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.
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?
Absolutely ridiculous. How can two people sexually assault EACH OTHER?
This is a travesty of justice and a waste of money.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
(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.
Find 'em both guilty and sentence them to sex-education classes and public service in preemie and AIDS wards.
Do it in the car like every decent, god-fearing American teenager?
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.
:rolleyes:
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.
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.
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?
[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.
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 :D), 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.
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?
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? :dubious:
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. 
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.
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…