Setting an example of someone implies a focus on punishment

Dumbass DAs undermine the intent of the law (To protect minors) by attacking minors. Idiot states create problems by thinking they'll make this all go away by simply making it illegal. Just like their solution for premarital sex (also illegal in Utah) just make it illegal! Then EVERYTHING GOES AWAY.

Fact is there is no evidence that they have repeatedly done this, and the burden falls on the state to prevent them from doing so, not punishing them for acting according to human nature but by bloody educating them.

No, the law is intended to do more that just keep them safe--it is intended to prevent the kind of harms that come with it that effect others too, including but not limited to unwanted and immaturely intended pregnancies that they cannot afford to raise and lack the maturity to raise. Those affect the offspring, the adults who get stuck raising and supporting them, and the taxpayers who too often wind up paying welfare benefits to support. The 'strict liability' age also does not care whether the minor knows what they are doing--it is intended to stop the acts regardless of whether they want to engage in the acts or not.

See above. And I think the DA is correct to send a message that minors this young having sex is not allowed and will be held into account--it's actually about time, given the upsurge of children having sex this young is a huge social problem that should be combatted, not condoned.

Juvenile proceedings to do not involve trials. They are proceedings. The difference in focus was explained in a post above.

Juvenile proceedings are not punishment, they are remedial proceedings. Yes, they are aimed at deterrence--that is precisely the point of them--to get the minors to cease the activity and educate them, straighten them out, etc, through remedial measures. I see absolutely no justifiable reason to allow any minor that young to engage in sex and get others into sex and not think there is a delinquency problem going on that needs correction.

I understand the human condition just fine. Sex between adults involves maturity and abilities to handle the consequences of it far more than a minor. A seventh grader has absolutely no business having sex and trying to boink other seventh graders given their age and they certainly lack the financial and maturity levels to handle the consequences of it. If we have come to the point of giving shoulder shruggs to kids that young screwing and letting them poke and prod around the schoolyard to get some more action then IMHO we really have fallen off the common sense radar.

See above. The proceeding is not punishment.

To me, what is gross and criminal incompetence is how things got so bad that kids this young are screwing instead of playing video games, sports and doing their homework. Kids who have become that corrupted by that age that they want to screw their classmates need to be focused on before they do more damage by getting others into such things before their time.

If Utah has other such laws as cited, many states have them. They are 'blue laws' and most of which remain on the books but whave been held unconstitutional. If a DA argues for such prosecutions, then indeed I would oppose them. This issue, however, has nothing to do with Victorian morality. To me, it is common sense. Secondary school sex is what is an absurdity to tolerate.

It focuses on deterrence, which may interplay with the concept of punishment but is not the same thing and is not in this case given the juvenile treatment. It is focused on deterring the minors involved from repeating the behaviour and getting others who are like-minded to stop it too.

Premarital sex involves a 'blue law.' Statutory consent acts are not the same as premarital sex laws in intent.

We don't know the full facts regarding these minors to comment on what extent they have engaged in it and/or what their personalities are like given it was not reported . They could be decent kids at heart or nightmares. What is certain is that they are already involved in sex that young, and that alone is not a good development.

Juvenile proceedings do involve educating them with resources and the weight of supervision to assure they do not blow it all off and just continue screwing through grade school and attempting to screw other grade schoolers.

Doing nothing is what got this schoolyard sex situation where it is in the first place. And asking and begging errant children with no desire to compel their conformance is no way to get kids to conform. Any parent, schoolmaster or DA worth their salt knows that.

There are laws which deal with this, and that is a wholly seperate issue.

So whats next, are we going to send kids to juve for a year for running with scissors?

Upsurge? You have no idea do you. Its happened for a long time buddy.

Deterrence is about punishment so your distinction is just a euphemism so it makes you feel better about yourself because you know that your position is absolutely ridiculous.

Deterrence is to make someone fear the punishment. To punish people so that others, fearing the punishment do not engage in the same activity.


I don't see any reason to try a minor with a felony when you would try someone one year their superior with a misdemeanor. Just as I see no reason why a state should have a law against fornication.

Because we all know we should send kids to Juve for having sex. Because that will make them stop doing it. Hell I kissed a girl when I was four, I suppose I should be in irons right now eh?

Quit playing semantics, you and I both know thats bullshit.

You are familiar with the normal curve aren't you? And in fact statistics in general? You realize of course that a single case means absolutely jack squat about society as a whole, and that while most people may have sex first somewhere between 14 and 20 with the median at say 17 there will still be the extremes on either side, and that these extremes will always exist.

What is an absurdity is that you will stand there and advocate sending two kids to juve for experimenting to teach all the other kids a lesson. And then claim its not punishment, its reform.

If theres a problem with society this sure as hell isn't going to fix it, all its going to do, is to send two kids to jail while you sit there and claim oh no its not punishment.

You want a powerful way of dealing this? Simple, the girls friends find out, problem solved, in the entire school system.

The only difference between the two is that Punishment can also include the concept of revenge. It doesn't matter if the US deters the USSR with the threatened punishment of nuclear warfare, or whether a court deters a child with a threatened punishment of juve.

Its a threatened punishment, and in this case a delivered punishment.

Of course, not, but on the other hand you compared sex to snorting cocaine and breaking cars, so what the hell we may as well go all out eh?

Yes and if anything straightens people out its the immediate and unreasonable impositions by an idiotic DA and a legal code which sounds like it was written in the 17th century.

Any person with half a brain knows that social impositions are often far more powerful then criminal ones, particularly to some junior high school students.

Provide this case to most sane people around the world and there response will be the same as mine. And considering the vast majority of rational people think that the state is completely out of line here I'd say the legislators should have some sense slapped into them.

This law deals with it at the source itself and therefore related.

This kind of reply adds nothing to the exchange.

I do have an idea given I was a teenager not too long ago. That incidences may have happened in the past does not mean there hasn't been an upsurge in it. There has been--greatly so.

Blah. Knock it off. Self serving hack deprecating 'psychological analysis' of debaters who disagree with a view to debase them and their argument is an ad hominum attack and a cheap debate tactic of pantywaists who can't argue and contain themselves personally for debate. I could just as easily wreck our exchange by accusing you using the same tricks by claiming that 'it is clear from your positions' that you are a paedophile and/or can't sexually restrain yourself where appropriate. These are all BS ways to 'argue' a position. I've taken you over the years to be a decent poster who is better than this kind of crap and that is why I am spending time discussing the issue with you. Let's keep up the good standards and decent camraderie, not lower them.

That can be the case but not necessarily. As I said, the concepts can intersect but they are not the same. If, for example, the minors involved get counselling and oversight from the proceedings as intended and learn more about the whole matter, they may much the wiser for it and/or at least refrain from repeating what they did. This isn't punishment but it serves the purpose of deterrence.

Fearing punishment is also deterrence, but not punishment itself. I fear the consequences of alot of things--even simple things like traffic laws. But my compliance with the traffic laws because of that fear, however, is not punishment. I get no sanctions for obeying the laws.

There is no trial in a juvenile proceeding. There is no conviction for a felony in them.

Age differences are also critical when dealing with minors. For example, a 15 year old woman has a greater odd of delivering a baby safely than someone 13 and under. That alone is a reason for different treatment.

Now, personally, I would grade these offences differently, but that is a legislative decision. It is not an unconstitutional one. The fact I cited alone would pass the rational basis test applied by the courts as to the different treatment. The arguments about the grading belong with the citizens arguing to their legislators to adjust them.

This is an emotional answer. Calm down. 'Sending kids to juve' also shows a misleading stereotype of how the juvenile system works. I extremely doubt that will be the case in this matter.

It's not bullshit--it's exactly what and how the juvenile system does and works--the actual facts of it.

This isn't relevant. When a law is broken, the law is broken, and those who broke it are accountable. The legislature made the decision that it wants nobody under the age of 14 to have sex under any circumstances and made it illegal whether the minor wants it or not. It happened here.

I never said I advocated 'sending these kids to juve.' I mean this respectfully but from these comments and others I do not think you understand how the juvenile system works, what its concepts are, etc. Any type of placement is usually a total last step for totally defiant and totally recalcitrant juveniles who refuse to follow the remedial measures, repeat their delinquencies or engage in new ones, repeat violent offenders who refuse to follow or learn from remedial measures, etc.

Sending kids to jail....again, this shows that you do not know how the juvenile system works. These kids are not going to the slammer.

Explain.

Ok, before I debate this further, I'd like to ask a very stupid questoin indeed ... Believe it or not, I dont know the answer!

It is: Are "juvenile court cases" decided in the same physical setting as "adult cases"? I somehow got a bit confused when the article stated "Supreme Court" (I figured they got sent to the normal court, though it did state the word 'juvenile' in there).

If juvenile proceedings simply counsel, and not punish as in send to an "underage" jail (is this what you are saying?) - then its the same thing as counselling and nothing wrong w/it in that case. I wasn't aware that juvenile courts didnt hand out punishments though.


Three good points, and I agree ...

I'm not "for" underage sex so to speak, but just meant to say that it wastes a regular court's time - but if the juvenile court is set up for these very purposes and provides counselling etc, then it's not a bad thing.


Cheers.

No, as far as the pregnancy goes, since they are incapable of handling the pregnancy the kid will be aborted/adopted/put insomeone elses custody. We may as well imprison everyone who can't take care of the child when they are older too.

Why not? I mean its dangerous, and I think society can agree we don't want kids to do it. And of course if we set an example by punishing kids who run with scissors, then no kid will do it. Of course there is no form of punishment besides legal, no parents, no teachers, just the courts.

Care to prove that? Further just how common do you think this is?

or, as the law allows they get sent to jail for a month so that the DA can make the example of them he wants. And quite frankly they will do it in the future, and all of their friends will too, just in a matter of a couple of years.

But when you break the law, as in the case here, there is a punishment. Just as if the Soviet Union invaded berlin the US would punish it with nuclear war. If the US invaded a warsaw pact country the soviet union would punish it with nuclear war. Deterrence relies upon a punishment, and thats what the DA is trying to do, to make an example of these two by punishing them, so no one else will do so.

Euphemisms don't change much.

Pyschological treatment won't do a thing to change those odds. In order to argue psychological treatment being necessary you'd have to show that there was something mentally wrong with these two kids, which I think you'd have trouble proving. They simply did it a few years earlier then most.

The Utah law allows for it.

This type of legalist bit I can't stand, that the law is the law without any bearing on common sense is stupid, and serves no interest to society. We don't need a leviathan enforcing pointless laws effectively just for us to be afraid of the government in order to keep law and order.

Oh gee, the kids get grounded, when the girls friends call the mother tells the friends exactly why, then society takes care of the rest. Surely you know what will happen to the rumors then right? We don't need to bring in the Utah DA to make the seriousness of this stick with the kids.

It's Utah. Doesn't that answer all the questions?

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

Hehehe... pretty much, yeah...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

These links give an oversight of what they are.

Juvenile court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American juvenile justice system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since juvenile courts have a remedial nature rather than a punitive one, they involve less procedural rights than adult courts (example, no jury trial right). But, alot of basics are there to assure that such proceedings are not run roughshod. For example, if matters of alleged unconstitutionality are involved in some aspect, they can appeal these kinds of things to appellate courts.

Most, if not all, juvenile courts do have juvenile detention facilities and placement facilities (drug rehabs, schools for troubled disciplinary problem teens, etc.) for totally contemptuous juveniles who scoff at the juvenile supervision and/or repeat and add delinquencies and hardened violent juveniles in danger of becoming hardcore criminals in adulthood. But, these are used as a last resort after repeated violations and/or for compelling factual circumstances (like a particularly hardened and/or violent juvenile who needs that kind of oversight instead of just trying normal counselling from the start, etc).

I didn't think you suggested that you are for it.