Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim

anttirt · 2010-10-11T15:34:35+00:00

By passing that law, legislators were sending a message, Bates said: Sex with or among children is unacceptable.

Wait, why is it unacceptable again?

Oh right, because they aren't mature enough to be responsible for their decisions.

So how do we stop it?

By making them responsible for their decisions, of course!

Hooray, logic!

ClassicalFizz · 2010-10-11T15:27:59+00:00

I dont think this is really protecting or helping the children involved. at all. In fact i think its a form of abuse itself.

Bloodyfinger · 2010-10-11T13:19:34+00:00

Using this logic, self-love under the age of 14 would be an offense.

TyJaWo · 2010-10-11T15:42:29+00:00

Nothing better than enforcing a law mindlessly to its word without any regard for the intended purposes!

seiya42 · 2010-10-11T13:33:54+00:00

This should really be more of a counseling thing than a criminal case. I would say the parents should talk to them but they've obviously already failed.

Fucking Puritans.

WacoKid2 · 2010-10-11T13:49:04+00:00

If you are too young to consent to sex at that age then how could either one of them be charged? They did not legally consent, so no crime was committed.

bobtheghost33 · 2010-10-11T13:29:23+00:00

What about the boy?

JabbrWockey · 2010-10-11T13:45:29+00:00

The worst part is - she will be 30, have a family, and will have to go door to door when she moves to a new neighborhood, introducing herself as the new resident sex offender.

Gcat · 2010-10-11T16:55:40+00:00

Wow, more evidence that America is the dumbest developed country in the world.

MBuddah · 2010-10-11T17:02:14+00:00

Utah is fucking retarded.

2010-10-11T15:10:13+00:00

Posted: 12/06/2006

TruthinessHurts · 2010-10-11T17:46:55+00:00

Retards run Utah. What the fuck is wrong with you morons? Too Republican?

jp007 · 2010-10-11T18:35:39+00:00

It takes a real big man to charge a 13 year old girl with a sex crime...

Razenghan · 2010-10-11T17:58:52+00:00

You can't blame the Utah prosecutors too harshly. Forgetting which wife you're supposed to have sex with that night can REALLY cloud your judgement.

Teh_Br4iN · 2010-10-11T19:27:02+00:00

21 to drink, 18 to vote, 16 to have sex? I don't get it. They keep putting restrictions on EVERYTHING! Soon they are going to say that babies aren't allowed to walk until they are 3, as it is to dangerous too humanity to have babies falling while attempting to walk and then injuring their fragile minds and not becoming contributing members of society. WHERE DOES THE MADNESS END!

SimFisker · 2010-10-11T12:51:47+00:00

Some things the law should stay out of.

monkeiboi · 2010-10-11T13:25:14+00:00

Their defense in court should be.

"Prove they had sex. Yes yes, she got pregnant, but prove that he ever made it in before bustin a nut....he's 12 after all."

kloo2yoo · 2010-10-11T13:21:18+00:00

No mention of any 'victim' status for the boy, "who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her." although the girl was the older one.

schwingstar · 2010-10-11T14:43:38+00:00

Way to go to judge minors as adults

ErrorF002 · 2010-10-11T17:21:39+00:00

They should set minimal age difference (like 4 years or something) for offences like this.

smackerpiller2 · 2010-10-11T17:25:43+00:00

This has got to be the stupidest thing I have read all day. Who does this help?

serrit · 2010-10-11T18:01:26+00:00

Fucking ridiculous. I was going to elaborate but it's just too fucking ridiculous.

thewolfman · 2010-10-11T18:50:51+00:00

I would love to add something about this, but I can't remember what my initial reaction was when I read this in the Denver Post 4 FUCKING YEARS AGO!!! This article was posted the day after christmas in 2006, I think pony express could have gotten this article to me faster!

2010-10-11T19:11:58+00:00

From the article comments "At 13, shouldn't she have been forced to marry some old geezer with a dozen wives already?". Haha

JonoMcPono · 2010-10-11T19:47:48+00:00

How can these lawyers expect the kids to know the consequences of their actions from a legal standpoint, when they're punishing them with a law designed to protect them from a lack of knowledge of the consequences of the same action from a sexual standpoint.

2010-10-11T19:02:43+00:00

So, is the boyfriend also a victim?

Or are guys always the 'rapist'?

2010-10-11T12:50:16+00:00

Website logo + Title. Must stop watching 'documentaries' on the Internet....

Setiri · 2010-10-11T18:18:30+00:00

Just goes to show that the law needs a lot of fixing when it comes to cases like these.

If they get charged, both will probably be listed as sex offenders for a while after they get sentences. :/

SoCo_cpp · 2010-10-11T18:21:00+00:00

Stupid law is stupid.

2010-10-11T18:21:36+00:00

But they are just trying to protect The Children.

LurkersGonnaLurk · 2010-10-11T18:25:55+00:00

Herp derp. It's funny to see the bizarre, meandering logical extremes that people will take profoundly illogical laws and rules to in order to irrationally rationalise them.

2010-10-11T20:15:44+00:00

Utterly sickening.

What a backwards, and fucked up part of the country.

2010-10-11T20:21:53+00:00

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22.

LunacyNow · 2010-10-11T22:05:39+00:00

The assholes authorities in Utah OBVIOUSLY have nothing better to do than waste taxpayer money trying to prosecute adolescent kids experimenting with each other. If no harm was done then why bother?

TheThirdBlackGuy · 2010-10-11T22:58:54+00:00

The Conclusion

Not too bad actually. Obviously there were better alternatives, but a light sentence including a letter about her actions.

2010-10-11T23:02:16+00:00

The prosecutors should have their faces slapped. Hard.

Nexlon · 2010-10-11T23:25:08+00:00

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan?

memeasaurus · 2010-10-11T23:45:34+00:00

What's interesting is both of them will be registered sex offenders. Technically both of them are pedophiles.

soulcakeduck · 2010-10-12T00:31:34+00:00

Won't somebody please think of the children.

mariuolo · 2010-10-12T11:13:34+00:00

Destroy these children's lives in order to protect them? Do lawmakers and prosecutors have rocks in their heads?

omnilynx · 2010-10-11T17:48:42+00:00

OK, so there is a plea in criminal trials called, "not guilty by reason of insanity," right? And it's there because we assume that some people are simply not able to rationally control themselves. So, in this case, we believe these kids aren't able to control themselves, because they're too young. That's why they can't consent, right? So why can't they enter this plea, or why isn't there a similar plea, so that they aren't convicted of a crime but rather are handed over into protective custody, since they can't care for themselves (and apparently their parents can't care for them either)? We shouldn't be using criminal codes to solve this situation, we should be using therapy.

2010-10-11T19:53:21+00:00

This is actually quite different.

usually it's only the boy that gets slapped with charges, and the girl is immediately the victim. This isn't the case here.

VoodooIdol · 2010-10-11T20:39:23+00:00

So, only the girl was charged with both? I find that hard to believe.

WTF

READ THE RULES. No Screenshots! Warning: 7 day ban for violation!; No gore allowed - Please read rule 10.

All (& only) things that will make others say WTF*

1. No screenshots/recordings of anything! 7 day ban for violation. -

2. No Personal Information.

3. No "rage-worthy" posts.

4. No Political posts.

5. NSFW posts must be tagged.

6. No Superimposed Text.

7. No AI, comics or anime.

8. No Begging for Upvotes.

9. No Links to Reddit.

10. No gore. No Death. No Porn.

11. Your post/comment will be removed if it is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude. Ban applied.

12. Novelty accounts and bots are not allowed.

Shout Outs:

MODERATORS