Six-year-old sex offender...

[Canarr]

I'm putting this here under Clash of Cultures - because in cases like this, I just don't get the US.

http://m.host.madison.com/mobile/art...cc4c03286.html

Summary: a six-year-old is being charged with first-degree sexual assault for playing doctor with a five-year-old. Oh, and they're considering having him labelled a sexual predator. forbidding him from having unsupervised contact with children.

How can anyone look at this case and think, "Yeah, that kinda makes sense."? How can that D.A. still have a job?

I don't get it. I just don't.

[Andara Bledin]

I honestly believe that every person who comes across a situation such as the one described here who believes even slightly that the children should be charged with any form of sexual assault need to undergo a serious psych evaluation and possibly charged with some crime against children for putting them through this sort of thing.

^-.-^

[Lace Neil Singer]

I thought all children did this. Does that make all children sex offenders?

[telecom_goddess]

Most children do this.....it's a way to satisfy curiosity and has been going on since humankind began. WTF is wrong with people? Charging anyone with anything in this is as asinine as it gets.

[Glados]

This is a prime example of a prosecutor going overboard and labeling a child as a future danger to society. I have no doubt that those involved will consider this a win in the fight against crime. When will these people figure out that not all future criminal behaviors can be predicted and prevented? We cannot criminalize childhood behaviors because it MIGHT lead to future crimes.

This makes me sick because the charges will remain with this kid for life. Unless he gets a ruling to expunge his record he will forever be unable to work with children. I just had to get my clearances to work with children and found out that they do consider information from childhood. Children can be convicted of child abuse for hitting a sibling and have it stay on there record. What is wrong with the people who think up these stupid laws?

[PepperElf]

I agree... Not only will this be with the child for life.... this will shape how the child thinks and views himself.

I cannot imaging growing up constantly being reminded, "You're a sex offender" and turning out mentally healthy.



I mean it's fucking NORMAL to be interested in your body, and the body of people your own age. A year or two difference at that age isn't much... if anything a year or two means more when you're in your teens and going through puberty. Then after that's over, wider age ranges are normal to sample from etc.


What I fear though, is that this child is going to grow up thinking "I'm a molester!" and eventually kill himself over the mental hangups.

[Canarr]

Yeah... at least, as soon as he's old enough to understand what that even means.

What gets me is the Judge's position on this:

Judge Leineweber refused to dismiss the petitions, saying the relevant part of the sexual assault allegation is the mother’s observations.

The boy needed only to have penetrated the girl and known she was under a certain age, he wrote, adding, “Even the most immature 6-year-old could appreciate these two concepts.”

Now, I don't remember being six all too clearly; but I'm pretty sure that the concepts of "penetration" and "underage sex" were years beyond me. Okay, ignorance of the law is not a defense; but c'mon, how the hell is that kid supposed to even *understand* that?

Small anecdote from German law: any kid under the age of 14 cannot be charged with a crime, under any circumstances. This doesn't influence civil liability (kids or their parents may still be sued for damages), but as long as kids are 13 or below, the law can't touch them.

We've had some problems with juvenile delinquency over the last few years, and maybe 14 is too high in today's society, but I greatly appreciate the fact that at least children are beyond the reach of petty, braind-dead sociopaths like the D.A. and Judge in this case.

[Glados]

I also disliked the definition of sexual intercourse used in this state (it was in one of the articles) ..."is defined as penetration, however slight, of any part of another person's body"

The broad definition allows for absurd charges if the contact is unwelcome.

SARCASM: I wonder if I stick my finger in someone's ear in that state if they can arrest me for sexual assault based on that definition?

[RecoveringKinkoid]

"State law defines sexual intercourse, in part, as “intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body.”

So, I've had sexual intercourse with my dental hygienist. And my dentist. Both of whom are women, and both of whom at some point have had their fingers in my mouth.

And neither of these bitches have sent me flowers. I feel so used.

I wonder if that's how the hygienist got knocked up? I could be a dad, ya'll.

[Greenday]

Intrusion implies you don't consent. The reason why this case fits the legal term is because the girl was too young to give consent in any US state. That's also the reason why claiming a dentist did it to you is absurd.

Whether what happened is right or not, eh. It is normal to explore sexuality as soon as you figure out that there is an opposite sex.

[insertNameHere]

Ok,I could understand if the boy was 14 and the girl was 6.... He should know better. But 6 and 5, really? It is a sad state of things how just about everyone is labeled as a sexual predator for stuff that should be non-issue. Keep in mind, If i stumble with X feet of school zone while drunk, take a piss against a dumpster with NO children around for 1000ft.... and a cop walks up, I can now be labeled as a sex offender. I mean seriously, sure it wrong to piss in public but to go so far as to label someone a sex offender is over the fucking top and they really need to work on trying to get evidence on the drug dealers and murders who get sweetheart deals compared to average joe taking a piss or little kid playing doctor

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Intrusion implies you don't consent. The reason why this case fits the legal term is because the girl was too young to give consent in any US state. That's also the reason why claiming a dentist did it to you is absurd.

Whether what happened is right or not, eh. It is normal to explore sexuality as soon as you figure out that there is an opposite sex.

I know claiming a dentist did it to me is absurd. However, it's no more absurd than saying a six year old did it to a five year old. That's my entire point.

A five year old cannot give consent. Neither can a six year old. By the logic presented in this finding, I'd be interested what would happen if the same six year old were coerced into fingering someone of the legal age. Is he still a sex offender? If they're going to argue he knew what he was doing, how then are they going to prosecute the person he fingered as a sex offender?

This whole thing is so absurd I don't even know how to debate it intelligently.

[Boozy]

Intrusion implies you don't consent. The reason why this case fits the legal term is because the girl was too young to give consent in any US state. That's also the reason why claiming a dentist did it to you is absurd.

No. The law is defining sexual intercourse, not sexual assault. Thus you can have intrusion with consent.

Laws don't "imply" things. They are written to explicitly state them.

That's why I will bet everything I have that what the article says is not what state law really says. I suspect that the "intrusion into any part of the body" must be made by a penis, or if not a penis, the intrusion must be into the vaginal area or anus.

This is how sex is defined in the vast majority of North American legal districts.

[NateSean]

Most children do this.....it's a way to satisfy curiosity and has been going on since humankind began. WTF is wrong with people? Charging anyone with anything in this is as asinine as it gets.

Hell, when I was in Kindergarten I would run up to girls and kiss them on the cheek. I considered myself fortunate when I heard about a kid in the same siuation almost seven years later being charged with sexual harrassment.

Now I truly weep for the future if this occurs. And no, I'd like to honestly think that this is not how the entire US legal system works and that it is in fact an isolated incident.

Then again, look at the town I currently live in and suddenly it's easy to see about where we took a turn towards this time.

[jackfaire]

SARCASM: I wonder if I stick my finger in someone's ear in that state if they can arrest me for sexual assault based on that definition?

My little brother is a registered sex offender because the law states that him fingering a girl who was 4 years younger than him rather than 3 when he was a teenager is statutory rape. They equate it with him actually having sex with her.