Teen Mother Ruled A Sex Offender

KUTV ^ | 12/31/2005

[gissella]

Let me get this straight...you think it would be helpful and protect our society, if we list both these children as sex offenders???? Ruin there entire lives because, what they did was not "legal or sensible".

I've got a sneaking suspision that you have never had children.

[Iron Eagle]

What a hilarity it is to read the posts of all these so-called "conservatives."

The result of the Court is EXACTLY the right judicial result. Judges do not make law -- nor do they have the authority to find the "spirit of the law." They must enforce the law -- as written -- even if imperfect. It is the job of the legislature to make -- or to change law. (Re-inventing its spirit).

Statutory rape laws are "strict liability" laws. Persons 12 and under in Utah cannot consent to sexual relations -- ever. That the point of the law. (Now -- you can go to the state house and argue the wisdom of that law all you want -- but having a judge enforce the law as written is exactly the result for which conservatives have asked.)

All these silly posts about exceptions, solutions, common sense, etc., expose a profound ignorance of how the law does and should work -- as well as the true separation of the legislative and judicial branches. Many of these same posters probably spend time on other threads decrying activist courts and judges who impose their view of the law.

This reminds me of a famous case in Virginia where a woman sued her former boyfriend for giving her a sexually transmitted disease. The Supreme Court through the case out on appeal. Why? Because the woman was a willing participant in premarital sex -- which at the time -- was against the law in the Commonwealth. (1992). Under Virginia law, she could not maintain an action for civil damages when she was engaged in criminal activity.

Crazy result? NO. Crazy law? YES. From a judicial standpoint, however, the Court did its job -- and nothing more.

In this case -- the Court did its job -- and nothing more.

If the Utah Legislature wants to re-craft the law and get it "right," have at it. That is not what judges do. They apply the law.

[gissella]

So right you are Iron Eagle. We MUST change our laws and differentiate between sex offenders and teenage lovers.

A registry that is littered with the names and faces of harmless teenagers convicted of consensual sex, is meaningless at the most, while devastating to thousands of teens caught up in this sex offender hysteria.

[No Blue States]

"What a hilarity it is to read the posts of all these so-called "conservatives."

What a hilarity it is listening to someone try to explain this act of insanity through reason, or make excuses on technicalities or legality.

If this is "courts doing their job" ...they have failed miserably.

This sob needs to die, painfully. eom

[Iron Eagle]

"What a hilarity it is listening to someone try to explain this act of insanity through reason, or make excuses on technicalities or legality."

Laws and reason are all we have. Fortunately, we don't run our society on base emotions and and intellectual dishonesty.

Like I said -- that Court's job is to follow the law -- not make it. The legislature's job is to make the law.

If you can't understand that the Court did it's job, then you have an extraordinary misperception of the job of the Courts. Or, you simply believe that the Court should disregard the laws on cases with which you disagree. While that might make for an interesting judicial philosophy -- you can probably see the inherent problem with Courts picking and choosing which laws to enforce, and against whom. (Not to mention the trouble of not being able to get a hold of you for guidance on which laws to disregard!) LOL

The law says she is a sex offender because she is guilty of statutory rape. You don't like the law. Move to Utah and petition the legislature to change either or both laws. However, please don't ask the Court to change the statutory law -- it's simply not the Court's job.

This is not rocket science.

[No Blue States]

This was not the thread I thought it was when I replied.

I thought it was the one about the man stomping a kid to death.

Oops.

The law was followed there too probably, but I still want him to die for it.

[Protagoras]

You can only hope shame or stigma will come back.

They have. It was official when you made that comment.

[fortunecookie]

In addition to having a child while still a child, she now is labeled as a sex offender the rest of her life. Common sense in both matters have flown out the window.

I agree. How can a minor, by definition, be a sex offender? At least in the circumstances here, two kids apparently mutually involved, as opposed to a teen luring a preschooler (eww). Minors are such because they haven't reached a 'full' capacity. (Arguably, some adults never do.) Are their classmates who also experiment with sex without getting pregnant also labelled thusly? Where does it end? She is awfully young to be labelled that way, it will follow both of these kids all their lives. Let me guess, their schools offered tacit encouragement vis a vis their sex-ed (not the same sex ed it was years ago) and clinic 'services', i.e. birth control. They are being penalized for what their classmates who use birth control or abort are being tacitly encouraged to do. It seems their real crime was getting pregnant and actually having the baby. Shame on those judges.

[Xenalyte]

How come the baby gets Dad's name if Dad and Mom aren't married? Legally, shouldn't he have Mom's name?

[Xenalyte]

I know! People get upset when correct names are applied to things - situations or people.

Here's a hint: those words exist in our language for a reason.

The stigma is what you make it. The word is descriptive and correct.

[Xenalyte]

Well, and bear in mind I'm assuming here, your kid didn't have a baby at 12, ergo she wasn't a little whore, so there's no reason to have called her one.

[Xenalyte]

Well, yours is not the most coherent post I've read today, but from it I glean that you caught your son and the neighbor's daughter "do[ing] it" when he was five.

So please correct me if I'm wrong, but your son was HAVING SEX when he was five.

If I am correct in my reading, the fact that you laughed at your five-year-old son having sex appalls me.

[Xenalyte]

You know nothing about what that girl has already gone through in the last 9 months.

I seem to recall that LJ has children, so she would likely have been pregnant, so that would in fact give her GREAT insight into what that girl "has already gone through in the last 9 months."

You . . . won't ever, lift one single solitary finger to help her along now that she's had the child.

Why should LJ or anyone help? The "parents" made a choice, and they must bear the consequences.

You'll never know what she'll go through in the years ahead.

See point 1 above.

You hold her to such a high standard, and by the same token, I'm calling you the lowest of the low.

Oh, that unspeakably high standard of not getting knocked up before you get the ring. How DOES anyone manage to live up to such a lofty ideal?

I don't know the girl, but likely she isn't a Freeper with a false face.

If her extracurricular activities are any indication, likely "Mommy" doesn't read well and wouldn't be very comfortable here.

I wonder if she'd get the Spirit after reading your posts?

Shame leads people in different directions. Who's to say that a little public humiliation for "Mommy" here might not steer other girls away from following her stellar example?

[Xenalyte]

Sluts would have been a better term.

That's gonna leave a mark. (I like it.)

[Xenalyte]

As far as what I caled the kids, if they are not, in your book, whores....how bad do they have to be to deserve that title?

I would quibble with your word choice.

Whores get paid.

Sluts give it away free, which would seem to be the case here, as Sir Francis has noted.

[little jeremiah]

Wow! I'd forgotten about this thread and some of the - ahem - exchanges!

I don't have time for FR lately (we're moving shortly, long distance) but I sneak on when I have a couple of minutes.

There's nothing like Truth with a capital T, and Reality with a capital R, to make a man out of a boy. Or a woman out of a girl.

What did I read the other day? Something like if you don't invite Reality in at the door, Reality will kick it in sooner or later (my paraphrase).

[OneWingedShark]

We need to be able to use discretion when we apply the law.

Well, discretion is the better part of valor.

[madison10]

With the mother labeled a sex offender does this mean the baby will be removed by social services?

Would wager that is their intent. Social services makes the Gestapo look like a bunch of petty thieves.

[ketelone]

This is ridiculously stupid.

Theyre BOTH minors. Whats happened has happened.

But good grief.... who has sex at 12? I dont even think I knew what went where at that age... yikes.