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.
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.
Our legal system defines "right" and "wrong" through laws and applies consequences for violating those laws based on the degree of harm inflicted. The consequences are intended to deter people from doing the wrong thing.
We also acknowledge that in order to hold someone liable/guilty for a crime they must understand that their actions are wrong AND understand the consequences of committing the act. This is the reason we have defense of infancy standards, basically depending on age a child cannot commit a crime as they do not understand it is wrong, nor do they understand the consequence.
In this case I think a good lawyer could make the argument that these boys knew what they were doing was wrong, but they had no concept of the consequence of their action. If they had known that committing this act would be considered a sex crime and they would be on the sex offender registry, it may have deterred their actions.
While the concept of ignorance or "ignoratia juris non excusat" (ignorance of the law does not excuse) is not a permissible defense in terms of innocence and guilt, such ignorance is allowed in terms of sentencing. I think one could clearly establish a case where the boys were unaware of the consequence of their action and that should have factored into their sentencing.
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.
There is a difference between compassion and common sense. Does it make sense that for this act they have to face the same stigma as someone who raped a child?
And putting far more criminals on the registry is going to have the impact of making it not seem so bad. If people know that a lot of the people on the registry did things like this and not worse, I think it would not be taken as seriously.
Our legal system defines "right" and "wrong" through laws and applies consequences for violating those laws based on the degree of harm inflicted. The consequences are intended to deter people from doing the wrong thing.
We also acknowledge that in order to hold someone liable/guilty for a crime they must understand that their actions are wrong AND understand the consequences of committing the act. This is the reason we have defense of infancy standards, basically depending on age a child cannot commit a crime as they do not understand it is wrong, nor do they understand the consequence.
In this case I think a good lawyer could make the argument that these boys knew what they were doing was wrong, but they had no concept of the consequence of their action. If they had known that committing this act would be considered a sex crime and they would be on the sex offender registry, it may have deterred their actions.
While the concept of ignorance or "ignoratia juris non excusat" (ignorance of the law does not excuse) is not a permissible defense in terms of innocence and guilt, such ignorance is allowed in terms of sentencing. I think one could clearly establish a case where the boys were unaware of the consequence of their action and that should have factored into their sentencing.
People commit criminal acts every single day without first considering the consequences. If a burgular breaks into my house without considering the possible consequence that I will shoot him if I catch him, does that negate my right to do so? Should he not be shot because he was not aware when breaking in that I keep a loaded firearm handy for just such a situation? Or if he says "but I wasn't there to harm anyone" does that mean I should simply wait to see what he may do before deciding on a course of action, to shoot or not?
These boys knew it was wrong. That they were not aware of the consequences does not mean they should be in any way exempt from them. They were certainly old enough to know that their smelly asses and gentalia should be kept inside their pants rather than forcibly shoved into the face of an unwilling victim who was being forcibly held down.
I hope the sentence stands.
I wonder if anyone has asked the victim, or his parents, how they feel about the outcome.
"If one's life cannot be held up as an example for others, perhaps it's best purpose is to serve as a warning as to what may happen when the same path is followed."
There is a difference between compassion and common sense. Does it make sense that for this act they have to face the same stigma as someone who raped a child?
And putting far more criminals on the registry is going to have the impact of making it not seem so bad. If people know that a lot of the people on the registry did things like this and not worse, I think it would not be taken as seriously.
Yes, it does. Forcing ones anal regions and/or genitals into the face of another, unwilling person who is being held against his will while such an act is comitted is a sexual assault, whether the perpetrator takes time to consider it or not.
I'll ask again, had this been your 12 y.o. daughter, your sister, your mother, against whom this violence was perpetrated, would you feel the same?
Last edited by Workin_Hard; 07-22-2011 at 03:36 PM..
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.
If you read the law you will see that sexual intent is not written into the law. If the intent is to humiliate it is still considered sexual touching.
There is not a definition that applies other than the strict legal definition. In this case it is the strict legal definition that needs to be changed. The judges have no choice but to apply the law as written, not as they would have liked for it to be written.
I do not think that this is a good outcome, but I do not see how the judges had any other choice but to apply this law. We cannot have judges applying the law according to their personal thoughts on the matter. They have to apply the law as it was written. If it's bad law blame the writers of the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
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.
I don't see how a person whose job it is to apply the law can find a way around the law. Their job is not to find a way around a law. Their job is to apply the law as written. This is a bad law, and this outcome illustrates exactly why it is a bad law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
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?
How heinous an act is is not addressed by the law. The law is pretty simple and a reading of the law will show you that the law is what it is.
Someone else posted this at another point in this thread.
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.
So we have sexual contact. The aggressor touched his penis to the other person. The intent was to humiliate. End of story. I do not see how the judge could "find a away around this" if he was doing his job properly. His job is not to mange the outcome.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a good outcome. But the judges are not the villiains. The villains are the legislators who rush through legislation that sounds good when proposed (after all who could be against a registry of sex offenders) without taking the time to assess all the consequences of such legislation.
Yes, it does. Forcing ones anal regions and/or genitals into the face of another, unwilling person who is being held against his will while such an act is comitted is a sexual assault, whether the perpetrator takes time to consider it or not.
I'll ask again, had this been your 12 y.o. daughter, your sister, your mother, against whom this violence was perpetrated, would you feel the same?
If it had been one of my kids, mother or sister I would feel the same. They should be punished. But not to the extent that they should have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. I would think registering until they were 18 would be more than sufficient.
And as I have asked, if it was your child who committed the crime do you think it would really be serving justice that when they were 40 years old it makes sense to have to inform everyone that they were sex offenders?
Assuming they didn't do anything else wrong, do you really think these these would be the types of people the law is trying to protect the rest of us from?
How would you feel if someone did this to your 12 year old? Against his wishes?
I think "sex offender" goes too far but just because a lot of stupid kids do it doesn't mean it's acceptable. And as far as "sibling prank" goes: I raised 3 sons. If I had seen them try this on one another I'd have blown a fuse. One of our rules was you respect your brother because he is a human being. You do nothing to degrade your brother. You do nothing to degrade any human being because that takes YOU down a few notches.
Yes, and rape is not a sex crime they say but about having power over the victim. Same for all sexual harassment and offenses.
It's hard to know on this one because there are 14 year old who have raped and killed. Was it just being disgusting or was there a sexual innuendo.
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'm not sure in this case, but a couple I know were furious because their middle school son got suspended for 3 days for giving a girl on the playground a "wedgie". The problem was, the boys were giving wedgies and the school had co-ed playgrounds, the girl thought it looked like a rowdy fun game and joined in, but when she told her mother why it was hurting her down there, the mother raised hell about the boys sexually assaulting her daughter.
I'm not sure in this case, but a couple I know were furious because their middle school son got suspended for 3 days for giving a girl on the playground a "wedgie". The problem was, the boys were giving wedgies and the school had co-ed playgrounds, the girl thought it looked like a rowdy fun game and joined in, but when she told her mother why it was hurting her down there, the mother raised hell about the boys sexually assaulting her daughter.
A wedgie certainly impacts the genital area. And you can certainly argue you give someone a wedgie to degrade them. So I guess they should be on the sex offender registry.
While I think it was wrong for the 14 year olds, and would want justice for my son if he was the victim....I too think the sexual offender verdict was too harsh. It was a stupid, harmful, bullying prank...suspend the kids, put a misdemeanor on their record...but not to label them as a sex offender.
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.
