Unrepentant pair of 14 year old humpers face jail. Fair or not?

Great Debates
321

100% legally responsible. Surely you realize there’s more than one meaning of responsible, and since we’re talking about legal rights, I figured we were talking about legal responsibilities as well.

Oh well. If this topic comes around again, hopefully we can get the terms cleared up at the beginning.

Indeed - I’d be surprised to hear of any grandparents being held responsible for raising their grandchildren who live elsewhere, regardless of their parents’ ages.

I can see how our current laws might allow them to be held responsible, but naturally in my hypothetical land where minors are responsible for their own children, the law exempts grandparents from liability.

322

Yes, you have the right. But the law isn’t there because you can’t control your kid or because your kid has outgrown YOU. The law is there to protect the rest of us if your kid becomes a threat to us. Sorry, but i don’t give a rat’s ass if your God, tells you that your kid can’t have sex. Work it out, pray more, more to another state…but don’t use the law as a weapon. Be a parent.

You say that you don’t want your child to have sex, but the very act of either tossing her out, or having her placed in an institution, will assure that she will have sex…the difference is now she really is in danger.

Right? So if you are aware that you are now placing your child in danger, I must ask you…why? What are you trying to prove? That you’re boss, your way or the highway? Is that what your God really wants…your kid raped and beaten or pregnant or a slow death from AIDS? Nice God, you got there…

See my problem here? You’re not trying to protect your kid, you’re trying to protect yourself and if your kid gets burned…oh well, it was God’s will.

Let us your traffic ticket example in a different way. Let’s say that an officer systematically targets one driver and gives him a speeding ticket for going 1 mile over the speed limit. In fact the officer allows other speeders to pass, while he waits for this one driver. He tickets him for not waiting long enough a stop sign, for having a noisy engine. Finally the driver gets enough tickets and is arrested.

At court the evidence is then laid out. Tickets for going 55.3 miles per hour. Tickets for waiting only 2.75 seconds at a stop sign…etc.

At this point the moviation of the Officer must come into question. Application of the law should be reasonable and without bias and hopefully protect society. However when the law is used to control or punish a person, because a person in authority is unable to cope with the fact that their belief system isn’t shared by everyone, even a family member; it isn’t the Law™, anymore, it’s something else.

And that my friend is what the Law is there to protect us from.

323

Ah.

So the law is there to protect society.

So… the law is NOT there to uphold my rights. It is there to protect SOCIETY.

The fact that you do not give a rat’s ass about my rights is all well and good. My rights are hardly YOUR problem. But I DO care about them… and I must take exception to your statement. There are PLENTY of laws that have EVERYTHING to do with rights. A whole bill of them, in fact.

This is part and parcel of “protecting society.”

You feel that I should NOT have the right to impose my belief system on someone. Sure, and you’re quite right, there. But if I have no rights to impose my belief system on my own KIDS… then what, precisely DO I have? Keep in mind that a belief system can include things you do NOT agree with… like “sex is evil,” as well as things you DO agree with, like “murder is not a constructive method of personnel management.”

It’s up to each of us to teach our children as best we can. Kids, being kids, are not always going to be receptive to this. And under most circumstances, there’s not a damn thing a parent can do about it. In the case of religion, if the kid decides to be an atheist, you can’t torture him into BELIEVING, for potato’s sake.

But you can damn sure make him go to church.

Oh, wait. No, you can’t. All you can do is threaten him with unpleasant consequences, until he gives in.

…which brings us back to square one. Should I be legally able to force my child to go to church? No. I think that’s excessive.

Should my child face legal consequences for refusal to obey me? Hm. Sounds excessive. I’d go case-by-case on this. Refusing to obey what orders? What directives? What justification?

Should my child face legal consequences for running away from home? Hm. Good question. Not at first, but if it becomes a chronic problem… SOMETHING is certainly in order.

Should my child face legal consequences for sex…? Same difference, I should think. Case by case, in such a situation as (hopefully) objective outsiders, legally qualified, can examine each case on its own merits… with the knowledge that ALL persons involved will be scrutinized.

…but I digress. If your kid is having sex with my kid, then your kid is having an effect on ME, if anything HAPPENS as a result of this. I am, after all, responsible for my minor child.

Therefore, your child is directly screwing around with my life.

Therefore, I have a right to react in some manner, preferably one that is legally mandated, don’cha think?

324

Once again, you go to the extreme. The only right I say you don’t have, is to call the police and have your child arrested or committed because you lack the brains, guts or ability to prevent her from having sex. That’s as far a line as i’m drawing here and that’s what the OP is about.

The law isn’t there to baby you. If you’re really that committed, pack up your kid and move away from that boy.

problem solved.

If she runs away, then call the state. If she finds another boy, I suggest you look in the mirror and figure out what’s lacking in her life or yours.

BUt you won’t do that. You won’t do anything that inconveniences you, you would rather place the burden of raising your kid on the state, than be a real grown up and evolve.

Of course in your statement about your rights, i didn’t see anything about hers…but then again this isn’t about her, is it?

325

Jeez, Holmes, NOW who’s going to extremes? Venomous, much?

Disciplining a child IS an inconvenience. Do you have any children? Durn near ANY form of discipline involves inconvenience, particularly anything that is to take any amount of TIME, like grounding them. Policing your kids is part of the package.

The State protects my child’s rights. If I choose to beat and torture the kid by way of convincing him not to eat peas with a knife or whatever, the State may well march in and discipline MY ass. Happens all the time, yes?

Why, then, should the State not protect MY rights, if the situation is extreme enough that legal action is called for? Policing a teen isn’t easy; if you had one, you’d know that. MOST teens aren’t that extreme, that determined, that crazy, or that stupid…

…but my personal experience has brought me into contact with more than a few who were. And I cannot help but feel that there should be laws to deal with these kids – to protect them, and to protect their parents from the consequences of their stubborn stupidity.

…and I have a very hard time understanding people who seem to feel that Child Protective Services, stopping child abuse, arresting bad parents, and Upholding The Law, is a GOOD thing…

…but one law, restricting teens from having sex, and almost never invoked unless the kids are incredibly stubborn, stupid, and determined… is a BAD thing.

326

Well, let’s hope so.

327

First Wang-Ka, there are thousands of people from all over the world, who travel thousands of miles, leaving family, friends, culture, with nothing on but the clothes on their backs and their kids; in order to provide them a better life in the USA.

So yes, I have little patience for Americans who are unwilling to hop on a Greyhound bus and move to another state, in order to "protect’ their kids, but are more than willing to toss them into the snake pit of social services.

Remember, we’re not talking about 2 teens dealing crank or making pornos. If that’s the case, sign me up. We’ve been talking about teens who may well be right in disagreeing with their parent’s wishes and whose behaviour while distasteful, is not dangerous.

And whether or not, that disagreement in and of itself warrants being considered extreme…the problem is who gets to decide what’s extreme and this is where the slippery slope starts.

Every state, every county is going to have a different standard of extreme behaviour. The bible belt will have one, New York City will have one. How many chances does my child get to refuse to go to church before I call the authorities? If I find an IUD, to get to call social services then? I’m a vegan and I find that my kid, brought, necked, plucked and cooked a free-ranged chicken, do I get to kick her out on animal cruelty charges?

You’ve said it yourself, you seen the system abused because of stupid parents, imagine those parents now having the ability to call the law and have their children removed, not because the teens are dangerous, but because they decide that their children aren’t being respectful enough, or they don’t like what books they’re reading or they new ‘colored’ friends…are you telling me you don’t see that happening?

I get it now, you don’t like the way the rules are set up. You want the same punishment for children who break the rules, as that of parents who are abusive. Because the state can get involved and ‘screw with’ an abusive parent, that same state should now be able to mess with a child who dares question a parent’s authority…no matter how out of touch that parent may be.

Sorry, there’s price for being a parent…but don’t worry, it’ll be paid in full in 18 years…

328

Mmm… not the same thing.

I would say that if your kid sneaks out and eats a chicken, this should not be a crime, no matter HOW Vegan you are.

And I still have to disagree that sex is not dangerous. In an age where STDs can kill you? And even when STDs are not involved, babies often are. We’ve been over all this before. Regular “unsafe” sex WILL lead to a medical condition of SOME sort, sooner or later, involving some risk to at least one of the people engaging in it, be it chlamydia, HIV, or pregnancy.

Now, I would say that if I want to place sanctions on my kid for buying a bucket of KFC or hanging out with non-white people, then I am out of freakin’ touch, and I should not have the right to bring down any kind of legal sanction on my kid.

(I DO have the right to impose any kind of PRIVATE sanctions I like, for durn near any reason; read “Mommy Dearest” for details. Whether or not I am right to do so is another question.)

…but… Sex Has Consequences.

Repeat: Sex Has Consequences.

One more time, for those of you who haven’t caught it yet in the past seven pages: Sex Has Consequences.

The likelihood that you will require medical attention or contract a disease after eating a bucket of KFC is mercifully small. And association with non-white people hardly ever results in injury or death, no matter what TV cop shows want you to think.

…but the odds are nowhere near as good with sex.

Furthermore, those consequences don’t just ring down on the KID. As the parent, the responsible party, it opens a can of worms for ME.

…which brings us back to square one. If I am legally responsible for those consequences, why am I given no legal authority to control whether or not they happen?

329

Wang-Ka, we agreed several posts ago, that the kids in question were practicing safe sex and the reason this parent was having a problem was for religous reasons…

Now if you’ve changed your mind fine, but once again all those problems can be easily and inexpensively prevented.

So, what you want is an escape clause for your kid’s bad choices in life. If little Timmy and Missy continue have sex despite your warning, you want to be able to show the state… what a signed waiver freeing you from any responsibility? Since you warned them, what 10 times, 20 times? How many warnings do I have to show, before I get to ‘opt-out’ of being a parent?

As i said before you have plenty of options to prevent STD’s and all the other things you fear from happening, and you chose not to avail yourself of them.

Instead you prefer to either have the boy arrested, your daughter arrested, which will (and not to beat a dead horse…) most likely lead to your daughter being placed in danger of all the things you’re having her arrested to prevent.

I don’t see the logic…oh wait I do, I guess you figure if it happens in a state institution, you get to blame the state and not your lack of insight.

Small conform to your daugther or grandchild sick with AIDS or living in poverty…but hey, you warned 'em…

330

Not sure what YOU agreed to, bud. I simply used “religion” as one of the many reasons a parent might not want his kids having sex. I have given many other reasons, as well.

People have pointed out alternatives to each and every one of those reasons, and then told me I should pull my head out of my ass regarding religion.

Personally, I agree with that… but, then, I’m not every parent. It occurs to me I could simply argue that all these alternatives are completely unnecessary if my kid is not having sex.

The fact remains, and nobody has been able to disprove this one yet, that I am responsible for my minor children. I am responsible for their safety, their wellbeing, and for making reparations to individuals and/or society for any harm they may choose to commit.

And yet, there remains a hard core of people out there that apparently cannot get it through their heads that sex can generate problems in people’s lives, ranging from simple relationship issues to major changes, like pregnancy and STDs… but that CHILDREN, for potato’s sake, should face NO legal restraints in seeking it out and having it.

Apparently, I should continue to be responsible, legally, for everything in my child’s world… but if my kid is utterly determined to have sex, then I should simply shut the fuck up and deal with whatever consequences that child brings down upon its own head, AND MINE!!!

Holmes, you in particular seem to feel that not only am I responsible for my child, but I am also responsible for any boneheaded actions or stubborn foolishness that child chooses to indulge in, and that any bad consequences that befall him/her are DIRECTLY my fault. At least, this seems to be the upshot of several remarks you have made in your last several posts. If you choose to believe this, I certainly am not going to dissuade you if I haven’t by now. All I can do is wistfully wish I could see you at some future point if and when you are dealing with children of your own. I certainly don’t WISH the kind of madness I’m talking about down on your head; I wouldn’t wish some of the kids I’ve had to deal with on my worst enemy.

…but I cannot help but think it would be kind of fun to watch your kid pull some damnfool stunt, and then see the look on your face when someone blames it all on YOU, regardless of what you did to stop it… because you just weren’t quick enough, or you were out trying to earn a living, or you didn’t know, or some other “excuse.”

I have dealt with a great many parents who begged the State, me, their therapists, and God Himself to tell them where, where, in God’s name, WHERE DID WE GO WRONG?

Well, I’ll just tell them to go to the Straight Dope board and go look up Holmes, among others. No, wait, I won’t bother; Holmes has already spoken. I’ll just say, “It’s all the parents’ fault. You’re total failures. The best you can do is just pay for everything and hope your kid doesn’t do too much damage. Or perhaps, hope the kid does something they CAN arrest him for, before he breeds too many children and finally dies from AIDS or something.” That is, after all, where your argument ultimately leads, since teen sex can, under no circumstances, be called a crime, misdemeanor, or legal offense of any kind, no matter what

No matter what.

Plainly, I am not speaking with parents, here. In fact, on several occasions, I have wondered if I am speaking to rational human beings, here.

At any rate, it’s pretty plain that certain people disagree with me. That’s okay; it would be a dull world in which everyone agreed with everyone. Hell, I don’t come here so everyone can AGREE with me.

I’ve found a lot to think about in this thread, and I have definitely learned some things, and maybe even tweaked my opinions, a bit.

But some folks should never reproduce. When you have a child, Holmes, you are throwing the dice. The odds are, you’ll have a fine child, not a thing wrong with’m, and that you will never really have any of the problems we’ve been arguing about; you will never need the law to backstop your authority. That’s how it is for most people.

But ghod help you if your kid is one of those exceptions. I think, that if that comes to pass, there will come a time when you will gladly beg the law to help you out, any way you can get.

331

Wait a minute, wait a minute…

You are somehow saying that it is the parent who “chose not to avail” himself of them?

What?

How can a parent possibly ensure that a child practice safe sex? He can hope, he can try to prepare the child and educate the child, but ultimately, it’s on the kids.

Or, do you think the parent is going to be present in the room when the kids have the sex, to monitor the act and make sure it is done safely? Is the parent going to carefully slip the condom on the boy, to make sure it is put on properly? Is the parent going to monitor their daughter every day and watch her as she takes her pill faithfully?

And all birth control methods have a percentage of failure. All of them. The pill can fail, condoms can fail, they all can fail. I’ve had friends who have had “oopsie” pregnancies when they were very careful and used several methods of birth control and protection simultaniously. A condom is not foolproof from protecting from STDs, either. It’s certainly better than nothing, but it is not 100% effective.

332

Sassy, yes. But a whore? No. She was not turning tricks with anyone who paid her, she was having sex with her boyfriend. What makes you call her a whore, zuma? Do you see all sexually active, unmarried women and girls as whores? Or only the ones who, in your opinion, have started too early? Or is it sassing her mother that makes her a whore?

On another aspect of this, the link has expired, so all I have to go on is the quote in the OP. Said quote seems to be saying that the girls mother did not actually catch them in the act. She found them naked in bed, and they said something along the lines of, “yes, we were going to have sex; why shouldn’t we? If we want to, you can’t stop us!” For all we know, this would have been their first time.

I agree with the posters who have said that this is an idiotic misuse of the law. Surely we should not see any law as having been broken if both participants in the act are underage!? Surely the purpose of age of concent laws is to protect girls under some abitrary age from adult men. At the time these laws were written, no one would have been thinking about adult women having sex with underage boys, and they cirtainly were not thinking about same sex relationships: in those days, in most - all? - localities, all same sex acts were illegal.

Actualy, I think the basis for these laws was the belief that girls under a cirtain age did not know that there was such a thing as sexual intercourse; they’d be unable to effectively resist a man’s advances due to not knowing what it was he wanted from her. Another aspect of the origin of these laws was that in those days a woman had little or no hope of making a rape charge stick if she couldn’t show she’d been beaten into submission: she had to have bruises. The benevolent lawmakers decided to exempt young girls from this requirement by saying that sex was by definition rape, if the girl was under a cirtain age.

333

Here is the original link and since a lot of people are having trouble accessing it, here is a larger portion of the original news article.

Original Article
Teens have right to have sex, lawyer argues

Here a followup link with a partial quote by the Judge in the case.

Judge rules teen should be tried in assault case

334

:smiley:

335

My statement was based in part to Wang-ka’s ‘suggestion’, that the children were reasonable, the boy’s parents were reasonable…but the girl’s father refused to allow the sex act to continue, even if the teens were practicing safe sex.

This father wasn’t concerned about the health of this daughter, but how his interpretation of scripture would veiw his daughter’s sexual activity.

So yes, the parent’s refusal to help the teens be safe, is a choice not to avail himself of the means to prevent the things the Wang-ka fears having to pay for.

No argument here, and here i go with that horse again…if are afraid of your kids getting pregnant or a STD, then why would you place them in an environment filled with troubled teens, some of which really are dangerous? Some of which have real issues which sex and who may be ill?

The teens are having sex, no one has yet suggested that placing them in a state institution, will prevent them from having sex, or for that matter even more ‘unsafe’ sex.

So again, what’s the point, except to place the burden of rasing Wang-Ka’s grandchild or covering her STD’s on the rest of us…

336

C’mon Wang-Ka you’re the expert here, is this normal behaviour? What the hell’s going in those kid’s homes? Are you not the least bit concerned about the cause of this behaviour?

Sure, it’s easy to say that the kids are just ‘bad’ and maybe so, but does this teen deserve to be on the streets now?

What Justice is served, how is this teen protected from having sex, when as you know one commoditity a teen has on their street is their sexualty.

I ask again, what’s the point of this when the result is going to be increased risk of sexual activity?

Has no one even bothered to figure out why these 14 years are so **into and experienced ** in sex? What are they running away from…?

Protecting minors by arse.

337

Well, first of all, Holmes, in the hospitals, centers, and the one TYC center with which I am familiar, I will tell you that NO sex is going on, for the most part. These places are not ABOUT sex, and considering that sex is often part of the PROBLEM, and due to everyone IN there being a MINOR… sex is considered a non-necessary, non-negotiable kind of thing.

No sex.

Monitoring and so forth is pretty tight. Of course, you could argue that two persons of the same sex could theoretically go for a five minute quickie in a bathroom stall, or that occasionally, a bad staffer or guard commits a sex act with a minor, and you’d be right.

But considering that these incidents are under one percent of the norm, and that the system, as a rule, WORKS, despite its shortcomings, I would be forced to argue that it STILL beats the alternative. I am aware of one actual occasion where a guard did have sex with a resident. He was caught, and last I heard was warming a cell in Huntsville.

… and whether my reasoning is Scripture… or STDs… or babies… or psychological damage to my child… the situation really isn’t any different.

If I am responsible for a situation, then I need some control over that situation. If I am denied control, I cannot be responsible.

Oh, wait, yes I can. I can simply pay, pay, pay, in cash, tears, and blood, if my child (hell, even if YOUR child) chooses to disregard my wishes and my authority. And you seem to think this is right and good and sane.

As to the specific example in the OP, and elucidated above: sure, I’m curious. It could well be that the parents are nuts, or even criminal. If this is the case, well, there are LAWS about that sort of thing, yes? Established procedures? Criminal penalties? Deterrents?

Even if you think there shouldn’t be.

But, then, you have made no argument about laws to restrict and deter and compel the PARENTS. This, despite the fact that most parents are perfectly reasonable human beings.

But, for some reason, you are dead screaming set AGAINST any laws that would have any similar effect on children. Even if those laws would be subject to parental approval. Even if the children in question have flatly refused any other form of authority. Even though most kids would never fall subject to these laws, because they would never violate them (or, if they did, the situation would never get as far as the courtroom, due to normal parental safeguards and authority).

No, no, no, no, no. Can’t have any laws restricting teen sex under any circumstances, no, no, no, no, no, and parents should simply deal with that, and if you’re the parent who has to deal with a kid like this, well, you’re just a filthy failure, you’re fucked, you deserve whatever happens to you.

I can’t say I agree with that sort of outlook.

338

Actually, the teen pregnancy problem was but ONE of the reasons that we, as parents, stated that we would support such a law in the absence of other mechanisms designed to assist parents with children that WOULD not, and COULD not be restrained with any other mechanism.

Also, all of us who said that. ALSO stated that we believed that the ways in which this law were currently being enforced needed to be changed to NOT cause the children to be charged with a crime, but instead, to merely provide parents with a way to control, should the child not mind in any other way.

At any rate, all of the other reasons parents tend to approve of these laws, keeps getting overshadowed by the secondary “teen pregnancy” (and all of its accompanying arguments) debate.

There are many other reasons that parents would wish for some help in preventing their children from boffing whom, when and how often they wanted to.

Including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, teen pregnancy, STDs (including AIDS), the emotional trauma that comes from the attachments brought about by sexual relationships (sheesh WE have a hard enough time with that as adults), the distraction such relationships have on school, family, sports just to name a few.

And other more personal family reasons such as religious choices, depending upon the family.

Teen pregnancy isn’t the ONLY, (not even the most important issue here), it’s just such an obvious one that all other considerations seem to have taken a back seat by comparison.

As to “the burden of proof is upon us”…

Why? We never claimed that these laws DID lower teen pregnancy.

What we DID say was that it was a mechanism by which a parent, HAVING EXHAUSTED ALL OTHER OPTIONS (you guys seem to keep missing that part), can turn in order to rein in their “determined to boff” teen. PERIOD.

Then, when asked WHY we don’t want our teens having sex, one of the reasons we gave, AMONG OTHERS, was that of teen pregnancy.

The Con side was the one who leapt to the conclusion that we had decided that this sort of law prevented teen pregnancies.

There IS a distinction between what we actually said, and the statement of “teen pregnancies will be lowered by this law” that you’re attributing to us.

339

quote:

The “child molesters will use this law to blackmail boinking underaged teens” statement.

Whether or not I think that the law is, or is not actually being practiced has NO bearing on what a silly and farfetched idea YOU have that IF it were to be put into effect…

(Which WAS my question by the way, I asked you why you thought that, NOT whether or not it was actually being done).

At any rate, you didn’t seem to have understood my question. I’ll ask it again.

Why do you think such an outlandish, farfetched thing would happen, (yes, IF this law were to actually be used), regarding the child molester takes pics and blackmails teens having sex with each other?

Again that, and other statements of yours, have the tone of you having a very personal agenda against the law.

Others, even Mr2001’s silliness isn’t so over the top ridiculous.

My question wasn’t “this law is so widespread” but why do YOU think such a silly thing would happen if it ever were to become widespread.

It’s incredibly illogical.

340

CanvasShoes, while I acknowledge your determination in ignoring everything you have read, this will be the last time I answer this specific point.

Wang-Ka has admitted that he knows of ZERO other cases in which teens were convicted of sex crimes for consensual sex with someone their own age. Therefore, we are debating the hypothetical situation in which this law becomes widespread and enforced.

And what law are we talking about?

A law which criminalizes ALL consensual sexual contact between teens. Not just intercourse - any sexual contact.

And does this law care about the parents? No. It says nothing about the parents. It does exactly this: criminalizes ALL consensual sexual contact between teens.

And does this law care about last resorts? No. It says nothing about last resorts. It does exactly this: criminalizes ALL consensual sexual contact between teens.

Would malicious and dangerous people use such a law to their own advantage? Of course they would. Would someone take pictures and use blackmail? Why not? You are creating a climate of fear and distrust, in which kids are turned into criminals, and you don’t think that in this vile swamp of depravity you have created that malicious people will take advantage? Of course they will. You don’t think that by turning kids into criminals you set them up for being harmed? Of course you do. In fact, it is completely illogical to believe that making perhaps a majority of teens into sex criminals who could face serious punishment if reported would do anything BUT cause immense harm.
Let me ask you a question: If this law became widespread and enforced, why WOULDN’T malicious people abuse it? Why WOULDN’T third parties with no guardianship over the teens abuse the law?

Canvasshoes, you say you are a parent, but you display a disturbing and bestial callousness towards possible harm to teenagers.

Are you simply relying on everyone being a good person? If so, you are being dangerously naive. If not, you are being fiendishly barbaric.

But at this point, I think it is safe to ignore your shameful opinion. Everyone else in this thread has already agreed that at most nobody but a guardian of either teen should be able to press charges under this law.

Wang-Ka has already said that he believed the law would be abused if any neighbor could report the teens across the street (incidentally, are you that neighbor?).

In other words, you are the last person who still holds the odious opinion that consensual sexual contact of any kind between teens should be criminalized and anyone should be able to turn them in.