On 2006-05-31 15:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Even if the offender is only a few years older than the victim, and we have no reason to suggest this is the case, I still think they are accurately labeled as sex offenders for committing such crimes.
There are a whole lot of people to bone that are the same age as them or at least legal. If they had a hint of self-control, they could keep it in their pants until finding someone they can legally hump. If they cannot control themselves despite knowing that they're breaking the law, then why should we expect them to follow any other related laws? If they are 13 and have sex with an 11 year-old, as was suggested as being okay, would 8 or 9 be too young? What about 3 or 4?
You're suggesting that laws should be interpreted after the fact to the benefit of the criminal. Laws are laws to set rules for society, and people who break them are guilty. "
And youth is legally a mitigating factor and has been for over one-hundred years. Under the concept of juvenile justice, a minor, by definition cannot be a criminal and cannot be charged with a crime. They are considered a deliquent. There is no trial. There is a disposition. The intention is to intervene "on behalf of" the offender. The intervention is to be of a rehabilitative nature and not a punitive nature. The intervention should be the least restrictive possible and for the shortest possible duration. All these are written principles of juvenile justice dating from 1899. I guess our anscestors were more reasonable than we are now.
And what are you talking about with 8 or 9 and 3 or 4? Are you suggesting that if a 9 year old touches an 8 year old, he/she should be charged with a crime? Are you nuts? Kids playing doctor are not criminals.
And furthermore, the difference in age makes a huge difference. If two 14 year olds have sex, who is the criminal? The older by default? That makes no sense. Many States have "Romeo and Juliet" laws that take the age difference thing into account.
I understand a line has to be drawn, but the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 is dubious at best. There is no magical moment on a person's 18th birthday that makes them more capable of decision making. We just have to draw a line somewhere and that is where it is drawn.
I realize that in the past 20 years we have undermined the concept of juvenile justice by allowing minors to be tried as adults and I am opposed to this. They may be able to tell the difference between right and wrong, but they are not old enough to be able to manage their defense in an adult court. And let's not even discuss a 'jury of their peers!'
Ignorant people who rant about the 'law is the law' and take the human component out of it are the reason for draconian mandatory sentencing laws that take the judgement factor away from the judge. Our prisons are filled with minor offenders that in the past would have been fine after a good scare and a slap on the wrist. It's stupid.
It is also way off-topic.
[ This Message was edited by: AtomicAnt on 2006-05-31 20:26 ][ This Message was edited by: AtomicAnt on 2006-05-31 20:28 ]
