I can’t tell just what went on. The 8 year old did say that she lied but then again, does it still mean nothing happened? And if stuff happened, is she still a victim? That is to say, the older kids wanted to experiment/play, maybe not knowing the implications of what they were doing, and the eight year old went along with it without protesting but feeling scared/weird. She’s not legally old enough to consent to any sort of sexual act. Can we still say she’s a victim, even if the boys don’t have the frame of mind in order to commit a sex crime?
I’m leaning towards yes–yes, there can be a victim without a criminal. I don’t know that punishing the boys or branding them offenders is appropriate if they just thought they were playing, even if the girl was legitimately victimized.
Of course, there was no rape, but (apparently) these boys bullied this little girl into a session of “Show Me Yours” when she was unwilling. That is sexual harrassment as well as bullying.
I wouldn’t have gotten the law into this unless the boys were having repeated incidents of this sort. Someone needs to sit these boys down and explain firmly that forcing someone into sexual experimentation is a BIG no-no. Whether discipline is necessary after this talk is something that depends on the situation. But if more incidents occur after the talk, then the guardians of these boys have to get tough and MAKE them understand that this is unacceptable behavior. Maybe then, call on a social worker, or bring in the law to show you mean business.
Not to mention that a LOT of kids who intitate sex acts may have been sexually abused themselves. There is " playing doctor" or " I’ll show you mine if you show me yours" That’s healthy …But while kids are sexual, they really can’t approach sex on the level of an adult. Even many young teenagers are just beginning to understand the complexities involved in romantic realtionships.
I don’t think a child that young should “officially” be designated as a sex offender. Someone to watch, someone who should receive serious intervention–absolutely. Anything else would be irresponsible and reckless. But a child so young is probably imitating abuse that they have witnessed or been victim to. They need intensive treatment.
As for the idea that there can be a victim with no victimizer: I completely agree. I’ve often thought this for a situation like two very drunk people having sex. One may legitimately feel like she didn’t consent because she lacked the capacity to consent, due to her intoxication. But the other may have been too intoxicated to form the intent to rape, too. Theoretically, they could BOTH legitimately consider themselves victims of sexual assault (though I think that rarely would happen in reality).
So yes, it’s not all black and white. 18-year-olds who commit sex crimes are probably former victims too, but we do have to draw a line somewhere to try to protect people who are children now. But when the perpetrator is a child and clearly a victim himself, it’s just not that simple. At times like this, all we can do is hope that there are competent professionals involved in treating and making decisions about the child (as well as taking steps to ensure that those involved DO meet that standard).
Yes, children can be sex offenders, or at least I believe so. I base this belief on stories told to me by someone close to me that was a counselor at the Denver Children’s Home and Mt. St. Vincent Children’s home in Denver (you can google them if so inclined). These homes take in the most cruelly abused children and give them counseling before (or if) they are released into the foster home system. Some of the children stay there until they are 18 as they are too violent or damaged to go into a foster home. Many of these children are perpetrators (again, parroting what my friend said), and will act out the abuse they received on the other children. Other kids will invite the abuse, as that is what passes for parental love in their mixed up little heads. It sounded like a terrible place to work, just heartbreaking. Whether these kids should be designated sex offenders by the legal system is another question entirely.
A friend of mine used to be a correctional officer at the Department of Juvenile Justice. They had a dorm for “little sex offenders” (under age 12, I think) and “big sex offenders”. The dorms were full.
I think it’s helpful to address the idea of a sex offender not as a moral condemnation but as a simple descriptor of history. A sex offender is somebody with a history of disturbing sexual behavior, not a person who deserves to be shamed and harassed as an evil person. So absolutely, there are juvenile sexual offenders.
One of Andrew Vachss’s ultimatums is that any adult who preys on children should be shamed, harassed and punished as an evil person. He is the one who stated “Don’t confuse sick behavior with sickening behavior.”
Vachss believes one reason we are not winning the war on the sexual abuse of chldren is that we condone and excuse it, instead of treating the offenders like the monsters they are.
ETA: A real picture of the adult sexual predator is painted by Kenneth Parnell.
Vachss is, outside of his literary career, an attorney who represents abused children. (In New York, any time there is a child abuse case, the abused child is also given an attorney whose job is to represent their needs and rights independent of the needs and rights of their parents.) Some of those children are only known to have been abused because they have reabused other children.
He has considerably more knowlege of the topic than a random crime fiction novelist.
Sure. His stock in trade, nevertheless, is a particular narrative. If he didn’t take a hard line about what monsters and freaks these people are, his books wouldn’t have bad guys, now would they?
In any event, what he has to say about adult sexual offenders doesn’t speak much to whether or not the label can attach to a child.
Thank you, Maggie the Ocelot. Vachss works exclusively with juvenille offendesx, many who are victims of abuse. His Burke novels are honest portrayals of child molesters. He is not to be dismissed as a “crime writing noveist.” Jimmy Chitwood, I’d suggest you takr a look at his website before dismissing Vachss.
His wife, who is also an attorney, started the first program for victims of chld sexual abuse. The Vachsses founded a dog therapy program for children who are victims of sexual abuse. Read Alice’s book “Sex Crimes” for a good story of the process.
I think Andrew and Alice Vachss probably have as much or more knowledge on the sexual abuse of children and juvenille offenders than any other people living today.
I don’t really see that we’re condoning it. If anything, I think we as a society go the opposite route and demonize anything that could remotely be seen as child porn. I mean, a sixteen year old with a nude picture of themselves is technically in possession of child porn. I do think that child molesters are incredibly bad people, but I don’t think the problem is that we don’t see them as monstrous enough.
Children can very definitely be sex offenders. Children in institutional and correctional settings must be protected from victimizing one another, sexually and otherwise. Outside of those settings a disturbingly high proportion of child on child sex offending takes the form of intersibling abuse.
Children commit murders, serious assaults and even torture so yes they can and do commit sex offences.
Children have even raped adult females.
The apologists always recite the tired old mantras, oh they didn’t know that what they were doing was wrong, sorry but thats B.S. and, oh they were abused themselves so they’re not to blame.
With the second alibi I have some doubts about the accuracy of this as being applicable in every single case, and its a common (I.M.O.)action in those who aren’t sociopaths to make sure that the pain that they suffered themselves would never be visited upon another single human being.
If the apologists genuinly believe that abused children can not ever again be responsible for their actions then logically it follows that those children should be confined in a secure institution so that the “virus” can spread no further in years to come.
Nonsense?
I think so but the apologists can’t have it both ways.
People, of whatever age are either responsible for their actions or they’re not.
If they’re not then they are a danger to society and society should be protected from them.
Yeah, what we need as a society is more revulsion of sex offenders. Because we don’t have enough.
Actually, we have so much of it, and have since the early 80s, that any further explosion in moral panic will not hit the true offenders, but will be channeled toward other targets in the name of quenching the need for a witch hunt: such as “satanic abuse”, “recovered memories”, and turning very minor offenses into “sex offenses”.