Two NJ teens now considered "sex offenders" for 'horseplay' incident. (game, appropriate)
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.
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3b, states:
An actor is guilty of criminal sexual contact if he commits an act of sexual contact with the victim under any of the circumstances set forth in section 2C:14-2 c.(1) through (4).
Criminal sexual contact is a crime of the fourth degree.
The term "sexual contact" is defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1d as:
an intentional touching by the victim or actor, either directly or through clothing, of the victim's or actor's intimate parts for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the victim or sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the actor. Sexual contact of the actor with himself must be in view of the victim whom the actor knows to be present.
"Intimate parts" is defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1e as "sexual organs, genital area, anal area, inner thigh, groin, buttock or breast of a person."
Neither the sexual assault statute nor the criminal sexual contact statute specifies the mental state that must be demonstrated in order to establish the defendant’s criminal intent.
-------
You keep talking about intent. It doesn't look to me like intent has to be established; only that the act met the legal definition of sexual contact. From reading the above, I don't see any way a judge could have interpreted the statute any other way. They applied the law as written. If people don't like that, rally to get the law changed.
I don't think they had any criminal intent at all. I think they were being morons and when I first read the OP, the revolting nature of what they did was so offensive to me that I didn't care if they had to register as sex offenders. After thinking about it, I'm conflicted about the lifelong ramifications of it.
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 have stated, several times now, that I think the boys should be punished. Charge them with assault, no problem. If there was no evidence of sexual gratification ( and the judges agree), then it should not result in the LIFELONG label of a sexual offender.
I happen to think this was gross, and the older boys were bullies. I don't think they should be written off by society for the rest of their lives. Just remember that when they hit the welfare line .
Last edited by JustJulia; 07-22-2011 at 09:02 AM..
Reason: Removed reference to deleted comment.
I have stated, several times now, that I think the boys should be punished. Charge them with assault, no problem. If there was no evidence of sexual gratification ( and the judges agree), then it should not result in the LIFELONG label of a sexual offender.
I happen to think this was gross, and the older boys were bullies. I don't think they should be written off by society for the rest of their lives. Just remember that when they hit the welfare line .
Just for discussion sake, the law does not say that there had to be sexual gratification. The law says the act must be done for sexual gratification OR to humiliate and degrade the victim. I'm thinking that is what was applied here.
Last edited by JustJulia; 07-22-2011 at 09:02 AM..
Reason: Removed reference to deleted comment.
I think the law is flawed and there needs to be more flexibility. If taken literally, giving someone a "purple nurple" could result in registering as a sex offender for life.
I think most people can agree that the act itself was completely over-the-top and that some form of punishment would be appropriate. The question is, what is appropriate, and what isn't?
It seems to me, based on the evidence, that this is not a case of sexual assault, but one of humiliation, which is serious in and of itself and should be dealt with. But forcing them to register as sex offenders seems to violate the whole notion of criminal intent, which is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence.
The law also seems counter to the idea that juveniles make momentary bad decisions that an 18-year-old wouldn't make, and that they can be rehabilitated. The law requires them to register as sex offenders for life? That doesn't seem like they're being treated as juveniles. Had there been the assertion that the children involved were actually trying to commit a sexual assault, that would probably change the dynamics considerably. But this just seems like horse play that went too far.
Not only is this grossly excessive punishment for these boys, but what does this do to the usefulness of the sex offender database - where these boys will be registered for the rest of their lives? If a 30 year old "sex offender" moves into a house on your block you won't know if he sat on some kids face 15 years ago or he did something truly hideous (I will let you use your own imagination to come up with a heinous crime that would deserve the death penalty).
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?
My examples of this being a not entirely uncommon act were to provide context on what they did. If we are to apply the strict legal definition that was used in this case, there are many people out there posting pics on the net and making YouTube videos that are technically sex offenders and need to be on the registry. Heck, there are videos of members of the armed services doing the same thing.
No one, myself included, is arguing that they shouldn't be punished, just that the punishment that was handed down was extremely excessive and doesn't fit the crime.
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3b, states:
An actor is guilty of criminal sexual contact if he commits an act of sexual contact with the victim under any of the circumstances set forth in section 2C:14-2 c.(1) through (4).
Criminal sexual contact is a crime of the fourth degree.
The term "sexual contact" is defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1d as:
an intentional touching by the victim or actor, either directly or through clothing, of the victim's or actor's intimate parts for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the victim or sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the actor. Sexual contact of the actor with himself must be in view of the victim whom the actor knows to be present.
"Intimate parts" is defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1e as "sexual organs, genital area, anal area, inner thigh, groin, buttock or breast of a person."
Neither the sexual assault statute nor the criminal sexual contact statute specifies the mental state that must be demonstrated in order to establish the defendant’s criminal intent.
-------
You keep talking about intent. It doesn't look to me like intent has to be established; only that the act met the legal definition of sexual contact. From reading the above, I don't see any way a judge could have interpreted the statute any other way. They applied the law as written. If people don't like that, rally to get the law changed.
I don't think they had any criminal intent at all. I think they were being morons and when I first read the OP, the revolting nature of what they did was so offensive to me that I didn't care if they had to register as sex offenders. After thinking about it, I'm conflicted about the lifelong ramifications of it.
They were found guilty and punished under the humiliation provision. However, there have been other cases where judges have used discretion based on the facts of the case to not apply the Megan's Law provision of requiring registry on the sex offender list. There is even precedent that a 13 year old who committed an actual sexual assault (rape) was too young to be required to register for life. I find it hard to grasp that one judge looking at a 13 year old who committed a rape decided they were too young to be on the registry for life, but another judge could see fit to require two 14 year olds who put their butts on someones face to register.
You are correct that they are guilty of criminal sexual contact per the law, one of them even just plead guilty to the charge without a trial. However, the Megan's Law provision did not have to be enforced and has not been enforced in other cases. The judge's in this case felt that they had no choice based on the wording of the law, but other judge's have felt they had discretion.
It isn't the end of the road legally for this case as both boys have been sent back to a lower court to have the cases re-examined. The boy who simply plead guilty was apparently not made aware of the possibility of being placed on the offender registry. The boy who went to trial had questionable legal representation and the fact the other boy had plead guilty apparently weighed heavily on the case.
If a law is written that there is no room for jurisprudence, then it needs to be changed. As manderly pointed out, giving someone a "purple nurple" can legally be defined as committing sexual assault. Somehow, I doubt a judge would see that as a severe enough infraction to warrant applying Megan's Law or even considering it a crime under the statute.
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.
The gender of the victim shouldn't make a difference.
I happen to think this was gross, and the older boys were bullies. I don't think they should be written off by society for the rest of their lives. Just remember that when they hit the welfare line .
Apparently the judge disagrees with you. And I agree with the judge that individuals, even those 14 years of age, should be treated as such and placed on the SO registry for such behaviors. I think far more criminals need to be on the registry, not less. Society did not ruin their lives, they did by their actions. Everyone is free to choose their behavior, and deal with the consequences. They are now free to make what they can of their lives, within the boudaries of what they've done in the past. We are all free to do the same. Young men every day are free to do what they did and yet somehow choose not to do it. Those young men have more choices in life than these two losers ever will. Actions have consequences.
My compassion is saved for those who deserve it. These young men do not.
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.
