Two NJ teens now considered "sex offenders" for 'horseplay' incident. (legally, boys)

[AnnaNomus]

One of two things need to happen. Either these laws need to be clearly written, with every possible scenario defined, every possible loophole and snag thought out and planned for, OR judges need to be able to use their own common sense and apply it accordingly.

I think this was a sick, disgusting thing to do to someone, and I do think the sex offender label is warranted. If they had done that to my kid, they better pray the police caught them before I did. That is not a joke or a prank or "boys will be boys" by any means. Farting in someone's face is a disgusting prank, but this went way beyond that.

However, being labeled a sex offender for life is ridiculous. I thought that juvenile law was designed to rehabilitate and give kids a second chance. Even kids who have killed have walked out of jail at 18, given a new identity and are free to go on with their lives. These kids need to know how degrading, disgusting and wrong what they did was, but how is it going to help anyone for them to have to suffer the rest of their lives? Is it going to help society for these boys to grow into men who can't find a stable job, home, or have stable relationships because of their sex offender status? A lifelong sex offender status will just make them lifelong criminals, because basically, that's what it is doing--labeling them as criminals for the rest of their life for something stupid they did at age 14.

I also think that it is taking time and energy away from the real sex offenders. I think it is crazy how they would lump a 17 year old having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, or sexting, or these two stupid 14 year olds putting their little nasty butts in someone's face in with rapists, sexual predators, men who rape babies. What exactly is the purpose of the sex offender registry? Punishment? To inform the public? If it is for the public's information, who do I need to be informed about, the teenager having consensual sex with his teenage girlfriend, or the man who's forcing himself on six year olds or dragging girls into an alley? Do I need to be aware of this boy who put his butt in someone's face? Is he a threat to public safety? Bottom line is it is useless. A registry is not going to keep a REAL sex offender from offending.

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by Mattie

I didn't say that it was typical. The boys' lawyers called it horseplay, not me. If a girl had been involved, it would not have fit that description, no matter how they tried to spin it.

I do think the boys should be punished. I don't think the sex abuse registry is the right way to do that.

I take offense with your position that a depraved assault against a pre-teen girl rises to the degree of sexual assault but against a pre-teen boy, this is a little boy, 12 years old, somehow it just isn't that big a deal.

Are our boys somehow less deserving of protection? These are 14 year old boys doing this, thats a huge difference in physical maturity at that age.
Is it all right to humiliate boys?
Is it all right to assault boys?
Is it all right to degrade boys?

Do boys somehow ask for this abuse?


Please explain it to me?

Why some jerk sticking his ass in somebodys face is somehow acceptable because it happens to be a boys face not a girls face.

[manderly6]

My guess is if the older kids had been girls and done this to the boys things would have gone down much differently.

[West of Encino]

Originally Posted by manderly6

My guess is if the older kids had been girls and done this to the boys things would have gone down much differently.

We live in a matriarchy society where males suffer all the consequences while females are let off 99.9% of the time.

[Momma_bear]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, which I state plainly because sometimes I am intentionally sarcastic. Here, however I just respectfully disagree with you.

The congress drafts legislation and yes, it becomes the law of the land. The courts interpret the law and set the precendence for how it is applied. Yes, judges absolutely unequivocally share responsibility for the bad application of law upon our society.

There is no such thing as bad application of the law. The law either applies or it doesn't. If you wind up with bad outcomes it is the job of the legislature to fix the law.

[h886]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

I take offense with your position that a depraved assault against a pre-teen girl rises to the degree of sexual assault but against a pre-teen boy, this is a little boy, 12 years old, somehow it just isn't that big a deal.

Are our boys somehow less deserving of protection? These are 14 year old boys doing this, thats a huge difference in physical maturity at that age.
Is it all right to humiliate boys?
Is it all right to assault boys?
Is it all right to degrade boys?

Do boys somehow ask for this abuse?

Please explain it to me?

Why some jerk sticking his ass in somebodys face is somehow acceptable because it happens to be a boys face not a girls face.

I agree with this. I think it's a shame that so many are quick to defend the perpetrators (while I think maybe life on the registry goes too far, I would absolutely support them being on it for the next 10 years and on probation after that if they kept their noses clean), while forgetting what a lasting effect this may have on the victim. What some call "horseplay" this poor little boy may have considered a sexual assault. He had buttocks, anus and sexual organs smashed into his face. According to the report, the penis made contact with his lips. This may have very real and lasting consequences for him and it may require years of help before he can move past it. This is not funny. It is not a game. It is not "boys will be boys" or "horseplay." This is a horrible act committed to humiliate and degrade while a younger, smaller boy was held down in front of others. The fact that anyone would consider it a sexual assault against girls and just fooling around when committed against a boy is disappointing. Our boys are deserving of equal protection.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by manderly6

The flip side of "what if someone did this to your child" is "what if your child did this to someone". Do you think it would be approprate that your child would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives?

I personally thought about this question and it is partially why I am so adamant that the punishment of being on the offender list is wrong. If my son had done this, I would be very disappointed, he would be punished, but he does NOT deserve to be labeled a sex offender for life over it.

Originally Posted by manderly6

Let's look at two examples and compare the punishment for each one:

1. Exactly what happened.
2. The boys were held down, dirty toilet water was dumped on their heads and they were kicked a few times in the gut (not causing serious injury, but very painful).

I'm guessing #2 would not be considered a sexual assualt and the older boys would not have to live with that for the rest of their lives. Now which one does everyone think is worse?

The irony is had they held the other boys down and physically beat the crap out of them their sentence would have been far lighter. Had they held them down and urinated on them, they would not have received the same sentence.

I can personally think of a laundry list of things that I consider far worse that would have resulted in much lighter sentences. The punishment needs to fit the crime, this punishment does not fit this crime.

Originally Posted by Workin_Hard

They are not being punished for what they were thinking as they did the act, but are being punished for the act itself. The Thought Police have no place in a defense.

They comitted the act. They are punished for the act. Having been punished to a degree great enough to discourage them from committing the act again, the punishment is appropriate. Where's the problem?

What if it was two men on the street who did such a thing to your 12 year old daughter? Would you feel so kindly towards them?

CONTEXT and INTENT are irrelevant. And if it wasn't meant to be sexual, how did a penis ever make an appearance or get into any part of the act?

CONTEXT and INTENT are always relevant and the whole reason we have a trial. We determine innocence or guilt within the context and intent of what happened.

What's the difference between manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, first, second and third degree murder? The answer, context and intent. While the crime in each case was someone killing someone else, the punishment and severity of that crime is determined by context and intent.

Again, you are making the leap that others made saying what if this was two men on the street who did it to a 12 year old girl? The problem is that's a straw man argument. The context and intent are completely different, hence making it a different crime.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by Momma_bear

From a legal standpoint there is a legal definition of a sex offender and these boys fit the LEGAL definition. This is a problem with how the law is written and not a problem with the judge, who has the job of applying the law as written. Judges do not get to choose when applying the law is "careless". The law is what it is and must be applied accordingly.

I am not a big fan of laws like Megan's law because of the dangers of having something like this happen.

It doesn't matter whether we think that these kids sound like they are sex offenders. What matters is the law and what they did fits the definition of sex offender under the law in NJ. Judges do not have the ability to throw out the law when they do not like the outcome.

The judges in this case hid behind the strict legal definition, while simultaneously stating they didn't believe there was any sexual intent on the part of the boys.

There is precedent in other cases that the judges could have chosen not to apply the Megan's Law provisions, but these judges felt as if they had no choice. The law is always a gray area and open to wide interpretation, different judges see things differently. These judges felt they had no choice, while others saw a way around the strict definitions.

Also, there is precedent that Megan's Law can be applied to offenders as young as 13, but the precedent also precludes a 13 year old being placed on the sex offender registry for life. The judge in that case obviously used some discretion. I have also heard that the 13 year old had committed an act far more heinous than the one these two boys did. If a 13 year old committing an actual sexual assault isn't on the list, why is it appropriate for these two 14 year olds to be on the list?

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

I take offense with your position that a depraved assault against a pre-teen girl rises to the degree of sexual assault but against a pre-teen boy, this is a little boy, 12 years old, somehow it just isn't that big a deal.

Are our boys somehow less deserving of protection? These are 14 year old boys doing this, thats a huge difference in physical maturity at that age.
Is it all right to humiliate boys?
Is it all right to assault boys?
Is it all right to degrade boys?

Do boys somehow ask for this abuse?


Please explain it to me?

Why some jerk sticking his ass in somebodys face is somehow acceptable because it happens to be a boys face not a girls face.

It all goes back to context and intent. There are times that two boys could do this to a girl and it would not equal a sexual assault. There are other times that it would. If we take the exact situation of this case and replace the boy with a girl, it would not rise to the level of sexual assault, IMO simply because the victim was a girl.

Given, I think that it would be much harder to prove there wasn't a sexual component, but it remains possible for two boys to do the same thing to a girl and it not be sexual. As much as we want society to be gender, racial and religiously blind, the fact remains it isn't and I think most would have never even given a second thought if the boys had done this to a girl and simply felt they got what they deserved. I don't share that opinion, but I do feel the burden of proof would be much higher.

[subrail]

Oh well. Don't put your nasty ass on someones face. The op is making it seem like doing this is ok because frathouses do this. Frathouses also pick up hookers and sniff coke. Is that ok for 14 year olds to do?