A Legal Puzzle

[Dingfod]

Is it possible to be both perp and victim resulting from the same sexual act?

That is the perplexing question facing the Utah Supreme Court in the case of a 13 year old girl that had consensual sex with her 12 year old boyfriend. Both were found guilty of violating a law against having sex with a minor under 14 (the legal age of consent until just recently), a crime that would've been a felony if one of them had been adult.

The girl's attorney is appealing the conviction, which was upheld by a juvenile court judge and a state court of appeals, based on not receiving equal treatment under the law because had they been 16 and 17, no crime would've taken place. Even if they had been 14 and 15, it would've been a misdemeanor because of there only being one year difference in their ages.

Matthew Bates, an assistant Utah attorney general, argued

Prosecution of the girl was not unreasonable. The statute in question is designed to prevent sex with children who are 13 and younger, even if the other person is in the same age group. By passing that law, legislators were sending a message: Sex with or among children is unacceptable.

The girl's attorney argued that prosecuting children under a law meant to protect them is illogical.

I tend to agree with him. I doubt that was the legislature's intent. Then again, it is UTAH.

[JaredM]

Randall Richards, the girl's attorney, argued that prosecuting children under a law meant to protect them is illogical.

That pretty much sums up my attitude toward this...

[JackDog]

This is exactly what happens when you buy into the hysteria that all sex with or among minors is "molestation."

[Stephen Maturin]

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.

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.

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.

[erimir]

Wait now, doesn't that law's wording imply that children who masturbate are molesting themselves?

[Ensign Steve]

I believe the church calls it self abuse.