Teens on Sex Offender list

[thisqboy4u]

Everyone should read this about sex offender list.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009/09/there-is-fury-and-and-sadness-inside.html

[Quick_Sylver]

Jeez.

[Kahn]

My god.. Really? All of these teens?

[Bougainvillea]

Hmm.

I think the Nazi's are behind this.

[The Joker]

The Nazi's are behind everything, Lawrence.

[theOperaGhost]

This I can believe. I really feel most sex offenders start offending in their teens (it actually may be fact, but I'm not sure about that). Maybe they are finally being caught earlier than they used to be.

[strata8]

This I can believe. I really feel most sex offenders start offending in their teens (it actually may be fact, but I'm not sure about that). Maybe they are finally being caught earlier than they used to be.
Was that sarcasm? These teens are being called 'sex offenders' by participating in underage sexual activities. For once, the law disgusts me. If you look at this (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_78ZrJuZ3q5g/SrB9p95UlQI/AAAAAAAACYc/FKqa6yNO0Wg/s1600/JSO.jpg) image, it clearly states at the bottom that this 15 year old boy was put on the sex offender for having sex with someone under 16. A 15 year old having sex with another 15 year old? Colour me surprised.

[thisqboy4u]

Hey, I just reposted the article. Thought it was interesting. I didn't write it. Don't yell at the mailman.

[theOperaGhost]

First of all, that blog is a bunch of ignorant liberal bullshit. Second of all, you don't know what crimes these teens committed.

You know there is one liberal feminist bitch, Susan Brownmiller, who believes heterosexual sex, whether consensual or not, is rape.

[Aves]

Well this is society at its best.

[IAMWILL]

Does this nce anything to do with puberty? No.

:arrow2: ......TWPR

[Whisper]

First of all, that blog is a bunch of ignorant liberal bullshit. Second of all, you don't know what crimes these teens committed.

You know there is one liberal feminist bitch, Susan Brownmiller, who believes heterosexual sex, whether consensual or not, is rape.
Jared
I can think of allot of hardcore conservatives that have some really fucked up mentalities as well
slamming an entire party, hell an entire school of thought in regards to government over one person is naive
so calm down,
jesus dude

as far as these laws i think they're eccentric, society as a whole is far to hush hush about sexuality which leads to allot of hell and confusion for teens
a minor having sex with a minor as long as the age gap is within reason should not be considered a criminal offense nor should they be thrown onto a sex offenders list which will now fuck them for life
EVERYBODY has their first sexual experience as a minor, I don't care who you are

[IowaBoy]

Unless the teenager has sexual intercourse or preforms sexual acts with a younger person out side of the "teenager" age range this should not happen (ex: 16 year old with a 9 year old).

A few years back a teenagers parents in FL filed a lawsuit (I can not remember all the details, someone correct me if I am wrong on the ages and such) on a male age 15 for having preformed sexual acts on their daughter age 16... I do not know who won in that case but that should not be unless the person is forced into doing the sexual acts.

[theOperaGhost]

no just the republicans and religious crazy people.

Jared
I can think of allot of hardcore conservatives that have some really fucked up mentalities as well
slamming an entire party, hell an entire school of thought in regards to government over one person is naive
so calm down,
jesus dude

as far as these laws i think they're eccentric, society as a whole is far to hush hush about sexuality which leads to allot of hell and confusion for teens
a minor having sex with a minor as long as the age gap is within reason should not be considered a criminal offense nor should they be thrown onto a sex offenders list which will now fuck them for life
EVERYBODY has their first sexual experience as a minor, I don't care who you are

My response was to that dude who was generalizing all conservatives as being religious people who want to fuck everyone over for having sex. I don't see anything wrong with teens having sex with teens consensually, but that blog makes no indications (that are provable) that these boys had sex consensually. Like I said, most sex offenders offend for the first time in their teens.

So basically what you guys are saying is that statutory rape is a law that should be abolished and that teen boys should never be charged with rape (whether the sex is consensual or not)?

One could argue that a teen boy has no control of his sexual impulses and therefore can't rape....yes, that is a possible defense and if you get a good defense lawyer and a good professional witness, a teen boy could get away with forced rape.

How about all those 12 and 13 year old boys you hear about who are having sex with their teachers? That is consensual sex...do you think those boys are victims? Are the teachers sex offenders? Should that be illegal?

Sorry that this post rambled rather aimlessly.

[Tiberius]

Get your head out of some dark place of your anatomy and realize the truth. They aren't sex offenders because they were a bunch of horny teenagers having sex on the principle's desk with his daughter. They are on that list because they actually molested or commited rape. When you are a minor, you are allowed to have sex with someone who is 16(*in most states) and the other person can be anyone within two years of age of the other person. Now, you're going to argue that 14 year olds have a higher rate of occurence and what I say isn't valid, and I again refer to what I said earlier. Sex offenders are people who have commited a crime in a non-consensual sexual act or with someone who is far below their own age. Once in a while you get some crazy slut who after you screwed her in the supply closet cries rape and you end up with a lawsuit and on an off-chance, you get convicted of rape. That's an extreme circumstance so stop being so teary-eyed and realize that THEY ARE PERVERTS!

This has really turned into a debate. Moving. TWPR :arrow: ROTW

[gone]

What is the world coming to, seriously
...

[Sage]

Statutory rape is for pansies.

[YesterdaysNews]

Abstinence or being labelled a sex offender... Is that what things have come to?

Unless they committed sexual acts on a person much younger or with an unwilling partner, I think this is fucking ridiculous.

[MisterMonster]

what was funny for me was that there were more sex offenders on that chart that were 5 then there were 60.

[Cromm]

Makeing this about political parties is pointless. This blogger is about as far left as the PETA people, and even liberals think they're nuts. Yes, the blog entry is shite; but not because if it's heavily slanted viewpoint: it's because it's missing information and makes wild, unprovable inferences.

"These two young people seek some seclusion. “I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours.” Nervous hands unzip zippers. Tentative touching, complete silence as they forget to even breathe. A door suddenly opens. They try to cover up. They don’t understand why they did it or what it means."

Is any 16 y/o really that naive?


The problem, in my opinon, isn't that teens are on this list; it's that the list exists at all. Here in Canada, we too have a sex offender registry, but it's not available to the general public. It's only accessible to police, and only when they're looking for a suspect in an active case.

That's how it should be.

Giving the public all of this half assed information is useless. "Lewd conduct with a person under the age of 16".... so he could have had sex with another 15y/o, or raped a first grader.... If the public has a right to know some of this, they have a right to know all of it. All or nothing, stop this half assed shit.


~ CC

[theOperaGhost]

Makeing this about political parties is pointless. This blogger is about as far left as the PETA people, and even liberals think they're nuts. Yes, the blog entry is shite; but not because if it's heavily slanted viewpoint: it's because it's missing information and makes wild, unprovable inferences.

"These two young people seek some seclusion. “I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours.” Nervous hands unzip zippers. Tentative touching, complete silence as they forget to even breathe. A door suddenly opens. They try to cover up. They don’t understand why they did it or what it means."

Is any 16 y/o really that naive?


The problem, in my opinon, isn't that teens are on this list; it's that the list exists at all. Here in Canada, we too have a sex offender registry, but it's not available to the general public. It's only accessible to police, and only when they're looking for a suspect in an active case.

That's how it should be.

Giving the public all of this half assed information is useless. "Lewd conduct with a person under the age of 16".... so he could have had sex with another 15y/o, or raped a first grader.... If the public has a right to know some of this, they have a right to know all of it. All or nothing, stop this half assed shit.


~ CC

The public has a right to know all of it. I don't think the sex offender registry should be private at all. The only things that should not be given to the public are the name(s) of the victim(s) and the explicit details of the crime.

And I like how you said "he could have had sex with another 15 y/o, or raped a first grader..." Having sex with a 15 y/o is statutory rape. What if the first grader consented? What if the 15 y/o didn't consent? I think the statutory rape laws is one of the best laws in existence. It takes away all of these questions and automatically makes it rape. Kids don't need to be having sex before they are 15 anyway.

[CaptainObvious]

This whole issue sickens me. Anyone who thinks the majority of these juveniles are on sex offender databases because they're future rapists is being either naive or stupid. Go look at them yourself. I had a meander through the Idaho database, because it's easy and illustrative for this purpose and allows selective searching of juvenile offenders. Want to know what almost every single one is listed for? "lewd or lascivious conduct with a minor under 16"... which is not particularly shocking until you realize that many or most of the offenders were under 16 themselves!

How can we, as a society, possibly condone this wanton display of the combined excessive puritanism and gluttony of punishment that is so uniquely American? Most of these kids are guilty of nothing more than having consensual sex with people who are their peers. A year or two here or there in the teen years, in many cases, can make one a sex offender for life, for something that shouldn't be an offence at all. And then, the joys of America (!!) let you find each and every one of these people yourself. Go USA!

*vomits*

[theOperaGhost]

This whole issue sickens me. Anyone who thinks the majority of these juveniles are on sex offender databases because they're future rapists is being either naive or stupid. Go look at them yourself. I had a meander through the Idaho database, because it's easy and illustrative for this purpose and allows selective searching of juvenile offenders. Want to know what almost every single one is listed for? "lewd or lascivious conduct with a minor under 16"... which is not particularly shocking until you realize that many or most of the offenders were under 16 themselves!

How can we, as a society, possibly condone this wanton display of the combined excessive puritanism and gluttony of punishment that is so uniquely American? Most of these kids are guilty of nothing more than having consensual sex with people who are their peers. A year or two here or there in the teen years, in many cases, can make one a sex offender for life, for something that shouldn't be an offence at all. And then, the joys of America (!!) let you find each and every one of these people yourself. Go USA!

*vomits*

*cheers* I love the USA! (no sarcasm intended)

[CaptainObvious]

For someone who debates so much, your apparent ethical reasoning abilities are consistently lacking. You stick your head in the sand and celebrate the fact that we as a society are destroying the lives and seriously harming the futures of many children for something that should in no way be a crime. For you to argue that the vast majority of teenage sexual offenders - convicted for what is in most cases consensual sex - should be criminals, publicly searchable for life for the peace of mind of retarded housewives everywhere, repulses me. You should be ashamed.

[theOperaGhost]

For someone who debates so much, your apparent ethical reasoning abilities are consistently lacking. You stick your head in the sand and celebrate the fact that we as a society are destroying the lives and seriously harming the futures of many children for something that should in no way be a crime. For you to argue that the vast majority of teenage sexual offenders - convicted for what is in most cases consensual sex - should be criminals, publicly searchable for life for the peace of mind of retarded housewives everywhere, repulses me. You should be ashamed.

I am ashamed...I wish I could be like you... :(

[CaptainObvious]

Aww don't worry, you're not alone.

[Cromm]

theOperaGhost;696751 is clearly a troll. He obviously doesn't want to debate, but would rather poop in his hands and fling it at people. I respond not for him, but for those readers thinking he has any point whatsoever.

Having sex with a 15 y/o is statutory rape. For those over 18, yes. For those who are under 18 themselves, laws can get muddled; this is where the problem lies.

What if the first grader consented?
What if they did? How is that relevant? We're talking about teens with other teens here. If you want to take it that far though, let's reverse the question: what if the 'offender' was five years old themselves? What then? Do we put them both on the SOR for life for 'playing doctor'?

What if the 15 y/o didn't consent? Then it would be rape. Illegal and evil regardless of age. Do I really need to say that out loud?

I think the statutory rape laws is one of the best laws in existence. It takes away all of these questions and automatically makes it rape. Yeah... that's part of the problem when you have two teens alike in age. Statutory rape laws are nessisary to protect kids who think they know what's what from people who know how to manipulate vulnerable personalities. You can't deny it's a fair sight more complicated when the 'offender' in question shares a birthday with the 'victim'.

Kids don't need to be having sex before they are 15 anyway. While that may be true, it's not a decision that should make a teenager a sex offender for life. The fact that theOperaGhost;696751 suggests otherwize, only proves he's more interested in arguing than debating.


Now, I don't belive a registry, accessible to the public, can serve any real good. If someone did something bad enough that we should be wary of them, they shouldn't be let out of prison. If whatever they did wasn't bad enough to land them (and keep them) there, it's not bad enough to tatoo "PERVERT" on there forheads... which is essentially what a public database does.

But, if such a database must exist, let people know exactly what those individuals did to land them there. Consider the following:

John Smith, 15: Lewd conduct with minor child under 16
Joe Teenager, 16: Lewd conduct with minor child under 16
Sam Somebody, 19: Lewd conduct with minor child under 16

This information is meaningless. You don't know who these people are or what they -really- did to get there. You could infer that Sam had 'consenual' sex with an eighth grader, or that John molested a gradeschooler in his care. Both offences would certainly make these individuals worthy of the title.

Consider now, the same information, but with more detail:

John Smith, 15: Had consentual sex with his girlfriend of 3 years, also 15.
Joe Teenager, 16: Showed a 'Playboy' magazine to one of his foster brothers (age 13).
Sam Somebody, 17: Exposed himself to a female student (age 20) at frat party, during which one of his friends' younger sisters (age 14), was present.


You see how different it is this time? Would you be afraid of someone who, one time, showed a playboy to his younger brother? No, of couse not. What about someone who was convicted of "Lewd conduct with minor child under 16".


This is what I'm saying: ALL or nothing.

I prefer nothing, myself. But 'some' information can ruin lifes.


~ CC

[quartermaster]

I draw an issue with putting teenagers on a sex offender registry for consensual sex with someone of the same age group. That said, I do not know the reasons as to why the teenagers posted within the blog were put on the sex offender list, and I am not addressing the legitimacy of their prosecution. To be sure, this article is nothing more than a piece of drivel that rambled on and refused to actually present facts, however, the topic at hand should still be addressed, I believe.

I believe the statutory rape laws within this country to be grossly inadequate when it comes to underage sex cases; if these teenagers were put on a sex offender list for sex with someone under the age of sixteen, there is a problem. Children of that age (they are, after all, still children), should have laws respecting that they can have consensual sex with other minors, insofar as the other minors are not below a certain age. I believe that the title of "sex offender" should be reserved for individuals who have actually engaged in rape or molestation, however, not teenagers who had sex with someone under the age of sixteen. If a teenager has sex with a minor that is prepubescent or under a certain age, there should be laws protecting the younger person and prosecuting the older person, however, there has to be brackets, there has to be benchmarks for where a sexual interaction merits government action. This one-size fits all, in regards to sex offender cases, is quite simply most egregious; it is unacceptable that minors’ lives are being ruined for having underage sex.

I should emphasize, however, that though I believe that there should be a major review of underage sex laws, if a teenager of any age rapes another person (within the traditional sense of nonconsensual sex), the government would be well within its right to prosecute and label, as is necessary.

[theOperaGhost]

theOperaGhost;696751 is clearly a troll. He obviously doesn't want to debate, but would rather poop in his hands and fling it at people. I respond not for him, but for those readers thinking he has any point whatsoever.

For those over 18, yes. For those who are under 18 themselves, laws can get muddled; this is where the problem lies.


What if they did? How is that relevant? We're talking about teens with other teens here. If you want to take it that far though, let's reverse the question: what if the 'offender' was five years old themselves? What then? Do we put them both on the SOR for life for 'playing doctor'?

Then it would be rape. Illegal and evil regardless of age. Do I really need to say that out loud?

Yeah... that's part of the problem when you have two teens alike in age. Statutory rape laws are nessisary to protect kids who think they know what's what from people who know how to manipulate vulnerable personalities. You can't deny it's a fair sight more complicated when the 'offender' in question shares a birthday with the 'victim'.

While that may be true, it's not a decision that should make a teenager a sex offender for life. The fact that theOperaGhost;696751 suggests otherwize, only proves he's more interested in arguing than debating.


Now, I don't belive a registry, accessible to the public, can serve any real good. If someone did something bad enough that we should be wary of them, they shouldn't be let out of prison. If whatever they did wasn't bad enough to land them (and keep them) there, it's not bad enough to tatoo "PERVERT" on there forheads... which is essentially what a public database does.

But, if such a database must exist, let people know exactly what those individuals did to land them there. Consider the following:

John Smith, 15: Lewd conduct with minor child under 16
Joe Teenager, 16: Lewd conduct with minor child under 16
Sam Somebody, 19: Lewd conduct with minor child under 16

This information is meaningless. You don't know who these people are or what they -really- did to get there. You could infer that Sam had 'consenual' sex with an eighth grader, or that John molested a gradeschooler in his care. Both offences would certainly make these individuals worthy of the title.

Consider now, the same information, but with more detail:

John Smith, 15: Had consentual sex with his girlfriend of 3 years, also 15.
Joe Teenager, 16: Showed a 'Playboy' magazine to one of his foster brothers (age 13).
Sam Somebody, 17: Exposed himself to a female student (age 20) at frat party, during which one of his friends' younger sisters (age 14), was present.


You see how different it is this time? Would you be afraid of someone who, one time, showed a playboy to his younger brother? No, of couse not. What about someone who was convicted of "Lewd conduct with minor child under 16".


This is what I'm saying: ALL or nothing.

I prefer nothing, myself. But 'some' information can ruin lifes.


~ CC

Although you're calling me a troll, I have to agree with everything else in this post.

Yes, lives can easily be ruined by this, but lives can also be saved. Does the law need to be revamped? Sure it does, however lawmakers must be very careful about how they change it. It's tough to make a good law better. That is what the statutory rape law is...it is a good law, but like everything that is good, it has it's flaws. You and I have no idea what those boys shown in that blog actually did. They could have simply had consensual sex with their girlfriends of about the same age or they could have forced it on some little jr. high girl...we can only speculate. I just know it is fact that a good percentage of adults charged with rape started abusing in their youth.

Another way the statutory rape law can easily be abused goes like this. I'm an RA (resident assistant) in a male freshman college dorm. One night, several guys had three high school girls over (I believe they were all 16, but I'm not sure...I know for a fact one was 16) and they were drinking. One 16 year old drank too much and security caught her and had to call her parents to get her. Her mom came to get her (omg that was a scary look....every man in that room bailed the fuck out of there). Anyway, her mom wanted to press charges against the guys. Girls who are in trouble will LIE their asses off to get out of trouble or bring someone else down with them (don't deny girls...most of you do it). She could have easily said they did something to her and they would have been fucked. Well, lesson learned, the guys in my building check girls IDs before they bring them back to the dorm any more.

Moral of the story....laws can easily fuck you over...yes, but they are put in place to protect a majority of the people. You can't protect everyone...some people will get fucked over.

[Sapphire]

The age of consent is there for a reason.
The fact that so many people disregard it says more about them than it does about the law itself.

Does the Sexual Offenders Register need to be accessed by the public? No.
It doesn't benefit them really. People living in countries where it is accessible by the public are no less likely to become a victim themselves when compared to people living in countries where the public can't view it.

When teenagers have sex or carry out sexual acts with each other and the police are informed things like imbalances in power and age differences should be noted. Through things like this should the terms offender and victim be given.

It is rather superfluous to try to defend such activities with the claim that both parties consented as neither can actually give proper, informed consent before they reach 16 or 18 (depending on the jurisdiction).
Of course, there will be the odd exception but they are, to my knowledge, decided on in court and not in codified law.

You know there is one liberal feminist bitch, Susan Brownmiller, who believes heterosexual sex, whether consensual or not, is rape.LOL! And where, may I ask, did you find that particular gem?

She has done lots of work on sex, rape and gender differences.
I've not read her books but you will find here (http://www.susanbrownmiller.com/susanbrownmiller/html/against_our_will.html) that she most definitely does make the distinction between consensual and non-consensual acts of sexual intercourse.

One could argue that a teen boy has no control of his sexual impulses and therefore can't rape....yes, that is a possible defense and if you get a good defense lawyer and a good professional witness, a teen boy could get away with forced rape.Every human being has control over their sexual impulses. Rape is about power, not sex.

[theOperaGhost]

The frontal lobe does not fully develop until you are about 25 years old. The frontal lobe plays a part in controlling impulse control, judgment, language production, working memory, motor function, sexual behavior, socialization, and spontaneity.

Don't quote me if I say it HAS been used as a defense in something because I don't know if it has, but it is definitely an admissible defense.

I can recall two episodes of Law & Order: SVU that deal with this topic...yes I know it is fiction, but generally the defenses and such on the show are realistic and based on truth.

One episode dealt with a female middle school principal who was caught having sex with 12 year old boy. Brain scans found that she had a brain tumor which completely hindered her impulse control. That is certainly possible (the bit about the brain tumor hindering impulse control).

I can't remember the specifics of the other episode, but I think it was something about a 15 or 16 year old boy who had sex with a teen movie star while she was sleeping in her trailer. Like I said I can't remember the specifics, but I believe the defense (which I think may have failed) was that he was a teenager...the frontal lobe isn't fully developed in a teenager and the frontal lobe plays a part in controlling impulse and sexual behavior.

And about Susan Brownmiller...I have a criminology professor who has been to her lectures.

[colts199406]

wow thats pretty messed up, things need changed...

[fohawk]

wow thats stupid thatteens cant have sex legely even though they think their ready just like it said that the fifteen year old was covicted for having sex with another fifteen year old

[Sapphire]

The frontal lobe does not fully develop until you are about 25 years old. The frontal lobe plays a part in controlling impulse control, judgment, language production, working memory, motor function, sexual behavior, socialization, and spontaneity.The fact that the frontal lobe doesn't fully develop until early adulthood supports what I was saying about them not being able to give proper, informed consent. How can they give informed consent to something when the part of the brain responsible for executive functions like reasoning, future planning and judgement is still undergoing changes?

Either way, everyone (excluding those with neurological abnormalities like the tumor you have mentioned) has control over their sexual urges. Even teenagers.
If they didn't have any control over their sexual impulses then they would expose themselves to or molest everyone they found sexually attractive.

Don't quote me if I say it HAS been used as a defense in something because I don't know if it has, but it is definitely an admissible defense.And tell me how you've come to the conclusion that it is an "admissible defense."

I can't remember the specifics of the other episode, but I think it was something about a 15 or 16 year old boy who had sex with a teen movie star while she was sleeping in her trailer. Like I said I can't remember the specifics, but I believe the defense (which I think may have failed) was that he was a teenager...the frontal lobe isn't fully developed in a teenager and the frontal lobe plays a part in controlling impulse and sexual behavior.A 15 or 16 year old knows that having sex with someone while they are asleep is wrong so what's your point apart from giving fictional examples of where the fact that the frontal lobe isn't completely developed could potentially be used as a defense for rape?

And about Susan Brownmiller...I have a criminology professor who has been to her lectures.And if you look about for yourself, you will see that she is not guilty of claiming that all sex (whether it is consensual or not) is rape. She believes that rape is an unnatural behaviour and that while all men have sexual desires, only some of them rape. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=a2TTPKFUXgkC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=susan+brownmiller+consensual+sex+is+rape&source=bl&ots=nmJMNnseiS&sig=uDlt_ycgvm1ZFgOYl4JxUQ3MkSo&hl=en&ei=50EQS67sH4fSjAfS1MXfAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=susan%20brownmiller%20consensual%20sex%20is%20rape&f=false

[theOperaGhost]

Do you think every statement she's ever said has been written in a book? I'll believe my professor who has been to her lectures.

And here are the possible defenses I can find for a teenager who commits rape: defense of infancy, diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity), and irresistible impulse. (this is all American law btw)

[Sapphire]

Do you think every statement she's ever said has been written in a book? I'll believe my professor who has been to her lectures.When she has done as much work on the topic, there would be written evidence of her making such a claim. Especially since that particular claim goes against an entire book she's written.

And here are the possible defenses I can find for a teenager who commits rape: defense of infancy, diminished responsibility (or diminished capacity), and irresistible impulse. (this is all American law btw)I love how you are trying to find valid excuses for kids of committing rape.
/sarcasm

Irresistible impulse is only applicable when a mental disorder is responsible.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2517970)

Diminished responsibility only really deals with mental disorder that affect the ability of a person to understand what they did was wrong.
(http://wapedia.mobi/en/Diminished_responsibility)

The defense of infancy applies to offenders younger than 10 for federal crimes and then between the varying ages of 6 and 12 depending on the individual states law.
(http://wapedia.mobi/en/Defense_of_infancy)

A teenager would not be able to use a defense of irresistible impulse or diminished responsibility in the absense of a mental disorder that affects their impulse control or understanding. A teenager also would not be able to use a defense of infancy since even the highest age of criminal responsibility in the USA is reached before one becomes a teenager.

[Truth]

I'm also probably a sex offender, cause I find girls my own age attractive. Damn, i'm a sicko, ain't I?

[Sapphire]

I'm also probably a sex offender, cause I find girls my own age attractive. Damn, i'm a sicko, ain't I?
Thoughts can't be criminalised and you can't be a criminal if you haven't committed a crime.

[theOperaGhost]

I love how you are trying to find valid excuses for kids of committing rape.
/sarcasm

Irresistible impulse is only applicable when a mental disorder is responsible.
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2517970)

Diminished responsibility only really deals with mental disorder that affect the ability of a person to understand what they did was wrong.
(http://wapedia.mobi/en/Diminished_responsibility)

The defense of infancy applies to offenders younger than 10 for federal crimes and then between the varying ages of 6 and 12 depending on the individual states law.
(http://wapedia.mobi/en/Defense_of_infancy)

A teenager would not be able to use a defense of irresistible impulse or diminished responsibility in the absense of a mental disorder that affects their impulse control or understanding. A teenager also would not be able to use a defense of infancy since even the highest age of criminal responsibility in the USA is reached before one becomes a teenager.

Irresistible Impulse:
Second, a defendant may argue that because of mental disease or defect, she or he was unable to act in conformance with the law. This is volitional insanity, and it is known as the irresistible impulse defense. Under this defense, a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity even though she or he was capable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the offense.
http://www.answers.com/topic/irresistible-impulse

diminished capacity n. essentially a psychological term which has found its way into criminal trials. A contention of diminished capacity means that although the accused was not insane, due to emotional distress, physical condition or other factors he/she could not fully comprehend the nature of the criminal act he/she is accused of committing, particularly murder or attempted murder. It is raised by the defense in attempts to remove the element of premeditation or criminal intent and thus obtain a conviction for a lesser crime, such as manslaughter instead of murder. While the theory has some legitimacy, at times juries have been overly impressed by psychiatric testimony. The most notorious case was in People v. Dan White, the admitted killer of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, who got only a manslaughter conviction on the basis that his capacity was diminished by the sugar content of his blood due to eating "twinkies."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/diminished+capacity
(I now see that diminished capacity would not work, as teens KNOW what they are doing is wrong, they just lack impulse control...thus they have intent)

Defense of infancy CAN cover children under the age of 18. The ages you listed are the MINIMUM ages.The following are the minimum ages at which children are subject to penal law with children aged under 18.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Defense+of+infancy

[Sapphire]

Irresistible Impulse:
Second, a defendant may argue that because of mental disease or defect, she or he was unable to act in conformance with the law. This is volitional insanity, and it is known as the irresistible impulse defense. Under this defense, a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity even though she or he was capable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the offense.
http://www.answers.com/topic/irresistible-impulseThank you for backing up what I had said on this one :)

Defense of infancy CAN cover children under the age of 18. The ages you listed are the MINIMUM ages.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Defense+of+infancyMinimum ages at which children are subject to penal law means that if a child under those ages commits a crime they cannot be subject to legal prosecution as they lack the basic understanding of why it was wrong.

As that source (and the one I gave) says:The defense of infancy is a form of defense known as an excuse so that defendants falling within the definition of an "infant" are excluded from criminal liability for their actions, if at the relevant time, they had not reached an age of criminal responsibility.Which means that the defense of infancy can be used only if they have not reached the ages of either 10 years old for federal crimes or 6-12 years old for others depending on the state.

Clearly, regardless of the crime or the state, a teenager in the USA cannot use the defense of infancy.

[theOperaGhost]

The age of 10 is the MINIMUM age! MINIMUM!!!!!! Read it! Meaning that 10 years old is the YOUNGEST a child can be charged for a federal crime and 6-12 depending on the state/jurisdiction. Do you think we try every 15 year old who gets into a fight with assault as an adult? There are even kids older than 12 who have NOT been tried as an adult for murder! The ages listed are the minimum ages and 18 is the maximum age.

The following are the minimum ages at which children are subject to penal law with children aged under 18.

And the mental defect in someone under about 25 is that their brain isn't fully developed.

a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity even though she or he was capable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the offense.

[Sapphire]

The age of 10 is the MINIMUM age! MINIMUM!!!!!! Read it! Meaning that 10 years old is the YOUNGEST a child can be charged for a federal crime and 6-12 depending on the state/jurisdiction.I can read thank you, very much. And if you had read this:Minimum ages at which children are subject to penal law means that if a child under those ages commits a crime they cannot be subject to legal prosecution as they lack the basic understanding of why it was wrong.then you would know that what you've just said is redundant.

Do you think we try every 15 year old who gets into a fight with assault as an adult?I don't know about America, but here when a minor is charged with assault it is only on their record until they turn 18 or for a period of 5 years (at least I think it is 5 years).
There are even kids older than 12 who have NOT been tried as an adult for murder! The ages listed are the minimum ages and 18 is the maximum age.The age of criminal responsibility doesn't mean that they are all necessarily tried as adults. And, unless you can show me otherwise, I haven't said as much.

I have simply used the definition of the defense of infancy to illustrate that teenagers cannot use it to excuse their actions.
The definition states that if they hadn't reached the age of criminal responsibility at the time of committing the crime, then they can use it. But not after.

Also, the maximum age is 18 because that is when a minor becomes an adult.

And the mental defect in someone under about 25 is that their brain isn't fully developed.No because it isn't a defect. It is part of our natural development and it does not impair daily functioning.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/medical/defect

[theOperaGhost]

What I said is NOT redundant. It simply means that children between the ages of 6 (or whatever the minimum age of the jurisdiction is) and 18 (or whatever the maximum age of the jurisdiction is) can be tried either as juveniles OR adults, depending on the age and the crime.

[Sapphire]

What I said is NOT redundant. It simply means that children between the ages of 6 (or whatever the minimum age of the jurisdiction is) and 18 (or whatever the maximum age of the jurisdiction is) can be tried either as juveniles OR adults, depending on the age and the crime.I had previously stated the same so repeating what I had said and doing so in such a patronising way was redundant and, to be honest, insulting.

I never disputed that those between the minimum and maximum ages can be tried as juveniles or as adults, btw.

The importance of the ages is that if someone commits a crime while over the minimum age of criminal responsibility they cannot use the defense of infancy and must be held accountable (either as a juvenile or as an adult) for their crime(s).

[theOperaGhost]

I had previously stated the same so repeating what I had said and doing so in such a patronising way was redundant and, to be honest, insulting.

I never disputed that those between the minimum and maximum ages can be tried as juveniles or as adults, btw.

The importance of the ages is that if someone commits a crime while over the minimum age of criminal responsibility they cannot use the defense of infancy and must be held accountable (either as a juvenile or as an adult) for their crime(s).

My apologies for arguing with you. I was misunderstanding what you were saying and I was also misinterpreting the defenses....Lack of sleep does that to a person.

However, I still stand by that there are defenses for a teen who commits rape. Are these defenses going to win an acquittal? Most likely not, but it will likely lead to a reduced charge. Hell, if the twinkie defense (sugar intake lead to diminished capacity) can win in court I can't see why some kind of defense can't work for a brain that isn't fully developed. If you can't control your judgment and impulse, it's not your fault.

[Sapphire]

However, I still stand by that there are defenses for a teen who commits rape. Are these defenses going to win an acquittal? Most likely not, but it will likely lead to a reduced charge. Hell, if the twinkie defense (sugar intake lead to diminished capacity) can win in court I can't see why some kind of defense can't work for a brain that isn't fully developed. If you can't control your judgment and impulse, it's not your fault.
The defense used in the White case of 1979 was that of diminished responsibility on account of major mental illness (recurrent bouts of depression). Junk food was discussed as this was part of his depression - before he became depressed he was a health freak - but Twinkies were only mentioned fleetingly by one out of the five psychiatrists consulted.

A defense that states a teenager (or young adult since the frontal lobe develops until about 25) can be excused on account of the fact that his/her frontal lobe isn't fully developed would be ludicrous. If the majority of teenagers are capable of not raping other people then clearly the point of development of the frontal lobe has little to do with it.

[theOperaGhost]

The defense used in the White case of 1979 was that of diminished responsibility on account of major mental illness (recurrent bouts of depression). Junk food was discussed as this was part of his depression - before he became depressed he was a health freak - but Twinkies were only mentioned fleetingly by one out of the five psychiatrists consulted.

A defense that states a teenager (or young adult since the frontal lobe develops until about 25) can be excused on account of the fact that his/her frontal lobe isn't fully developed would be ludicrous. If the majority of teenagers are capable of not raping other people then clearly the point of development of the frontal lobe has little to do with it.

I don't think the majority of people with depression go around and murder two people either.

Kids develop differently...you could easily have a 14 or 15 year old kid with the brain development of an 11 or 12 year old.

[Sapphire]

I don't think the majority of people with depression go around and murder two people either.But depression is a mental illness and mental illnesses are clearly covered by the defense to diminished responsibility.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Diminished_responsibility

Kids develop differently...you could easily have a 14 or 15 year old kid with the brain development of an 11 or 12 year old.If there were such a case then there would be an illness, a disorder or a defect that is responsible for the retarded development and they would be able to use the defense of diminished responsibility.

[theOperaGhost]

But depression is a mental illness and mental illnesses are clearly covered by the defense to diminished responsibility.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Diminished_responsibility

If there were such a case then there would be an illness, a disorder or a defect that is responsible for the retarded development and they would be able to use the defense of diminished responsibility.

The defect is that their brain hasn't developed completely yet. This is where irresistible impulse comes in again. You can be completely sane at one point, you only have to prove that you didn't have any control of yourself at the time of the crime.

What if it's a 12 year old that commits the rape?

[dead]

The defect is that their brain hasn't developed completely yet. This is where irresistible impulse comes in again. You can be completely sane at one point, you only have to prove that you didn't have any control of yourself at the time of the crime.

What if it's a 12 year old that commits the rape?

A defect has to be "abnormal". A brain that has not developed completely is not a defect.

[theOperaGhost]

A defect has to be "abnormal". A brain that has not developed completely is not a defect.

So teens and young adults who haven't fully developed and lack the ability to control impulses, judgment and sexual behavior are just fucked over by the system then? However true it might be (which it is true, and I've known it the entire time), I feel that is bullshit. As a defense lawyer, I would try every defense possible (which is obviously more than what I've provided here, those are just the most common). I'm sure there are many defense lawyers that have tried to fight this sort of injustice. How can you be held accountable if you can't control your impulses? It isn't your fault that your brain doesn't develop until you're in your 20s.

Now referring to what I said in parentheses about me knowing that there isn't a solid defense for juvenile sex offenders. I'm not ignorant, I'm well aware that there isn't a solid defense. I don't think that is right. I'm not saying rape by teens is justifiable..not at all. Do I feel a diminished sentence is in order? Yes. There are teens in this world who lack the ability to control their sexual behavior. They are not as dangerous as adult rapists. There is a possibility that when a teenage rapists brain fully develops that they will indeed be able to control themselves. Teenage rapists should not face the same punishment as adult rapists. Should they be punished? Absolutely.

[Sapphire]

The defect is that their brain hasn't developed completely yet. This is where irresistible impulse comes in again. You can be completely sane at one point, you only have to prove that you didn't have any control of yourself at the time of the crime.Absolutely not. As I have said before, a defect is an abnormality that affects daily functioning. Since natural development is neither an abnormality nor an impairment of functioning, a defense of diminished responsibility or of irresistible impulse cannot be used in such a way as both require the presence of a mental defect/disorder/illness.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/medical/defect
Neither diminished responsibility nor irresistible impulse can be used as a defense by healthy teenagers.

What if it's a 12 year old that commits the rape?Then they should be punished for doing so.
They shouldn't be excused from committing such a horrible crime just because they are young.

[Sapphire]

So teens and young adults who haven't fully developed and lack the ability to control impulses, judgment and sexual behavior are just fucked over by the system then?The link between the stage of development of the frontal lobe in teenagers and the committing of a crime by teenagers is very weak. Since it is so weak, it cannot and should not be used as a defense for breaking the law.

However true it might be (which it is true, and I've known it the entire time), I feel that is bullshit. As a defense lawyer, I would try every defense possible (which is obviously more than what I've provided here, those are just the most common). I'm sure there are many defense lawyers that have tried to fight this sort of injustice. How can you be held accountable if you can't control your impulses? It isn't your fault that your brain doesn't develop until you're in your 20s.You would defend a teenager rapist because you feel they are the ones who are wronged in all of this?

Answer me this, when you were younger did you rape (or attempt to rape) everyone you ever wanted to have sex with?
Since you are free and not locked up in a detention centre or prison somewhere, the answer must be "no".
The same is true of almost all teenagers because, like it or not, teenagers do have enough control over their impulses to not do these things.

Do I feel a diminished sentence is in order? Yes. There are teens in this world who lack the ability to control their sexual behavior. They are not as dangerous as adult rapists. There is a possibility that when a teenage rapists brain fully develops that they will indeed be able to control themselves. Teenage rapists should not face the same punishment as adult rapists. Should they be punished? Absolutely.
And how are teenage rapists not as dangerous as adult rapists?
Is it because you perceive them to, more or less, be a victim of their own biology?

And what evidence is there to suggest that rapes are committed because the rapist can't control themselves?
As far as I'm aware, there is none.