Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because all it would take would be for the parents of the girl to file a report to have charges brought.
From one of the news stories.
Bringing charges would be entirely within the parents rights as well - since the behavior IS an act chargeable with second degree assault.
All other assaults fall within the category of assault of the second degree. Essentially, that means that a second degree assault occurs any time that a harmful touching occurs, excluding situations involving death, permanent or protracted injury, disfigurement, or loss or impairment of any body part or organ. (Maryland Criminal Code, Section 3-201) This definition is very broad. It could be applied to any sort of harmful or offensive touching or touching that a person knows would be unwelcome to the recipient.
To prove that he is guilty the prosecutor would need to establish the act ("offensive touching"), and the intent - that he knew it was unwelcome (the fact he had to be "dared" to do it doesn't help him).
His only defense would be that he was mentally incapable of forming intent, or that he thought it would be welcome.
I don't like his chances. That being said, as a juvenile he would not be named or have a record "searchable" at any point in the future even if he was successfully prosecuted. The likely resolution is a plea bargain, but you better believe playgrounds just got safer for teen girls in Baltimore.
I'd just like to point out that all the people screeching for this 13 year old "child's" head (scare quotes theirs) would be screeching for the head of anyone who had any sexual contact with a 17 year old girl, because she's just a child. Thank you.
Because all it would take would be for the parents of the girl to file a report to have charges brought.
Or a no tolerance policy (one of my biggest issues with schools) which treats all accused to the harshest of penalties instead of on a case by case basis. The fear of being sued by parents over every little perceived slight or infraction (accidental or not) has brought us to this point in time.
Bringing charges would be entirely within the parents rights as well - since the behavior IS an act chargeable with second degree assault.
All other assaults fall within the category of assault of the second degree. Essentially, that means that a second degree assault occurs any time that a harmful touching occurs, excluding situations involving death, permanent or protracted injury, disfigurement, or loss or impairment of any body part or organ. (Maryland Criminal Code, Section 3-201) This definition is very broad. It could be applied to any sort of harmful or offensive touching or touching that a person knows would be unwelcome to the recipient.
To prove that he is guilty the prosecutor would need to establish the act ("offensive touching"), and the intent - that he knew it was unwelcome (the fact he had to be "dared" to do it doesn't help him).
His only defense would be that he was mentally incapable of forming intent, or that he thought it would be welcome.
I don't like his chances. That being said, as a juvenile he would not be named or have a record "searchable" at any point in the future even if he was successfully prosecuted. The likely resolution is a plea bargain, but you better believe playgrounds just got safer for teen girls in Baltimore.
I'm not going to make any predictions about the outcome of this case but I will say that given the facts in the OP, I think treating it as a criminal offense is serious overkill.
In todays society it's NEVER truly expunged. It will be in his school records FOREVER since the police are involved. I'd also bet should any person make an accusation of any kind of sexual misconduct at any point in the future this will resurface with a "see,see, he was a sex offender back when he was 13.
Some of the responses to this KID's actions are way,way,way overboard and I guarantee would not be the same responses if this boy were your child.
I think the appropriate punishment would be along the lines of a serious apology and allowing the girl to tell the boy either face to face or in writing how this incident made her feel. I would also add some detention where the boy would be required to read some detailed information on the effects of unwanted sexual advances/contact so he knows that it was not the specific act of kissing that was wrong but how/when/where it happened was...
To be fair, it would have been expunged due to be charged as a juvenile. Upon the boy turning 18, the file is shut. That means, it would have been forgotten about and not on his record. However, with his parents or whoever did the story on him, it could cause problems that the sealed case would not.
As for why the charges were pressed is anyone's guess. Revenge, parents thinking the school wasn't taking the case seriously, parents wanting to make an example, etc. These are all possibilities. Because all we know is that the charges were filed. That context opens up a Pandora's box of options and most aren't the truth. For all we know, the school didn't take it seriously and the parents didn't want Junior to get off on it.
Or a no tolerance policy (one of my biggest issues with schools) which treats all accused to the harshest of penalties instead of on a case by case basis. The fear of being sued by parents over every little perceived slight or infraction (accidental or not) has brought us to this point in time.
Part of the problem is that punishments weren't handled equally even given a situation. I could do the same act as a star football player and guess who gets the stiffer penalty? I don't have a problem with this part of zero tolerance. What I do have a problem with is the no fight back part. People have said through out the thread the girl should have kicked him or slapped him. The sad part is if she would have done it she would got in trouble, NOT THE BOY.
To be fair, it would have been expunged due to be charged as a juvenile. Upon the boy turning 18, the file is shut. That means, it would have been forgotten about and not on his record. However, with his parents or whoever did the story on him, it could cause problems that the sealed case would not.
As for why the charges were pressed is anyone's guess. Revenge, parents thinking the school wasn't taking the case seriously, parents wanting to make an example, etc. These are all possibilities. Because all we know is that the charges were filed. That context opens up a Pandora's box of options and most aren't the truth. For all we know, the school didn't take it seriously and the parents didn't want Junior to get off on it.
Let me tell you a little (true) story. When I was this kids age I had a neighborhood kid who always ran his mouth insulting other kids, he especially like to do so and then run into his house, open the front window and berate those of us who waited outside to teach him a lesson.
One day while we walked to the bus stop I'd had enough and picked up this little twit and tossed him in the (calm, lazy) river we had to walk next to. He obviously got soaked.
Next thing I know I'm standing in front of the assistant principal AND a cop whom his mother had called being told I was to be suspended and an assault report was being filed.
Fast forward 30 years and I had a background check done on me by a workers comp insurance company prior to a hearing. Imagine my SHOCK that this actually came up.
So much for buried and sealed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
Part of the problem is that punishments weren't handled equally even given a situation. I could do the same act as a star football player and guess who gets the stiffer penalty? I don't have a problem with this part of zero tolerance. What I do have a problem with is the no fight back part. People have said through out the thread the girl should have kicked him or slapped him. The sad part is if she would have done it she would got in trouble, NOT THE BOY.
The problem is there is no,none,zippo room for common sense or for any extenuating circumstances with zero tolerance nor with the punishment.
That's not right nor fair for any involved.
Just like one kid back where I used to live drove his pickup to school and while in class there was a routine lockdown where vehicles in the parking lot were searched. They found a knife in his truck and suspended him pending expulsion. Problem was, his dad had used his truck the day before for hunting and left HIS knife in it.
No tolerance really works doesn't it?
Yet everyone knows if the roles were reversed all the women certainly wouldn't be saying the girl should be arrested and charged with assault. You think to many mothers would freak out if their 13 year old son came back saying some 14 year old girl grabbed him and kissed him? I think not.
What if it was a boy forcing a kiss and grabbing aggressively another boy? Would you consider that assault?
What if an adult male in your office grabbed a woman and forced her into an aggressive open mouth kiss? Is that assault?
While I don't think he should have gotten such a severe punishment, what he did is a crime. People can not and do not go around forcibly kissing others. It has not ever been tolerated.
How about the times my aunt or grandmother forcibly grabbed me and kissed me when I was a child? Could I have pressed charges?
They forced their tongues down your throat and grabbed and held you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
