Interesting juvenile case could set precedent

[tko_ak]

Or, at least the logic is intriguing. The case is In Re: D.B., and the Ohio Supreme Court reversed his adjudication as a delinquent, after being convicted of statutory rape

Comments

[nyxelestia]

Any sexual activity where someone is under the age of consent is considered assault, and in many states prosecution of a reported assault isn't up to the victim but to the city/state

[tko_ak]

I think that's where the Ohio Supreme Court came down. It was an over-zealous prosecution, and for whatever reason, the juvenile judge went along with part of it.

[bdouville]

It sounds as though the Ohio Supreme Court made the right decision, but this was several years after the lower court's decision. In other words, this boy has been classified as a "sexual offender" throughout his early teens. What sort of impact must that have had on him?

[pwalkeri]

Maybe I have poor reading comprehension skills (so we may be saying the same thing) but...

If BOTH boys were under the age of consent, yet both "consented" (humor me), then it seems either NEITHER or BOTH of them were sexually assaulted because neither was old enough to give consent!

I think I just gave myself a headache. D:

[slashmarks]

As far as I understand, that's what the Supreme Court declared is true.

[pwalkeri]

Ha okay. :-p

[tko_ak]

Which was what the court was saying. They were both victims and perpetrators, and to only prosecute one was wrong. But, prosecuting them at all made no sense, because they're both members of the protected class (children under the age of 13 having sex).

Clearly, statutory rape laws are meant for when there is a significant age and/or power imbalance. It may be sad that a 12-year-old is sexually active, but it's no business or concern of the state so long as the activity is consensual.

If it were a 14-year-old and an 11-year-old, would it be different? Possibly. But I think the point is, kids shouldn't be criminalized for willingly having sex with each other.

[john1082]

I've not read the statute but it would seem at first blush that BOTH should be charged with having sex with someone underage. Hang 'em both. After the California case, In re Michael M, California changed its stat rape statute to be gender neutral

[bdouville]

This isn't just "overkill," this is totalitarian. Perhaps I'm employing that term a little too loosely, but really, what business does the state have in criminalizing consensual sex between minors of the same age (or in this case, of an adjacent age)?

While I am not familiar with the particular details in this case, what should have happened was this: nothing. Instead, a boy is charged, convicted, put on probation, and forced to enter "therapy" as a "sexual offender." Forget "overkill," this strikes me as just plain evil, and the state of Ohio should compensate this boy and his family for the trauma to which he has been subjected.

[maju01]

The law is an ass.

[redstar826]

your comment was automatically screened because you haven't joined the community. It looks like you are watching us, but haven't actually joined.

[tko_ak]

Mr. Bumble concurred, but without the proper grammar.

By the way, your comment was automatically screened because you aren't a full member. Directions on how to rectify that can be found on the user info page.

[bdouville]

I don't know the details of this case, but from what little I understand, this is beyond horrific. How is it that a boy -- barely in his teens -- must be placed on probation and subjected to years of therapy as a "sexual offender" because he engaged in a perfectly natural, consensual act with another boy who was, essentially, his peer? I have no idea what the "therapy" was, but I hate to think what this has done to his self-image.

What business do the police or courts have in this matter at all?

Yet another sad example of the North American hysteria over youth and sexuality. It goes beyond protecting children from predators, to protecting children from their own sexuality -- especially if that sexuality is something other than straight.

How is it that anybody cannot see the lower court's initial decision as anything other than evil?