Girl, 13, charged as sex offender and victim

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650

(Please note this article is from 2006, perhaps someone can find an update to the outcome of this bizarre case.)

Salt Lake City - Utah

Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.

The Ogden, Utah, girl was put in this odd position because she was found guilty of violating a state law that prohibits sex with someone under age 14. She also was the victim in the case against her boyfriend, who was found guilty of the same violation by engaging in sexual activity with her.

"The only thing that comes close to this is dueling," said Associate Chief Justice Michael Wilkins, noting that two people who take 20 paces and then shoot could each be considered both victim and offender.

And Chief Justice Christine Durham wondered if the state Legislature had intended the "peculiar consequence" that a child would have the simultaneous status of a protected person and an alleged perpetrator under the law.

The comments came in oral arguments on a motion asking the high court to overturn the finding of delinquency - the legal term in juvenile court for a conviction - against Z.C., who became pregnant after she and her boyfriend engaged in sex in October 2003.
State authorities filed delinquency petitions in July 2004, alleging that each had committed sexual abuse of a child, a second-degree felony if committed by an adult.

The girl appealed the petition, saying her constitutional right to be treated equally under the law had been violated.
Her motion noted that for juveniles who are 16 and 17, having sex with others in their own age group does not qualify as a crime.

Juveniles who are 14 or 15 and have sex with peers can be charged with unlawful conduct with a minor, but the law provides for mitigation when the age difference is less than four years, making the offense a misdemeanor.

For adolescents under 14, though, there are no exceptions or mitigation and they are never considered capable of consenting to sex.
A juvenile court judge denied the motion by Z.C., who then admitted to the offense while preserving her right to appeal to a higher court. The boy did not appeal.

The Utah Court of Appeals last December upheld the judge's refusal to dismiss the allegation, saying the law's "rigorous protections" for younger minors include protecting them for each other. Z.C. then appealed to the state Supreme Court.

At Tuesday's arguments, Matthew Bates, an assistant Utah attorney general, argued the prosecution of the girl was not unreasonable. He said 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, Bates said: Sex with or among children is unacceptable.

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

"A child (victim) cannot also be a perpetrator in the exact same act," Richards said.

The Utah Supreme Court will issue a ruling later.

This is crazy. I didn't know it be this absurd. I had always wondered what happens if two kids have sex under the age of consent? Will they both be busted because it's already absurd they bust teens for having sex with someone under the age of consent when they are a year young than them or two. Then they have to register as a sex offender. Can you imagine what that can do to them as an adult? Same as if they go to prison?

I guess states are trying to put a stop to teens having sex and preteens.

How crazy is this??? Teens f**k eachother all the time that's just what they do. Deal with it people.

Perhaps it is because the boy figured that it is silly anyway, so everyone will understand when they see the silly "conviction" in his record that there is nothing wrong. Maybe he is even having fun being convicted with this?

Well, he should be told that he lives in burocratic country so he HAS to appeal, however silly it might look -- or else he will register as sex offender for the entire life.

WTF Utah. Enough said.

Actually, that's not a bad reason. Yes, if they were both a few years older it would be perfectly fine, but they're not. They're 12 and 13.

Utah has had a lot of bad press in recent years over a group of Fundamentalist Mormons 'marrying' underage children; it wasn't a one off either. I imagine it doesn't want to be seen as taking a soft stance on this issue.

that is crazy that's her bf and there only 1 year apart.

I hate it when innocents get swallowed by politics using whatever illogical means to take a stance.

in the 19th ce. 13 was a good age to marry off your daughter to some rich guy....boy things have changed.
they need to take biology into account here...as soon as kids become puebessant they are biologically designed to f*ck like rabbits, I dont see how that should be illegal if they are the same age and conscentual.

The stance this country takes on sex is just absurd. mothers have to send their children by court orders to a child molester who is the father more often than you can imagine because dfacs has got a screw loose and then cases like this pop up where kids go to jail for doing what is natrual.
Then you have the abortion battles, but noooo dont teach safe sex in schools. God forbid you show kids how to use a condom on a banana

There was a news headline a couple of years ago about a 16-yo girl who posted her nude pictures online, and was charged with spreading child porn. So in that case, she was also the alleged criminal and the protected child at the same time.

I hate these one size fits all laws that incrimnate unsuspecting children. Why couldn't they just remove it, and show her some videos of the creepy old men who view child porn. That would deter that without having her labeled as a sex offender the rest of her life. The law needs admendments to the child protection laws that protect innocent children from the law!

Here's an update:

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/utah_sc.htm

or, if you want the long version:

http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/ZC071707.pdf


In short, the Utah Supreme Court concluded that while the children violated this particular law as it is worded, the law was not intended to apply to such cases.

No kidding.

Wrning: common sense ahead.
half your age plus 7, its not that hard people!

btw, there's been lots of cases just like this one.
Gd help you if you take a photo of yourself and send it to someone.
child porn is a life sentence in this country.

The half one's age plus 7 thing doesn't work for under 14. Do the math and it gives gibberish. Says no one should have sex before 14. Which, if that's what one believes, say that directly.

Irrelevant though. The issue wasn't that it's okay for them to have sex, or whether or not it should be legal. The issue was they were legally charged with sexual abuse for having sex with someone very close to the same age. The view that they are too young to have sex at all doesn't mean they mutually abused each other.

And if you meant the "half your age plus 7" thing to apply to defining what's abuse, well, that's not how I've ever seen that phrased used before. For young people, the mathematical gibberish thing applies. And, on the older end, well, once the younger person reaches a certain age (imagine, say, a 70 year old and a 35 year old), it should not be considered abuse if freely chosen. Wrong and a bad idea perhaps, but not something the law needs to get involved in.

As far as mathematical gibberish before 14 ... could it be like this:

a) If 8 year old has sex with 10 years old, then BOTH people go to jail. After all, 8/2+7=11>10, which incriminates 8 year old, and 10/2+7=12>8, which incriminates 10 year old

b) If 8 year old has sex with 12 year old, then 12 year old is the ONLY one that goes to jail. 8 year old is innocent, because 8/2+7=11<12

Now the possible justification might be this: if 8 year old has sex with 12 year old, it is CLEAR that 12 year old manipulated 8 year old into sex; so 8 year old is innocent. But if it is between 8 year old and 10 year old, then it is possible that 8 year old played some part too in deciding to have sex, so he is guilty.

Thanks for the update, Mysty. I was hoping someone would find it.

I counted them using the word "absurd" eight times in their explanation. I have to wholeheartedly agree that "absurd" was just the right word to describe it.