Jailing minors for sleeping with each other? Is this sane?

[quatoria]

Just came across this story, after hearing it reported on the radio. What the FUCK. Is this sane? Is this JUST? If convicted, that kid will have to register on sexual offender rolls. His life will be ruined. This is psychotic.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/aug03/163688.asp

[DennyA]

Reading the description of these two, they should just sterilize the both of them and then let 'em go at it. They both sound like total losers.

Jailing them would certainly be ironic. It'd at least eliminate the heterosexual sex.

[MikeJ]

I have no problem with jailing everyone who has sex under 16. But to be fair they should make it retroactive and put away half (most?) of the adult population...

[Jason McCullough]

This should be amusing.

[Machfive]

I have no problem with jailing everyone who has sex under 16. But to be fair they should make it retroactive and put away half (most?) of the adult population...

Damn straight.

While we're at it, why don't we tattoo a big "S" on their foreheads in red ink?

Ooooh! Ooooh! We can have government issued chastity belts given to everyone over the age of 8, and anyone caught without theirs on before a God-blessed, heterosexual marraige will be defenestrated!

Man, this would solve a lot of problems.

Whoa. That was so sarcastic, I can't remember if I'm being serious or not. :D

[Anders Hallin]

But they're minors, how could they even be charged? In Sweden you have to be at least 15 for that. And in a case such as that they would probably be promptly sent to social services who'd make sure they knew everything there is to know about sex. Done and done.

[Machfive]

But they're minors, how could they even be charged? In Sweden you have to be at least 15 for that. And in a case such as that they would probably be promptly sent to social services who'd make sure they knew everything there is to know about sex. Done and done.

More proof America is perhaps one of the most backward countries in the world when it comes to sex.

Yes, let's shield our kids from a fact of life that has the potential to sow dire consequences.

And while we're at it, let's not tell them "Touching fire hurts" and "pointy objects can kill you."

I blame the Puritans. We were seeded with Britains rejects.

Though, it did work lovely for Australia.

[Rodge]

Bah. Problems like this would be solved if everyone just followed the "half age plus seven" rule. Take your age in years, halve it, add seven and don't have sex with anyone whose age is under the result.

[Machfive]

Bah. Problems like this would be solved if everyone just followed the "half age plus seven" rule. Take your age in years, halve it, add seven and don't have sex with anyone whose age is under the result.

Holy shit. And I thought I was the only man who preached the "Dirty Old Man" ratio.

And people wonder why I always say I'm looking for 18.5 to 28 year old women....

[Ben Sones]

Trying a child on the same grounds on which you'd try an adult for statutory rape is absurd. That law was clearly not meant to be address these circumstances. The case will probably get thrown out.

[Anders Hallin]

Trying a child on the same grounds on which you'd try an adult for statutory rape is absurd. That law was clearly not meant to be address these circumstances. It'll probably get thrown out.
But the girl has already pleaded guilty, isn't it too late then?

[Ben Sones]

Not if the boy is still fighting it. The issue is not whether or not the boy and girl had sex, or planned to--they both admit that they did--but whether the law in question is applicable. If the court finds that it isn't, then I'd imagine that they would have to reverse the ruling against the girl as well, whether she pled guilty or not.

Then again, I'm no lawyer, and I'm not sure that the boy is even fighting the ruling on those grounds. That article makes it sound like his lawyer is basing his case on the childrens' constitutional right to privacy. Which seems odd, given the ruling. A child molester being tried under that same law would not be able to tout privacy as a legitimate defense, as far as I know.

[awdougherty]

Of course, technically speaking, there is no constitutional right to privacy. That's something that's more read into our rights than something explicity established.

[Jason McCullough]

Don't make Fightin' Stephen Breyer (tm) come to your house.

[Anders Hallin]

Of course, technically speaking, there is no constitutional right to privacy. That's something that's more read into our rights than something explicity established.
I'm guessing because it was so fucking obvious.

[Ben Sones]

Of course, technically speaking, there is no constitutional right to privacy. That's something that's more read into our rights than something explicity established.

That doesn't make it any less valid. The Bill of Rights was never meant to be an all-inclusive list of individual rights. Thus, the Ninth Amendment:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

There is a general reservation of fundamental rights to the people. Thus some rights are not stated clearly in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has found that the right to privacy appears in the Constitution in several pre-existing forms, however. Certain amendments assume a fundamental right to privacy, without which those amendments would be meaningless. For example, the police are not allowed to search your home or papers without a warrant, which is a direct protection of privacy. Some justices argued that since there is no right to privacy directly enumerated in the Constitution, such a right does not exist. I disagree (as did the judicial majority), however. This is exactly the sort of argument that the ninth Amendment was designed to counter.

[Dirt]

The worst thing anyone can tell a minor is that they have rights under the Constitution just like an adult.

[awdougherty]

Of course, technically speaking, there is no constitutional right to privacy. That's something that's more read into our rights than something explicity established.
I'm guessing because it was so fucking obvious.

While I do believe people have a right to privacy, I don't think it's so obvious myself.

Personally, what I do feel makes the right to privacy less valid is the inconsistent nature of it. Celebrities don't have it because they are a public figure. So if your name is well known for some reason, people can do whatever they want? Helicopters with photographers using powerful zoom lenses have the right to see what pictures they can get. Wasn't this partially created to cut down on lawsuits? If so, seems like they got it backwards in terms of whose rights got protected.

Your right to privacy is revoked if you go back door on someone in the bedroom in the south?

In this case, the people involved are minors, which also can revoke your right to privacy as well. Personally, I do believe they should not be punished criminally for what they did (although I personally think 14 is a little bit too young to start humping).

Now the ninth amendment is definitely there to establish the fact that we have some room for interpretation, but let's look at this quote from the story:



Don Linke, the boy's attorney, argues that children's privacy rights include the right to make "important decisions."

"One of those types of decisions is whether to engage in sexual relations," says Linke, who will argue his position today at Milwaukee County Children's Court.


First of all, children's privacy rights? Second of all, the right to make important decisions? Where is this coming from? Since their minors, their rights are automatically reduced anyway so I feel the lawyer is making a mistake hanging his argument on this point. Second, he's asking for interpretations on an inferred right that's extremely gray in everyday life for adults. At some point, it gets to be such a mess for due process and precedent that you have to step back and strongly re-evaluate what we're interpreting into the bill of rights. Again, I'm not saying it's not implied, but it's so gray that it's becoming unwieldy for anyone who might use it as a basis for something.

Now for the 4th amendment (whichever is the illegal search and seizure), I personally don't believe a person's privacy was expressly the reason behind this amendment. But that's different.

Now I'm not a lawyer, so it should be pretty easy to make me look stupid, but I do think the right to privacy should exist but needs a real second thought before being whipped out as a legal trump card.

[Jakub]

I love this.

The court system is now raising kids. Fuck TV, never mind parenting - the kids don't want to listen to mommy and daddy, better show them a lesson. And both suffer from the same "issues" like ADD and parental abandonment... so uh... never mind. Too stupid for words.

[quatoria]

I love this.

The court system is now raising kids. Fuck TV, never mind parenting - the kids don't want to listen to mommy and daddy, better show them a lesson. And both suffer from the same "issues" like ADD and parental abandonment... so uh... never mind. Too stupid for words.

It gets even better. The parents sent both their kids to the court system. The father of the boy sent him to court because he "wasn't obeying rules", and the parents of the girl sent her to court for violation of probation for "staying out without permission." Is it any fucking wonder that the kids are screwed up, when their parents have so utterly abdicated any sense of responsibility for raising them?

[Jason McCullough]

Personally, what I do feel makes the right to privacy less valid is the inconsistent nature of it. Celebrities don't have it because they are a public figure. So if your name is well known for some reason, people can do whatever they want? Helicopters with photographers using powerful zoom lenses have the right to see what pictures they can get. Wasn't this partially created to cut down on lawsuits? If so, seems like they got it backwards in terms of whose rights got protected.

The right is to have your privacy unfettered by the *government*; what private parties can do (photographers, etc.) is another discussion entirely.

[awdougherty]

Personally, what I do feel makes the right to privacy less valid is the inconsistent nature of it. Celebrities don't have it because they are a public figure. So if your name is well known for some reason, people can do whatever they want? Helicopters with photographers using powerful zoom lenses have the right to see what pictures they can get. Wasn't this partially created to cut down on lawsuits? If so, seems like they got it backwards in terms of whose rights got protected.

The right is to have your privacy unfettered by the *government*; what private parties can do (photographers, etc.) is another discussion entirely.

This is true. But I think that distinction doesn't uncloud the idea of privacy, nor the right to it. Where does it exist, who does it exist between. I guess I'm curious if the people here think the right to privacy is even pertinent in this case?

I will agree that is sounds like the parents are scumbags to some degree, the kids have obvious problems, and in my opinion, the courts shouldn't be involved like this.

[Brandon Clements]

I'm still wondering how two 14 year old's sexually assaulted each other.

[Jason McCullough]

When *I* was 14 I wouldn't have been telling them they had problems.

[bago]

I guess I'm a dirty old man now...

Damn your seven rule!

[Peter Frazier]

Poor little darlings having to go to court.... maybe her mother should have just quietly backed out of the room because teenage pregnancy is like, a lot less awful than a court appearance.
Let me just say that if I were to walk into my house and find a 14 year old punk in bed with my daughter, the court case would more likely be about what I did to him.
Though of course, my daughter won't be doing that sort of thing. Of course.

[Brandon Clements]

Poor little darlings having to go to court.... maybe her mother should have just quietly backed out of the room because teenage pregnancy is like, a lot less awful than a court appearance.
Let me just say that if I were to walk into my house and find a 14 year old punk in bed with my daughter, the court case would more likely be about what I did to him.
Though of course, my daughter won't be doing that sort of thing. Of course.
Let me say this: I agree with you; teenage pregancy is a Bad Thing (tm), and I have the (older) siblings to prove how hard a thing it is to overcome. I also would have beat the living shit out of this little punk. However, why the hell would you want to charge two 14 year old kids with sexual assault? I gotta agree with Jakub, this mother is using the legal system to discpline her child, when she should be doing it herself.

[Peter Frazier]

Sure- it's a ludicrous action because it seems to be the only law that could be applied to the situation.
Going beyond the finger pointing at the parents (and the lack of mentions of the girl's father), what would be a better option to deal with two 14 year olds who basically told their parents to piss off and let them have sex? From the background that these teens have, I'd say that they've had enough counselling and that that doesn't work.
Any other options?

[Brandon Clements]

I don't guess there are many. Where I'm at, there are some "Boot Camp" style deferment things, but those are mainly for semi-violent offences (theft, robbery, etc.). I do know that this seems like a lot of sound and fury, that probably isn't going to change much in their lives.

Also, that girl plead guilty to a lower degree of sexual assault. Did her mother press charges against her? If so, I wouldn't think the mother and daughter would have a good working relationship after that. I know that I (a pretty mild-mannered but hard partying kid around that age) didn't want to listen to my parents, and I thought that they were on my "side".

[Jason McCullough]

The mother can't press charges, as nothing happened to her; it's a "state" crime. Once referred, it's entirely up to the DA.

[bmulligan]

I somehow doubt these kids are 'troubled'. A label often used to create a 'victim' out of an accused defendant. Perhaps the Mother has just had enough of her child's erant behavior and this is the last straw to show her daughter that behavior has consequences. I know good parents who have had bad seeds, no matter what their upbringing.

Used to be that the kid would get shipped off to a nunnery, or sent to live with aunt emma on the farm. Now we get these things clogging our legal system and costing taxpayer money.