Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:33 pm**

So I was reading an article about a woman who is claiming a guy molested her. Turns out she was 6 and he was 8.

What do you think of kids that "play doctor"? What do you think about under 18 kids that are "sexting" each other? Do you think an under-age kid that takes nude photos of themselves and sends them to other people should be arrested for distributing child porn? Do you think young kids that play doctor should be thrown in jail and labeled as child molesters?

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:07 pm**

This is a pretty serious concern, very real.

First, there is a big difference between "playing doctor", which is pretty much "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" type stuff and sexual molestation. THAT has to be clear, but sadly is not even among a lot of childcare professionals and school administrators. Masturbation, too, is pretty natural... something kids (particularly boys, but not solely boys) "discover" basically it on their own.

True sexual acts -- intercourse, etc. Are rare, tend to indicate the child has been abused elsewhere. That MAY be changing a tad in some places, because kids are being exposed through films, etc to these ideas.

Also, assault involves aggression.

Put it all together, and an 8 year old molesting a 6 year old is likely abused himself. Whether it was abuse or "promiscuity" would depend on the context.

In either case, if caught at the time or when the child is still a child... an 8 year old needs help.. perhaps this is a child that would need to be institutionalized for the rest of his life, perhaps counseling would help. (would "fix" the situation, though I hesitate to use that term in this context.. its not something "broken", per se).

If the child is now older, then I would look to see if other activity happened. Its likely it did.

If the child is now an adult, then it would only matter int he context of future abuse and/or counseling. I don't see that going back and prosecuting an adult for something that happened when he was 8 as being effective or necessary. However, if he is accused or convicted of abuse now, then the circumstances of past abuse could be pertinent. Also, counseling is absolutely warrented in any case for all.

Per the "sexting" bit... the biggest issue there is that kids are saying things they really don't understand. When it comes to computers and phone texts, they get themselves into situations that can be downright dangerous because of that.

Even when its not dangerous, the fact that electronic communication is not secure or private means that stupid comments can very well come back to haunt them later.

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:11 pm**

bedub1 wrote:So I was reading an article about a woman who is claiming a guy molested her. Turns out she was 6 and he was 8.

What do you think of kids that "play doctor"? What do you think about under 18 kids that are "sexting" each other? Do you think an under-age kid that takes nude photos of themselves and sends them to other people should be arrested for distributing child porn? Do you think young kids that play doctor should be thrown in jail and labeled as child molesters?

My answers, respectively...
I don't wanna think about it, but I don't really have a problem.
No, but we should be letting them know about self-esteem, healthy body images, etc. Also, that the internet is a scary place, and it's hard to get sexts and naked pictures off of it. So, I'd stress careful communications about the possible consequences, but let kids be kids, jeebus.
No.

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:21 pm**

Important detail to add to this thread:

The molester is George Zimmerman.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/ ... YV20120716

And to be honest, some of the things this woman says are absurd (that's from looking at several news articles on this story, I can't find the actual recordings).

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:25 pm**

pancakemix wrote:Important detail to add to this thread:

The molester is George Zimmerman.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/ ... YV20120716

And to be honest, some of the things this woman says are absurd (that's from looking at several news articles on this story, I can't find the actual recordings).

That's an 18 year old molesting a 16 year old, not 8 molesting a 6. Doubt it's the same story.

anyway this whole discussion is incredibly complicated and so I'm just going to stay out of it.

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:42 pm**

PLAYER57832 wrote: I don't see that going back and prosecuting an adult for something that happened when he was 8 as being effective or necessary.

Wait wait wait... you guys can even do that?

In my country, anyone under the age of 15 cannot be convicted of a crime - under that age, the legal guardian is always responsible of the child's actions.

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:13 pm**

Army of GOD wrote:
pancakemix wrote:Important detail to add to this thread:

The molester is George Zimmerman.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/ ... YV20120716

And to be honest, some of the things this woman says are absurd (that's from looking at several news articles on this story, I can't find the actual recordings).

That's an 18 year old molesting a 16 year old, not 8 molesting a 6. Doubt it's the same story.

anyway this whole discussion is incredibly complicated and so I'm just going to stay out of it.

No, it is. She clams it started when she was 6. Therefore, Zimmerman would have been 8. It's said explicitly in other articles as well.

natty dread wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: I don't see that going back and prosecuting an adult for something that happened when he was 8 as being effective or necessary.

Wait wait wait... you guys can even do that?

In my country, anyone under the age of 15 cannot be convicted of a crime - under that age, the legal guardian is always responsible of the child's actions.

I'm not sure when they start trying minors in our system, but they send them to a juvenile detention center. If it's heinous enough, they can push to try them as an adult.

That said, I think that an 8-year-old can't comprehend the gravity of that sort of act.

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:18 pm**

natty dread wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: I don't see that going back and prosecuting an adult for something that happened when he was 8 as being effective or necessary.

Wait wait wait... you guys can even do that?

In my country, anyone under the age of 15 cannot be convicted of a crime - under that age, the legal guardian is always responsible of the child's actions.

I must admit that I do like that idea, to a degree. I tend to think it might give some youngsters the idea that there are no consequences to their actions (for instance, if they're already strongly at odds with their guardian), but I do think it might make parents a lot more responsible.

Posted: **Mon Jul 16, 2012 11:24 pm**

That might clear up some things here if the legal guardian were responsible for the minor's actions

. But that said, yes, minors can be tried for crimes in the U.S.A, though it is usually under a totally different operating system. Occasionally, they can be tried as adults due to the serious nature of the crime (ie. 14 year old beats mother and grandmother to death with broom stick).

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:19 am**

natty dread wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: I don't see that going back and prosecuting an adult for something that happened when he was 8 as being effective or necessary.

Wait wait wait... you guys can even do that?

In my country, anyone under the age of 15 cannot be convicted of a crime - under that age, the legal guardian is always responsible of the child's actions.

To convict an 8 year old of a crime like this would be difficult, but we do incarcerate 14 year olds for life. They get tried "as adults" and get adult punishemnts. Only just recently was it ruled that they could not be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, and not that long ago that they could not be sentenced to death.

I actually think we need to change how we deal with juveniles who engage in very serious crimes... we need a different system, not just to claim "the kid was acting as an adult" , but to say this was a kid.. but a kid who commited a very, very serious crime and who may need monitoring for life. (but by monitoring, I definitely do NOT mean putting them in adult prison!)

Anyway, its complicated, and not really on the thread topic.

puppydog85 wrote:That might clear up some things here if the legal guardian were responsible for the minor's actions . .

They can be.

But its usually more fiscal responsibility.

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:14 am**

The way it works in the UK is that CPS will decide that it is not in public interest to prosecute an 8-year old boy for molesting a 6-year girl. But American justice system is weird. With incarceration rates of 5 times the next Western democracy and overall highest in the world, I would not be surprised if this case is pursued...

BTW, I "played doctor" when I was 7, LOL... and who didn't?

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:37 am**

Woodruff wrote:
natty dread wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: I don't see that going back and prosecuting an adult for something that happened when he was 8 as being effective or necessary.

Wait wait wait... you guys can even do that?

In my country, anyone under the age of 15 cannot be convicted of a crime - under that age, the legal guardian is always responsible of the child's actions.

I must admit that I do like that idea, to a degree. I tend to think it might give some youngsters the idea that there are no consequences to their actions (for instance, if they're already strongly at odds with their guardian), but I do think it might make parents a lot more responsible.

Well, over here 14-year olds can be ordered to be taken in custody and placed in some kind of foster care if it's apparent that the parent can't manage taking responsibility for them. Also, they can be ordered to be committed to mental institutions and such, if they are deemed to be in risk of harming themselves or others (or I guess otherwise unable to function in society, I'm not totally sure about the details here). They can never be sentenced to an actual prison sentence, but they can be sentenced to pay fines, or damages to victims - usually, the guardian is responsible for paying the fines/damages, but if the guardian is unable or unwilling to pay them, the child will have to pay them once he/she turns 18 (and they grow interest until then).

So, it's not like anyone under 15 has free hands to do anything without consequences, it's just they can't be sentenced/convicted the same way adults can, and primarily the responsibility of a minor's behaviour always lies with the guardian.

Anyway, I can't see how it would make sense to convict anyone to a prison sentence for anything they've done when they were 8 years old, even (or especially) after they've turned 18. Such a thing would be unimaginable over here. It's kind of similar to how you can never blame a dog for attacking someone - it's always the owner's fault, or some other human's fault; because the dog isn't capable of higher thought, we can't expect it to understand human morality or to be fully responsbile for its actions.

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:12 am**

... only 15 states have set minimum ages, which range from 6 to 12 years. States without statutory minimum ages rely on the common law ...

Under the English common law the defense of infancy is expressed as a set of presumptions. A child under the age of seven was presumed incapable of committing a crime. Children aged seven to fourteen were presumed incapable of committing a crime but the presumption was rebuttable. The prosecution could overcome the presumption by proving that the child understood what he was doing and that it was wrong. Children fifteen and older were presumed capable of committing a crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy

Posted: **Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:28 pm**

natty dread wrote:Anyway, I can't see how it would make sense to convict anyone to a prison sentence for anything they've done when they were 8 years old, even (or especially) after they've turned 18.

You'll certainly get no argument from me on that. It doesn't make sense to me that an 8-year-old, even if they understood what they were doing, wouldn't necessarily understand the seriousness of what they were doing.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:34 am**

natty dread wrote: They can never be sentenced to an actual prison sentence, but they can be sentenced to pay fines, or damages to victims - usually, the guardian is responsible for paying the fines/damages, but if the guardian is unable or unwilling to pay them, the child will have to pay them once he/she turns 18 (and they grow interest until then).

I agree with a lot of what you say, but this part... basically says that wealthy kids get off with their parent's bailout, but poor kids get strapped to pay themselves. If a child is very young, that actually seems perhaps even more harsh than some of our punishments.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 9:10 am**

I've always been a bit confused as to what can be considered underage (I mean "underage" as in below the age of consent here.). It differs from country to country and there seems to be no consensus on the matter. I'm also not sure why we should count 18 as the grown up age. There's nothing happening biologically that indicates this is a magic age when we all of a sudden become adults. Infact most likely we all become "adults" at different age. Some grow up quicker than others and some slower than others. There's also the issue of determining what makes someone "adult" or responisble enough to take care of themselves. It's all subjective and has very little to do with evidence and science. It bothers me because I think it should be.

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:29 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
natty dread wrote: They can never be sentenced to an actual prison sentence, but they can be sentenced to pay fines, or damages to victims - usually, the guardian is responsible for paying the fines/damages, but if the guardian is unable or unwilling to pay them, the child will have to pay them once he/she turns 18 (and they grow interest until then).

I agree with a lot of what you say, but this part... basically says that wealthy kids get off with their parent's bailout, but poor kids get strapped to pay themselves. If a child is very young, that actually seems perhaps even more harsh than some of our punishments.

Well, it's actually not as simple as that - the relative wealth of the child/family vs. the wealth of the victims are taken in account. For example, if a poor child causes huge damages to some corporation, or some other entity that has way more wealth than the child, the damages the child has to pay are lowered accordingly. Basically the law says the amount of damages must be "reasonable", so a child of a poor family can't be convicted to pay millions in damages. There are also some other circumstances that can be taken in account, like mental illness and such.

(and yeah, I just googled all this)

Conquer Club

Under-Age Sexual Activity

Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity

Re: Under-Age Sexual Activity