WTF

Quote :

"The Utah Court of Appeals is upholding a judge's refusal to dismiss a sexual abuse allegation against a 13-year-old Ogden girl who became pregnant by her 12-year-old boyfriend."

http://kutv.com/utahwire/UT--SexOffender-en/resources_news_html

1/4/2006 10:34:05 AM

Mormons.

1/4/2006 10:36:30 AM

Morons

1/4/2006 10:38:11 AM

so the girl is going to be charged with sexual abuse?

what about the boy?

either both are victims, or both are perpetrators.

but this stupidity of making one the victim, and one the offender is bullshit.

1/4/2006 11:29:30 AM

^

Quote :

"The decision leaves the teens in the position of each being both a victim and a perpetrator in the same offense. ... State authorities filed delinquency petitions in July 2004, alleging each committed sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony if committed by an adult."

Looks like both were charge but the girl tried to appeal.

Quote :

"``It's a paradox,'' he said. ``How can they be old enough to commit an offense if they're not old enough to consent to it?''"

That's pretty fucked up though

1/4/2006 11:47:47 AM

mormons.

1/4/2006 11:48:03 AM

WOW HOLY CRAP THAT IS SO CRAZY

1/4/2006 12:09:51 PM

Morons

1/4/2006 12:23:41 PM

The sexual laws in this country are so fucked up.

1/4/2006 12:24:58 PM

YOU ARE GUILTY OF BEING A VICTIM

1/4/2006 1:23:25 PM

o by the way

i like the thought that this chick could be a grandma at 24

it reminds me of caveman days

1/4/2006 1:24:00 PM

i think its crazy that its illegal for young teens to have sex with each other. it may be wrong morally but wheres the "abuse"

i know in some states there is a minimum age of consent and a minimum age of prosecution. in nc there is no minimum age of consent and the minimum age of presecution is 12. which means anything within 4 years is legal and anything goes if both parties are under 12

1/4/2006 1:34:25 PM

Mormons.

1/4/2006 1:35:58 PM

it happens

1/4/2006 1:42:34 PM

yea, this is stupid

1/4/2006 2:02:27 PM

Agreed.

1/4/2006 2:34:51 PM

Quote :

"in nc there is no minimum age of consent"

er. yes there is and it's been discussed ad nauseam.

1/4/2006 2:38:54 PM

so now the girl is not just a 13 year old mom, but also a sex offender???????????

1/4/2006 2:43:28 PM

Kind of off the main subject, but I'm concerned for the girl's ability to carry the pregnancy and give birth, since she's not fully developed. Parents need to be more knowledgeable of what their kids know about sex and repercussions.

1/4/2006 2:54:22 PM

Title says she's a mother, and the original article
http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_3358959
is titled similarly. I guess she did manage to go to term - bet it was a rough pregnancy though.

I'm wondering who pays child support in this case, if at all.

1/4/2006 2:59:26 PM

^^alot of girls hit puberty at 9

^^^^ ur talking about the minimum age of legel consent of 16 where a 16 yo can consent with anybody. but before htat theres a 4 year rule with no minimum. ex: a 15 yo and an 18 yo is legal

1/4/2006 3:01:29 PM

Ah yes it says she became pregnant in 2003. That makes her 11 max when she got pregnant, or she was 13 then and is now ~15....

Sure she might have hit puberty but her body hadn't fully matured. Her frame would have been so small it must have been very rough on her.

1/4/2006 3:05:34 PM

there are also alot of huuuge 12 y/os. and alot of tiny 25 y/os

1/4/2006 3:13:57 PM

Quote :

"Parents need to be more knowledgeable of what their kids know about sex and repercussions."

Seriously.

More proof that religious sexual oppression is a BAD thing.

fucking mormons

1/4/2006 3:17:19 PM

Actually I'm very much into abstinence unless you're with the person you're going to marry. However, sex is such a strong temptation that people of faith need to realize that education is the best way to protect their children, while also encouraging abstinence.

1/4/2006 3:22:44 PM

I can respect that.

I can't, however, respect those who believe that any information besides abstinence should be withheld.

1/4/2006 3:26:10 PM

^ True to that.

1/4/2006 5:15:10 PM

what a colossal waste of the court system's resources

[Edited on January 4, 2006 at 5:28 PM. Reason : what]

1/4/2006 5:24:11 PM

Quote :

"I can't, however, respect those who believe that any information besides abstinence should be withheld."

1/4/2006 5:25:34 PM

ok, what i've wondered about; In the case that a 12 year old rapes an adult, can the 12 year old sue for rape? If it was a girl, i'd bet money she could.

1/4/2006 5:31:12 PM

I wonder if it's illegal to masturbate when you're 12.

That would seem about as smart as this.

1/4/2006 5:50:54 PM

^^^ probably a crime against nature or something.

1/4/2006 6:09:18 PM

ya what if the adult man is drunk drunk drunk and a 13 y/o girl takes advantage of him

1/4/2006 6:18:13 PM

Quote :

"it happens"

1/4/2006 6:19:26 PM

the mormons main angel was moroni, wouldn't that make them morons?

1/4/2006 8:38:36 PM

Quote :

"i know in some states there is a minimum age of consent and a minimum age of prosecution. in nc there is no minimum age of consent and the minimum age of presecution is 12. which means anything within 4 years is legal and anything goes if both parties are under 12"

just about everything in this post is wrong

and by the way

Mormons

1/4/2006 9:29:03 PM

^no. you or somebody else challenged me to this in another thread and i brought proof. i know its hard to beleive but its the law. find the thread and learn. i may be exagerating on the anything goes part because there is probobly a seperate law for that. but not the statitory/consent law

1/5/2006 3:17:13 AM

mormons

they dont drink

they dont smoke

but dammit, they love some young sex

1/5/2006 3:31:29 AM

^^ socrates, i know some things are illegal in NC, however dont have references so wont try to list (i'd get one or two wrong i'm sure)
Most states have laws that aren't generally enforced about what sexual acts are legal/illegal (even between married couples)

1/5/2006 6:44:23 AM

I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you meant that in NC, a person of any age can consent to sex with a person of any other age.

But here are the relevant statutes, in case anyone is curious.

Quote :

"14-27.7A. Statutory rape or sexual offense of person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old. (a) A defendant is guilty of a Class B1 felony if the defendant engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and the defendant is at least six years older than the person, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person. (b) A defendant is guilty of a Class C felony if the defendant engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and the defendant is more than four but less than six years older than the person, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person. (1995, c. 281, s. 1.) "

Quote :

"14-27.2. First-degree rape. (a) A person is guilty of rape in the first degree if the person engages in vaginal intercourse: (1) With a victim who is a child under the age of 13 years and the defendant is at least 12 years old and is at least four years older than the victim; or"

1/5/2006 9:31:25 AM

the 2nd quote was basically my post except i said what is ok which got confusing

1/5/2006 1:07:46 PM

The ruling makes legal sense. She was arguing that her equal protection rights were violated because if she were a few years older she would not have been charged with a crime. However, there is no heightened scrutiny for age discrimination cases in this way; her rights were not violated. Motion denied, simple.

1/5/2006 2:00:29 PM