And this one appears relatively easy to solve. The
applicable criminal statute provides that:
A person commits sexual abuse of a child if . . . the actor touches the anus, buttocks, or genitalia of any child . . . with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person regardless of the sex of any participant.
Another provision of the criminal code defines "person" as "an individual, public or private corporation, government, partnership, or unincorporated association", without regard to an individual's age. So yeah, the kid qualifies as both a sexual abuser of a child and a sexually abused child under the governing law.
These young uns apparently did some actual boinking, seeing as how the girl got pregnant and all. That being true, they're probably lucky the prosecutor didn't charge them with
Rape of a Child.
Based on what little I remember of similar cases I read back in the day, the equal protection argument probably doesn't fly. Of course, that doesn't mean the state supreme court won't
pretend it flies if enough of the justices are sufficiently pissed off about the outcome in this case.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dingfod
I doubt that was the legislature's intent.
|
Same here, but considerations of intent are usually considered irrelevant when the statutory language is as clear as it is in this case.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dingfod
Then again, it is UTAH.
|
Word. In most if not all civilized parts of the country, prosecutors would have exercised their discretion to let this one slide.