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…
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?
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:
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 :rolleyes:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
Consistant basis? If they’re lucky :p. 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.
Not sure if I phrased my question wrong there but what I meant to ask is what exactly are your reasons?
My apologies, misunderstanding.
Adult potentional without sexual experiences? What kind of adult exactly…?
RU481, abortion, adoption.
Bullshit
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.
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?
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.
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%.
Consistant basis? If they’re lucky :p. 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.
Not sure if I phrased my question wrong there but what I meant to ask is what exactly are your reasons?
My apologies, misunderstanding.
Adult potentional without sexual experiences? What kind of adult exactly…?
RU481, abortion, adoption.
Bullshit
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.
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?
And I’m sure nobody will ever remember this anymore, what with all the media attention, everyone oughta forget in a day or two.
Thank you Night, I’ve been trying to get this point out but you worded it excellently.
Another example of a great question, thank you.
I am a fourteen year old male, by the way.
I would also like to echo everything twl said, because I couldn’t come up with that on my own :D.
By the way, I mean no offense, if any of my replies come off as rude or shortsighted, I guess it’s just the nature of the questions I’m asking, apologies.
And herein lies the problem. Where is the father WHERE THE FUCK IS HE? I may be going out on a very short limb, but I’m willing to guess the whore’s mother is not widowed. If she is, I apologize, but gross generalisations aside, I’m willing to bet the bitch’s mother was never married to the father, or maybe they were 14 years ago, and he took off.
What the fuck is so hard about staying with a guy you make babies with? And even if your stud leaves you, what’s so hard about laying the law down to your kids when they go COMPLETELY out of control?
It’s at an all-time low? That’s great. (Couldn’t find your cite, by the way.)
But does that mean that all parents of teenagers should just relax and not worry any more about their kids breeding? That the risk is gone? I don’t think so.
Right, those exist as options, should the teens decide to take them. What if teen mommy-to-be/daddy-to-be says “No way you’re aborting/adopting out my baby,” then what? The adults involved then have to decide between pressuring the teens to give the baby up/abort (and oh, wouldn’t that make for a great guilt trip down the road), and having to deal with supporting a grandbaby too. I can see why parents are often none-too-thrilled about their teens having sex, for this reason alone.
(And of course, regarding the STD situation you mentioned, some are incurable.)
As for this case, I would wager that what happened was a frustrated mom who had a couple of teens tell her to basically screw off and challenge her to call the cops decided to call their bluff - maybe she thought the cops would just scare them some, or contact social services and help her out, or maybe she was just impulsive and didn’t think, in the heat of her anger. This is just a WAG, but I would bet that once the cops had a report of what was (under their legal definition) most likely a sex crime involving teens unable to legally give consent, they had to continue prosecuting it regardless of the parents’ wishes.
And adults are usually much more capable of being responsible for their offspring, (products of unexpected pregnancies or otherwise) and adults have usually finished their education (high school at least) and usually hold down full time jobs. Most 14-year-olds don’t hold down full-time jobs, and are usually not equpped to do so.
You want to take that risk? You want to assume that the (hypothetical) teenaged girl that you (hypothetically) impregnate will want to avail herself of any of these methods? What if, no matter how careful you both (hypothetically) are, she becomes pregnant anyway? And what if (hypothetically) she refuses aborton or adoption? You do know that you (the hypothetical father) are on the hook for supporting this (hypothetical) child, right?
It doesn’t matter how well you know this (hypothetical) girl, it doesn’t matter how thoroughly you discussed birth control beforehand, it doesn’t matter if you both agreed on a “game plan” in case she got pregnant. None of this matters, because she can change her mind at any time and there is nothing you can do to stop her. And if she goes against your wishes and keeps the baby, you are going to help pay for it. Are your parents, (and her parents) OK with this risk? Are you, (or any other 14-year-old you know) ready to be fully responsible for such a happening, (without getting your parents or the taxpayers to help you out)?
And you think you could do that? You think you could hold down a full-time job? You think that this (hypothetical) teenaged girl’s parents are a-OK with her having a child at age 14? (I don’t believe her parents can force her to have an abortion or force her to give up her baby for adoption.)
I’m not saying that there aren’t adults who are irresponsible when an “oopsie” pregnancy occurs, but the difference with them is that they are adults who legally can hold down fulltime jobs—they’ve finished school and have more employment opportunities. They usually are not living at home, being fully supported by their parents, and attending school full time. They don’t have parents who are legally obligated to support them.
Adults usually are far more independent than your average 14-year-old and are (usually) far more equipped to be responsible for their own actions.
Wow. I step out for twelve hours, and things get interesting.
Possibly. I dunno. But I bet the parents of your theoretical daughter and her new baby can certainly sue my ass off in civil court. I would call that “being held responsible.” And it is a hassle nobody needs.
When I spoke about “parity,” and “fairness,” I meant this: Not all fourteen year olds are created equal. Nevertheless, the law treats them as if they were. It’s parity, but it ain’t fair. But that’s the law, and as an alternative to simply letting all teeners screw their brains out unrestricted, I suspect it’s preferable.
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?
Well, no. Can’t say I’ve met too many people whose lives have been improved by jail. Then again, at least in Texas, when a juvenile offender commits a crime, his records are sealed at age eighteen. Clean slate. BUT… then again… I’m not sure minors should BE convicted of sex offenses. After all, legally speaking, they are children, and not competent, right?
…but there needs to be some alternative for parents who cannot control their teeners.
Well, actually, that’s three questions. The answers are, as follows:
(1) No.
(2) Huh?
(3) Well, because as a minor, I could not commit a sex crime. It has already been mentioned that “two teeners having consensual sex” is not a crime, at least not most places. It is not a good idea, and crimes may be committed in SEARCH of this sex (trespassing, sneaking in and out of windows and such)… but as far as guilt goes, I was guilty of disobeying my parents, being naughty, and suchlike, and I, for the most part, got away with it. I presume there’s some sort of statute of limitations on this.
However… if there had been further-reaching consequences from my actions, like a baby… the situation could have been remarkably different. I believe I already mentioned I was nowhere near as clever as I thought I was.
I might also point out… again… that MY parents DID have a grip on me, of sorts. When they grounded me, or imposed consequences, I sat tight and took my medicine. I didn’t want to escalate the situation by refusing to submit to parental authority. I would go so far as to say that MOST teeners are like this… willing to bow to parental authority, but not above getting sneaky when they can. While it ain’t the best solution, it’s certainly better than letting them all run wild and do as they please. At least when I was being sneaky, this necessarily involved an element of CAUTION, on all fronts involved…
…but, again… what do you do when they look at you and say, “No way?”
Yeah, quite right. Let’s get to that point.
Here in Texas, like I mentioned, the records are sealed the minute you turn 18. No one is ever going to know these kids are “sex offenders” when they try to get on with their lives after that age. Basically, the idea here seems to be to send them to juvie jail, since their parents can’t seem to control them.
It ain’t the charge I would choose, not if it were MY kid. But if I can’t control my kid… and refusing my authority is not a crime… then what the hell choice do I have? I don’t want my kid exposed to AIDS or other diseases. I don’t want my daughter knocked up, and I certainly don’t want to deal with my son’s determination to drown me in grandchildren (and lawsuits springing therof).
Given the option of simply grounding the little bastards… or, failing that, having them interned in a boot camp or treatment center… sure, I’d take that.
But treatment centers cost LOTS of money, and boot camps aren’t always available, and hell, half the time, the damn cops don’t even want to get involved in family squabbles!
…so if I have the legal option of having my child (and/or YOUR child, if he’s trying to have sex with MY child) arrested for a sex offense… and I’m out of options… and the records are sealed at age eighteen, anyway… well, pardon the hell out of me if I act to preserve my well-being and that of my offspring.
Sure. ALL discipline directed at teeners works this way. “Do as I say, or I will punish you, or have you punished.” If you wish to avoid “blackmail”, either don’t have sex… or be goddamn careful not to get caught, and don’t leave evidence or trigger any consequences! Hell, if you’re being THAT careful, who CARES if you’re having sex or not?
Quite so. I repeat: If you are so sneaky and careful that nobody knows you are having sex… and NO unwanted or awkward consequences arise from that sex… then, does it matter to the law or to society if you had sex or not? I think this works pretty well as an answer to the masturbation question, too…
Good points all. That would be painful for the parent as well as the child. Sometimes parents have to make hard choices like this, that affects them adversely too. Kind of like what I was saying in an earlier thread (albeit about younger children). You (the parent) have to be willing to be inconvenienced in order to instill good behaviour in the child. For instance, if you’re in a grocery store?.. And your cart is full and you’re just about to check out? Hell, 4 years olds KNOW this. They KNOW to “strike when the iron is hot”. They may be little, but they’re not dumb.
So, this is the time they choose to throw that temper tantrum to get the candy or whatever.
Mom/dad has two or three options here (jr. is banking on the “I get what I want” one). Option one, Paddle the tantrum-throwing brats little bottom. Not an option for a good percentage of parents today, a lot of people hate spanking.
Option two, bribe the kid with what he is screaming for anyway. It has the payoff of shutting the kid up immediately, allowing the parent to check out and go home.
Option three, leave the cart, haul the little brat out to the car and go home. Unfortunately, most parents are too lazy to take option 3, because it doesn’t work “instantly”. Jr. squalls and screams and kicks the back of the seat all the way home. And then, the next time you go to the store, you have to tell jr. “nope, you were a brat last time, this time you’re staying home with daddy/big sis etc”.
But this takes a few times to sink in. And it’s MISERABLE for both parent and child.
The situation of the national embarrassment lasting long into these children’s school careers(which I doubt will really happen, today’s news wraps tomorrow’s garbage), is such a painful situation for both parent and child, though on a larger, more “springeresque” scale of course.
But, you know what? Them’s the consequences of your actions sometimes.
[quote]
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. Everyone 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.
Regarding your last sentence. “…parents handling it their own way with the courts backing it up….” In and ideal world, this would be great. It would be nice if we could slap the little brats like those in the article in “juvie” for delinquency etc (and no, NOT because they were ‘merely’ having sex, for their obvious “challenging authority” and bordering on threatening behaviour), if the kids didn’t stick to an imposed grounding/curfew etc. Unfortunately, the courts DON’T back up parents on that. If the kids run away, the cops will bring them back, but that’s it, at least in my state. There are no real consequences (other than a ride in a cop car). And the kid is then free to slip right back out the window in search of trouble again.
But anyway, in most cases you’re right, in an ideal world the parents SHOULD take responsibility. But when you’re dealing with young adults (who are in many cases as big as you, or in the case of my daughter BIGGER than me by the time she was 13 or so), unless they are willing to listen to reason and “mind” based on their own good conscience etc. there’s nothing the parent can do.
The parent doesn’t really have any recourse when it goes south. What you’ve got with a severely delinquent kid, is someone who’s near enough adult size (and mobility) so that it’s not physically possible to control them, should they decide “you can’t make me”. The parent can impose economic consequences on them. Most 14 years olds don’t have cars and licenses, so without money, they’re not going to get very far in “doing what I want, when I want”.
But as in this case, where the child showed not only no embarrassment or “normal” behavior, but they were basically challenging the mom to call the cops etc., in other words, they were telling her “you can’t make me,” that seems a pretty clear indication that if they’re not already out of control, they’re quickly on their way. And there are many things a determined delinquent can do to get the money they need to do the things that they want. Unfortunately, most of them are illegal, if not dangerous, and could land the kid in even MORE hot water than just a simple roll in the hay.
Yes, on the outside it would look as if the parents, if they were “reduced” to having to resort to help from the police and the courts were being “horrible parents”. But like the mother of the toddler who is willing to inconvenience herself and walk away from a nearly completed grocery trip to teach jr. a valuable lesson in self-control, these parents are willing, even at the expense of the embarrassment to themselves to say, in effect:
“I need help, I may have made mistakes in my parenting that led to this behaviour/attitude in my child, but rather than care about how *I * look, or how embarrassed I might be, I’m going to do the best thing I know how to do for my child, and if that entails admitting my past mistakes/bad parenting, I’m willing to do that if it will “save” my child from the consequences of his future bad behaviour”.
You may not be ready to say that this is one of those extreme cases, but apparently, the parents DID think it was. Perhaps the parents were too premature, and thought that “just locking them up” might be the “easy way out”. Not all parents are “good” and not all kids are “bad”.
And as you sort of mention here, we don’t really have all the facts, good ole newspapers always edit what they think the people should know.
One more thought. For those of you that seem to be thinking that this is mainly a “moral” issue on the part of the adults trying to keep kids from having sex. It may very well be, especially among religious groups.
But even among those groups, the bottom line for these parents (I’m talking average, “normal” parents, not abusive, negligent etc ones), is that of trying to spare their kids what they went through. It’s NOT that we want to prevent them from “having fun”.
I KNOW how it feels, I’ve been there, I remember the thinking……
1.) “THEY” don’t want us to have any fun
2.) “THEY” are jealous because we’re young and sexy and they’re too old for it (LMAO by the way, sex is 9000% better as an adult than as a child, at least for women)
3.) “THEY” just want us to be just like “THEM”
And so on.
None of the above statements are true (regardless of how it might “feel” to you as a “deprived” teen). “THEY” remember exactly what it was like, and they also remember the hassles, heartaches and mistakes they made because of it, and “they’re” prime motivation is to spare their kids the suckiness that they experienced. Most decent parents hope/long for things to be better for their kids than it was for them.
And trying to save them from the complications, hassles emotions and foibles of sex and all it entails is just one of the things we hope to protect them from.
Sometimes, in order to be successful, or to have a chance to be successful, it needs to be something like what’s happened in these two kids’ case.
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 ).
Well, there are really two (or three) separate issues here.
First…
Should kids be allowed to have sex with each other.
Second…
Should kids, like those in the article, be charged with crimes after being caught.
Third, how does the actions of the kids in the article figure into the above two questions.
Based only on the skimpy reporting that we have to go by, I’d say that there is more going on with these two than merely having sex. If the article is to be believed. That “more going on” is REALLY what is causing the unrepentant duo all their grief at this point.
As bobkitty said earlier (paraphrased), if the kids had reacted in a mature manner in the first place, the “to be charged, or NOT to be charged” probably wouldn’t be an issue in the first place.
Now, onto your question. If I had been behaving, at 14, in a similar manner to these two, then the answer is YES. I would hope that my parents would have cared enough to do everything possible, should I have appeared to have been on the road to delinquency (as evidenced by their challenging, threatening behaviour, NOT by their merely having been caught having sex).
Regarding merely having had sex? Yes, I wish my parents had “caught me out” and been stricter. I’d not have been so stupidly boy crazy that I married practically the first guy after high school.
I’d have gone to college instead of waiting until I was nearly 30. I’d have embarked on a “real” career at a MUCH earlier age. And I could have given MY children a much better life.
Not sure if you honestly don’t understand, or if you’re just throwing a strawman in here, but…
WHERE are you getting “years in prison” from??? Likely these two will get probation, perhaps a bit of time (30 day program?) in juvie and hopefully some followup “house arrest” type monitoring.
Are you possibly confusing sex crime with sex offender as in registered sex offenders/pedophiles?
Again, if the charges even stick, even if they spend a little time in juvie, their records will be expunged when they’re 18. And unless they screwed someone’s 4 year old in addition to getting it on with each other, there’s not going to BE any “years in prison”.
Again, there are two issues in the arrest of these kids here. They didn’t have the police called on them because they were caught having sex.
It was their challenge, and threatening behaviour that did that for them. If they’d done as bobkitty described, chances are, there would have been some heartache, possibly recriminations etc., but I’d wager no police would have been called and the courts would never have been called into it.
It was their behaviour upon being caught that did that, NOT the sex itself.
