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.
Good for judge! Im glad to see they cracking down on this! I have no issue with the decision.
If you think it is OK for someone to pull their pants down and sit on your face, stay far from me and I will be calling the police too.
there is absolutely no thought behind this opinion. if they would have sentenced the kids to death would that be ok because they are "cracking down on this."
i believe the idea of the sex offender registry is for women to know who might rape them or parents to know who may sexually assault their children. if thats not an issue with the accused person than i dont think they belong on the registry.
I am really surprised that it will not be removed from their records once they hit 18.
Regardless, this act is absolutely disgusting and should definitely result in consquences. I did not think they even had qualifications for "sex offender" registry for minors.
Yes...I think if someone is tea bagging a passed out friend then it is sexual assault. There is someone's genitals being placed unwanted on another person's body.
The definition of sexual assault is "illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent". IMO, what you describe above as a "college prank" absolutely falls under that catagory. Just because some neanderthals think it is a prank or a good joke does not mean it is not illeagle. If you go off that assumption then fraternity and sorority hazing should not be illeagle either (and yes, I was in a sorority and got hazed).
What if this was your daughter...or any female for that matter. Would you then not see it as a prank and sexual assault because it was a male perpetrating a female vs. a male perpetrating a male or would you still want to high five your buddies after completing the ultimate prank?
Where should we draw the line, that it is OK as long as the perpetrater is just joking, means no harm or though it was just horseplay or a prank?
The problem is the definition when the legal basis for it and the consequences for committing it are apparently carved in stone with no room for the introduction of reason or common sense. Are there times such an act is sexual assault, yes. Are there times it isn't, yes.
The only reason I went down the road of other "horseplay/prank" things that happen was to simply show that these are quite common things and are openly posted and talked about. I seriously doubt that if you polled most of the people doing them, they would think they are committing a sex crime. The fact that they may technically be breaking the law, doesn't mean that the law is correct.
You mentioned hazing and in many ways hazing can have a sexual undertone (or in some cases be quite overt), yet it is governed under the auspices of "hazing" and people engaged in hazing are not charged with sex crimes and placed on the offender registry. I suppose you could use the argument that the person being hazed consented, but it is easy enough to counter that the consent was coerced.
I have to admit you made me think with the boy doing it to a girl instead of another boy. My intitial reaction was to concede the point. However, even then, intent needs to play a role and intent can only be determined through discovery. If the case was such that it was two boys doing it to two girls, my initial reaction would have most likely been different, whether that's right or wrong, I don't know.
What I do know is that the blanket application of a feel good law that allows no room for the inclusion of intent, reason or common sense that results in a lifelong punishment is wrong. The judges in the case even admitted that there was no sexual intent here, but they felt the law tied their hands.
I am really surprised that it will not be removed from their records once they hit 18.
Regardless, this act is absolutely disgusting and should definitely result in consquences. I did not think they even had qualifications for "sex offender" registry for minors.
From what I've read there is precedent to apply Megan's Law to offenders as young as 13. However, 13 year olds are not subject to lifelong registry on the offenders list per the one case covered under current precedent.
I see absolutely nothing sexual about it. At all. I assume they did it because they thought it was disgusting to stick their but in someone's face.
Again, think about the consequences of having to register as a sex offender for life. Let's say 20 years from now one of these boys moves in to your neighborhood. Can you honestly say you think the community needs to be informed about this since they are a registered sex offender the same way a convicted pedophile would made known?
I see absolutely nothing sexual about it. At all. I assume they did it because they thought it was disgusting to stick their but in someone's face.
Again, think about the consequences of having to register as a sex offender for life. Let's say 20 years from now one of these boys moves in to your neighborhood. Can you honestly say you think the community needs to be informed about this since they are a registered sex offender the same way a convicted pedophile would made known?
I can't rep you again, but thanks for being at least one other voice of reason.
Even worse than 20 years from now still needing to inform the neighbors, is thinking about what happens when these boys have kids of their own.
They won't EVER pass a background check without extensive explanation and certain things like youth sports, school volunteer, scouting, etc. they will be outright banned from. Sorry Johnny, daddy can't coach little league because he's a sex offender. Sorry Johnny, your friends parents won't let him come over because daddy's a sex offender.
So, because they stuck their butt in another kids face when they were 14 they will be forever treated as second class citizens. I can't believe some people still don't see how insane this sentence is.
I completely agree with you that judges should have discression, but honestly without knowing the history and background of these particular boys I can not say if the sentence is too harsh or not, and in juvenile cases we will never know because most of the details will be sealed.
As far as hazing goes, nothing I had to do was sexual in nature. That being said, there have been plenty of cases where people have been charged with crimes for various hazing activities and I believe I remember 1 case where a bunch of girls were charged with sexual battery based on hazing freshman soccer players. It does happen, and I would bet that most of the frat guys or sorority girls out there think they are doing nothing wring because it was done to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The problem is the definition when the legal basis for it and the consequences for committing it are apparently carved in stone with no room for the introduction of reason or common sense. Are there times such an act is sexual assault, yes. Are there times it isn't, yes.
The only reason I went down the road of other "horseplay/prank" things that happen was to simply show that these are quite common things and are openly posted and talked about. I seriously doubt that if you polled most of the people doing them, they would think they are committing a sex crime. The fact that they may technically be breaking the law, doesn't mean that the law is correct.
You mentioned hazing and in many ways hazing can have a sexual undertone (or in some cases be quite overt), yet it is governed under the auspices of "hazing" and people engaged in hazing are not charged with sex crimes and placed on the offender registry. I suppose you could use the argument that the person being hazed consented, but it is easy enough to counter that the consent was coerced.
I have to admit you made me think with the boy doing it to a girl instead of another boy. My intitial reaction was to concede the point. However, even then, intent needs to play a role and intent can only be determined through discovery. If the case was such that it was two boys doing it to two girls, my initial reaction would have most likely been different, whether that's right or wrong, I don't know.
What I do know is that the blanket application of a feel good law that allows no room for the inclusion of intent, reason or common sense that results in a lifelong punishment is wrong. The judges in the case even admitted that there was no sexual intent here, but they felt the law tied their hands.
Certainly an interesting discussion on what people consider "sexual". What does everyone think of the following:
1. Hold someone down and lick their face.
2. Hold someone down and rub your armpit in their face.
3. Hold someone down and give them a "purple nurple".
4. Flick your towel at someone and hit their naked behind in the locker room.
5. Throw a bucket of water at someone's genital area.
Certainly it can be argued the "intent" of any of these actions could be to humiliate the other person. And certainly some of these are aimed at the "sexual" parts of the body.
Certainly an interesting discussion on what people consider "sexual". What does everyone think of the following:
1. Hold someone down and lick their face.
2. Hold someone down and rub your armpit in their face.
3. Hold someone down and give them a "purple nurple".
4. Flick your towel at someone and hit their naked behind in the locker room.
5. Throw a bucket of water at someone's genital area.
Certainly it can be argued the "intent" of any of these actions could be to humiliate the other person. And certainly some of these are aimed at the "sexual" parts of the body.
1. Never done it, think it's disgusting, but not necessarily sexual.
2. Have done it and had it done to me, can be nasty, but not sexual.
3. Have done it and had it done to me, not necessarily sexual.
4. Have done it and had it done to me, not sexual.
5. Had it done to me (more of cold water in the shower), not sexual.
So, the licking could possibly be sexual, but it would be based on intent and the circumstance. Same thing with the nipple twisting. In my experience none of the times I perpetrated these acts or was the victim would I have considered them a sex crime.
Sadly, based on the apparent legal definitions we live under in the state, I would venture all but the armpit to the face could be construed as a sex crime and punishable as such.
I think all the talk of what is sexual vs. what is not is irrelevant.
Rape is not even considered a sexual act... it's a VIOLENT act ~ all about power and control.
What it comes down to is: are these a boys a danger to society...?
No, probably not.
Yes, they are sick little f*cks who I wouldn't want my kids to be friends with, but probably not a threat to common strangers ~ just people unfortunate enough to call them "friends".
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.
