouths off. And now, it is too late.

And tlw, your analysis is impressive, but you are mistaking "not being able to form any criminal intent" with "not having the same capacity as an adult to form criminal intent". By your line of reasoning, teenagers could not be punished for any crime, even if a post-pubescent fourteen-year-old male raped another fourteen-year-old at knifepoint. He might be sentenced to reform school instead of maximum security prison, but a crime has still been committed, regardless of the age of the offender.

I agree that involving the police and courts in the OP probably won't help, but nothing else the mother could do would either.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-22-2003, 11:42 AM
Ryle Dup Ryle Dup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:

You're right, I don't. But I don't "automatically think ALL 14 year olds shouldn't have sex" as in your original question. I'll allow as how, as in all of life there are exceptions.
Are there any cites/studies to back up that 14 year olds emotionally equipped / mentally equipped to deal with sex are the exception?

What happened to sex ed, health education? Kids in school are supposed to be learning all about unwanted pregnancies, STD's, and protection. I'll forfeit that yes, in the heat of the moment they may forget protection, but adults are not exempt from this.

14 year olds may not be equipped to deal with the responsibilities of a possible pregnancy, or STD, but there are things that can solve these problems. Adoption, abortion, RU481, birth control bills.

Quote:
What can happen is that the children make bad judgment calls. Yes, YOU seem to be a together young teen (boy?), but many teens, especially ones as young as 14, aren't that responsible.
In the case of these two, who seem (and I could be wrong, of course the paper may be biased), to be "Springer" candidates of the type seen during "I'll be whore if I want an' my momma cain't stop me" variety. THIS is one of the things we as parents try to protect kids from doing. No, it may not be life threatening like a toddler going out into the street.
At any rate, a bad decision like having sex too young can be "life" threatening, as in potentially ruinous to a college career, unwanted pregnancy, their education being threatened (due to the potential emotional upsets of "breaking up" etc etc).
Do we actually know weither or not the teens in this case were protected? Why would the parents try to 'protect' teens from doing this? Unless of course you meant condom usage and birth control, in which case I support you 100%.
Quote:
Again, perhaps YOU are responsible enough to remember a condom in the heat of the moment, but hell hafl the 20somethings don't want the hassle of the "raincoat," as the parent of teens (well one is full grown now), I seriously doubt that most teens can be responsible enough on a consistant basis.
Consistant basis? If they're lucky . Like I said, teens may not have the responsibilities to deal with the consequences of pregnancy / std's but there are tools and methods of avoidance, and cleaning up the mess afterwards.

Quote:
Well, I didn't put what I would say in my post, but were it me, (and it has beent) I definitely WOULD explain the whole thing to my children. I actually started when they were about 5 or 6.
Not the WHOLE thing of course, but age appropriate stuff as they got older. And I generally followed THEIR lead (based on questions etc), or my instincts to know when they were ready for what.
Not sure if I phrased my question wrong there but what I meant to ask is what exactly are your reasons?

Quote:
You misunderstood my post, or perhaps didn't read all the way. I don't necessarily think that any teen caught in the sex act needs to be punished with "the iron fist". I took my daughter to the doc when she was 16 and I found out she was sexually active. I wanted her healthy and pregnancy free.
IMO? I would rather make sure she had protected sex, than go ahead and do it behind my back and end up pregnant, or with AIDS.
My apologies, misunderstanding.
Quote:


Safe meaning safe to reach their absolute full adult potential, hich having sex too early CAN get in the way of (doesn't mean it always will, for every teen), of COURSE you aren't in the same physical danger as a toddler or preschooler who isn't getting constant adult supervision.
Adult potentional without sexual experiences? What kind of adult exactly...?
Quote:
The issue that many teenagers forget, I suspect, is that if there is an "oopsie" pregnancy, they have adult responsibilities to face. And how many 14-year-olds are up for that (if they don't choose abortion)? And how many of these "overly protective" parents are probably thinking, "I sure as hell don't want to have to support my 14-year-old's kid, dammit." Because we all know, that's what often happens. The kid has sex, "thinks" they are mature enough to handle the responsibility, but when they have the baby, oh wait! I guess parenthood isn't all they expected it to be. So either the taxpayers or the 14-year-old's parents end up picking up the pieces.
RU481, abortion, adoption.
Quote:
And I am here to tell you, right goddamn now, WHY there are laws about this sort of thing on the books. They're there to protect YOU from ME.
Bullshit

Quote:
It ain't. But then, that's life. The best you can hope for is parity. And if you don't like the damn laws, then grow the hell up, go into politics, and change them (or become insanely wealthy, buy some politicians, and have them change the laws FOR you.)
What? You're trying to explain the laws by saying life isn't fair? Some cop-out you got there.

And yes, I do hope to be a politician one day, because laws like this are ridiculous and waste lawyers/judges time.

Quote:
And if one hesitates to use force... and your fourteen-year-old spits in your face and says, "I'll do as I like, and you won't stop me," ... well... what the hell ARE you supposed to do?
...and that's where it becomes a matter of law.
Using a ridiculous law as blackmail or punishment to a teenager simply because you can't control them is dimwitted and shortsighted.

Ever thought of grounding your teenager? Locking them in a room, letting them go to school, feeding them meals? What's legally wrong with that?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-22-2003, 11:44 AM
Earl of Sandwhich Earl of Sandwhich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Let's try a different link:http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyt...ry.asp?id=7785
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.