Teen Mother Ruled A Sex Offender

KUTV ^ | 12/31/2005

[Clint Williams]

SALT LAKE CITY The Utah Court of Appeals is upholding a judge's refusal to dismiss a sexual abuse allegation against a 13-year-old Ogden girl who became pregnant by her 12-year-old boyfriend.

The appeals court on Friday ruled that the law's ``rigorous protections'' for younger minors include protecting them from each other.

The decision leaves the teens in the position of each being both a victim and a perpetrator in the same offense.

[SeeRushToldU_So]

Oh brother.........

[MadManDan]

I agree, I'd do the same if I had a daughter. But remember, it's not just the boys fault. Girls like sex just the same as guys, they're not all innocent victims either.

[Caramelgal]

Agreed. I thought a sex offender was defined as an adult preying on and or forcing him or her self on a minor and this doesn’t seem to fit that definition.

This is a case of two misguided, unsupervised minors engaging in sex with each other. Perhaps there should be a stigma for having a child out of wedlock but labeling her as a sex offender is not the answer. Our culture overly sexualizes minors without being prepared to deal with the consequences. They and their families should be made liable to support this child. They are much too young themselves for the responsibility of rearing a child together but the picture of the two of them speaks volumes. Criminalizing this will not help them or their child.

[trubluolyguy]

"little whores"?

---

Yes. I don't believe I stuttered. Little Whores.

[Valpal1]

I can't imagine that the purpose of this prosecution was for any other reason than to make it possible for social services to control every aspect of these kids lives until they are 18, possibly longer (like until the baby is 18).

After all, the 13 year old mother is now a convicted sex offender and she will do everything they tell her to or her baby gets taken away.

In 5 years she is going to hate social services with a serious powerful passion. She won't be the first to give up their child to free themselves of big brother scrutiny and intervention.

[JoJo Gunn]

I know you didn't stutter.

You're first rate sewage.

[COEXERJ145]

How about holding the parents of BOTH little whores responsible?

How about you stop acting like you can walk on water.

[sweetliberty]

This is such nonsense. You wouldn't believe the number of "abuse" reports that CPS gets based on a boy touching a girl's breast. Given that standard, practically every boy over the age of 12 is a "sex offender."

[pepperdog]

There is no common sense left in the law. This is so sad for both the kids and the baby. She should have been sent away, the baby adopted out and she and the young man go on with their lives, hopefully having learned a very important lesson. Instead they will both be labeled with an criminal identity that will haunt them forever. Their child will probably end up without either a mother or a father or both and the state will be in charge of the whole fiasco. Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

[DariusBane]

My take on this is that the only way to protect yourself from state intrusion is to be completely financially self sufficient, and out of the public schools. ANY contact with government tentacles whether it be for health care, education, welfare, the town dog catcher, state trooper, can be hazardous to the well being of your family. We live in a society were we should fear the government, and there are people on this board that support government intervention in the name of law and order.

[no-s]

to protect yourself from state intrusion is to be completely financially self sufficient, and out of the public schools.

Ah, but that's suspicious anti-social behavior, worthy of official scrutiny...

[DariusBane]

NEWS FLASH: Pastor Fred Phelps posts on FreeRepublic.

[no-s]

from the appeals court: The Legislature is well within its rights to come down solidly against sexual activity with children of such tender years - anywhere, anytime, any place, and by anyone. . .

Another abuse of law. The government has no rights, only authority and power. To construct such laws and enforce them in this manner is an abuse of the authority entrusted to the government.

[Caramelgal]

While it would seem abhorrent that persons so young would be having sex it is not really so abnormal historically.

It wasn’t all that long ago that women this young, 12 or 13, were married off and raising families. Granted, life expectancy then was much shorter and it was more a matter of practicality and that children grew to adulthood much earlier given life’s harsh realities then. Hormones are still powerful and hard to resists, especially if there is not a strong adult and moral presence in their life to tell them otherwise.

Today society sexualizes young people more than ever, putting great emphasis on sex as a normal part of growing up and a right of passage. It can also be said that young people are reaching puberty at a younger age than ever before. Some say that hormones injected into the foods we eat are to blame. I don’t know, but anecdotally it doesn’t’ seem too far-fetched.

[DariusBane]

lol, but if I have nothing to hide, then I have nothing to fear. Right?

[little jeremiah]

There seems to be a grave misunderstanding here. Some people think it is wrong or not conservative or Phelps-like to make judgements about peoples' behaviors.

But, you are also making judgements - about someone's comments. What's the difference?

Hint: None. Except that trublu's comment makes sense, as it is based on observable behavior (reprehensible behavior, worthy of condemnation), and your self-righteous condemnation of his condemnation is borne of the asinine philosophy of so-called moral relativism - "There is Nothing Wrong Except Saying Something Is Wrong."

[Nowhere Man]

This is legal insanity. 19th Century Feminist agitation resulted in the raising the age of consent far above the age when youth became sexually mature, to preserve the "purity of women." (there were other legal protections) While we would hope and should strive to educate youth not to engage in early and irresponsible sexual act ivies with each other, youth in every age, with or without society approval have done it.

In an earlier age the girl might have been sent off "to visit a relative" and the baby placed out; or a marriage might have been arranged; far more sensible and humane solutions than these absurd and self righteous prosecutions.

I do have to agree. I would want to see both parties assume responsibilities for raising a family unless the decision is to place the baby out for adoption but I'm going on the assumption that they will keep and raise the baby. Both families will have to pitch in and help, I want to keep te public assistance footprint to a minimum although it should be used as a last resort. They should first finish school, if they can't go to school, homeschool them or find some other means and educate them to learn some marketable skills. Also what should be included is religion, give them a good, moral ground to stand on. Age of consent and other such age limits I kind of find to be kind of lacking, personally, I have found some 11 year olds with a lot of maturity whereas I have seen 20, 30 and even 40 year olds that act like kids. I know "in the old days," (to use a well used phrase), many people did marry at 12, 13 or 14, heck, some Biblical scholars put Mary's age at 15 or 16.

This reminds me a little bit of one case in Nebraska where one guy who was 21 married a 13 year old girl after he got her pregnant by going to Kansas to where it is legal to do so. The Nebraska Attorney General wants to prosecute the boy/man (I know he is 22 now and she is 14, but I'll be 40 this year (2006) so 22 seems very young to me. B-)) for statutory rape. Thr boy wants to do right, get a job and/or some education to enable him to do the right thing and take care of his family but if Nebraska prosecutes, he could go to jail. I know I might get some knickers in a knot here but I think what Nebraska is doing is wrong, the attorney general is just looking for another notch on his gun. Sure, they could be following the letter of the law here but I do take one of my high school buddy's sayings to heart, "the law is not sacrosanct (sacred)." In this case, if both sides and families are willing to do the right thing, then let them alone, it will not do any good for the baby and young mother if the father is in the clink and they will most likely end up on the dole with the taxpayer supporting them. So what I would propose is this: aslong as they do the right thing, they should be left alone but if the father would do something like beat the mother or baby, then you can turn the attorney general loose with the original charges along with the additional abuse charges.

I'm a firm believer in redemption as practiced in the Bible to where Jesus said, "he without sin, cast the first stone" and where he added, "go and sin no more." Let's give the people in both these cases to redeem themselves and assume responsibilty.

Now where the law is meant to be used in cases like this to where let's say there is a 22 year old man trolling for 14 year old girls by hanging outside junior high schools for carnal purposes. In that case, throw the book at them. We need to be able to use descretion when we apply the law.

Just a morality ping as well.

[Tax-chick]

Alot of laws are an abuse of the authority entrusted to government. Most of them are justified by the rationale that "the state" or "society" has an interest that overrides the individual's judgment of his own interest.

For instance, these children couldn't legally decide to quit school and get jobs. Their parents could be prosecuted for not enforcing education, and employers would be prosecuted for hiring them.

[DariusBane]

Ah, now we come to the root of the issue. Is the behavior of the youngsters wrong and reprehensible? Yes, clearly. Is it the states business to get involved? No. One of the best ways to push young people into abortions or suicide is to stigmatize the people involved. You cannot demand an end to abortions on one hand, yet refuse to support people who have made bad choices as children.

[varon]

What next, registering 5 - 6 - 7 year olds caught playing "doctor" as sex offenders also?