Seriously?
 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/10/gra....ap/index.html

Ridiculous. A group of first and second grade boys are accused of "sexually assaulting" an 8 year-old girl. Assault, perhaps. Sexual assault by 7 and 8 year olds?

Umm, yeah. If they're pulling her pants down or lifting her skirt or something, and not leaving her alone, that would be a sexual assault. There's a difference between playing and pursuing someone in a mean-spirited way.

Well there is a a difference between sexual assault that should be treated as a legal matter and what these boys appear to have done.

The girl is unharmed, is it really a good idea to embroil these kids in the legal system? Whatever happened to the parents just whooping their asses?

Maybe we should make the kids have to register as sex offenders?

Define "unharmed."

yeah, normally I'm the last to be in favor of these kinds of suits, but when it says that a group of TWELVE boys was huddled over her and she was on the ground, that's a little different than the 5 year old who got suspended for kissing or two kids chasing each other around the playground.

Exactly. She couldn't even go back to school because of emotional trauma. Maybe she did have bones broken, or maybe she wasn't raped, but she definitely wasn't "unharmed". And yes, if these kids are that (I don't even know the word I want) messed up/unsocialized at this age, I believe they need to get help and I believe maybe they should be on the sex-offender list until they are 18.

Re: Seriously?
 

See if you still think this way after your first year of law school.

The article describes the girl as unharmed physically. That is vastly different than unharmed by the attack. She has been assaulted and sexualized, albeit it by children, at 8 YEARS OLD. That is traumatic. And I suspect will leave emotional scars that she will have to deal with through out puberty and adolescence.

Re: Re: Seriously?
 

So you have a completely different perspective on the sexuality of 8 year olds because of L1? I guess I don't get your point, but also I've never completed first-year law . . .

Honestly, I think there are two key issues:

1 - Whether the attack was sexualized (note that here, I don't think it would necessarily have to entail something like digital penetration, but that would certainly qualify - even if it were 'group teasing' about girls having 'mommy parts' and attempting to pull down pants, that's probably enough) . . . if it's just boys assailing a girl, that's not enough, there has to be some tacit acknowledgement of the crime as sexualized . . . remember, these are pre-pubescent children.

2 - Determining the extent to which the girl experienced trauma . . . by this, I don't doubt it was traumatic and that she'll require support, but we don't really know the full extent - even the article notes that they don't know the 'emotional scars' that will be inflicted. None of us are really qualified to speak on that, especially considering point #1.

As far as listing the children as sex offenders, I find it hard to accept unless we're willing to assign them similarly 'adult' penalties (such as juvenile detention for multiple years (prob until 18 for most), strenuous rehabilitative counseling, the full 9) for such a crime. I realize that at 7 and 8 these kids are old enough to know (rudimentary) right from wrong, but this is well below the cutoff for treatment as an adult in any other facet of law - is it the fact that this is a (potential) sex crime that makes our responses more visceral or vehement?

Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
 

I have a completely different perspective on everything. It changes the way you think.

Touching certainly can constitute sexual assault. Between 7 and 14 kids may be able to be held liable for their actions. Without knowing the facts I can't say more, but I do think there's no reason to think there isn't a chance she wasn't sexually assualted.

Some people see the statue of David as sexual because of a naked penis. I think they are C-R-A-Z-Y. Some people might also think this is sexual when it occured between 2 parties that I highly doubt can even perform sexually let alone get pleasure from it.

Although I did lose my virginity to a supermodel at age 7 I don't most guys are studs like me.

-Rudey
--S-T-U-D-S

Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
 

You do think there isn't a reason to think there isn't a chance she wasn't sexually assaulted?

LOL - dude you have to be in the middle of exams, because that sentence is brutal (although I agree with your point, as I think I laid out) . . .

All good points. My skepticism lies within the article. Nothing has been reported (in the article) that falls under sexual assault.

Little boys huddled over a little girl could mean a variety of things: sexual assault, physical assault, playing a game, huddling over the little girl to see why she is on the ground.

There is a good possibility that the press simply did not want to be salacious in their details. There tends to be more of a code of silence in assault cases involving children than there is with adults.

There wasn't a whole lot of information in the article; it would be interesting to hear more about what happened, rather than the fact that they were just standing in a circle around the girl.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
 

Touching might constitute sexual assault ifthe touching is sexual in nature and depending on the local law. The report gives no details as to the nature of what was happening other than that the boys were huddled around the girl and that "touching" was involved. So leaving aside the question of whether boys 6-8 can have the requisite mens rea for sexualized touching, there is nothing in the report that could tell us one way or another what actually happened or if it would fit a definition of sexual assault.

That said, the website of the Missouri General Assembly has Missouri statutes, and according to it, Missouri Revised Statute 566-040 says "A person commits the crime of sexual assault if he has sexual intercourse with another person knowing that he does so without that person's consent." The entire chapter on sexual offenses can be seen here -- I'm not seeing anything that would make mere touching constitute sexual assault in Missouri, but admittedly I may not be looking in the right places.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
 

WOW. Um. I just finished exams yesterday so we're just going to say that that was Mr. Leinenkugel talking.

*goes back to bed*

Here is the article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Some of the details here were reported on my local news in Baltimore. My assertions that the attack was sexual was based on the tv story not the CNN article.

Full article here

My local news reported that the girl's statement was that they were trying to pull off her underwear and were trying to "poke her with their privates." The report was clear that this was not just a gang of kids that happened to be boys picking on another kid that happened to be a girl. Our children are being exposed to more and more sexual content at younger and younger ages. Children replicate and repeat what they see and hear. I have friends who are elementary school teachers who have been sexually propositioned by third, second and even first graders. Believe it or not, it happens. :( :mad:

Kimmie1913 - thanks for the additional info.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
 

I think most of the posters were using sexual assault colloquially rather than as a legal term of art. Using the link you provided, it would appear that the appropriate crime in Missouri would be first degree child molestation "A person commits the crime of child molestation in the first degree if he or she subjects another person who is less than fourteen years of age to sexual contact." Sexual contact is defined as "any touching of another person with the genitals or any touching of the genitals or anus of another person, or the breast of a female person, or such touching through the clothing, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire of any person." Based on the local news report it may have been attempted molestation. The issue, I am sure, will be whether the purpose was for arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the attackers.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
 

I think this is the issue on a more general level as well (or is at least related), not simply in terms of the actual construction of the laws of Missouri - good posts though, thanks for the info.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
 

I agree, with the additional issue of whether a 6-8 year-old boy can act for sexual gratification.

As for the colloquial use of the term, I think you're right, but the press was also using it, which I think creates potential problems down the road, if no where else but public perception and understanding. I mean, look how quickly this thread went to the list of sexual offenders.

Aren't kids hitting puberty at younger ages than ever before?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously?
 

Oh I absolutely agree. I think the press often does a poor job of that. They have the opportunity to educate and miss it. I am sure that if the appropriate charge is child molestation the offender would still be a registered sex offender.

Yes, because they're fatter or because of better nutrition (I've heard both opinions).

The age ranges here are six to eight . . .

I'll be such a hoot when girls are getting pregnant at age four and kids and their parents are in high school together! Family bonding!

After working in child/adolescent psych for 13 years, and adding on my experiences as the parent of a 10 year old boy:

1) I would hope that the boys who were involved (and also the girl, more obviously) would receive psychiatric treatment rather than end up in a criminal system. I've met and talked to thousands of kids who were sexually abused and 99% of those who inflicted sexual assault/molestation/abuse (whatever term you prefer) had been sexually abused by an adult in some form. That's how they learned it. I've been out of the field for 6 years and our society has become even more sexualized since that time, so that percentage may have gone down some, because some kids are probably exposed to more, even if they weren't sexually assaulted themselves. My point is, at that age, it's more likely to be a psychological issue than a criminal issue. AND, even if it is a criminal issue, at that age, most kids can be turned around. Unless they are a budding sociopath, but even that can be evaluated and determined by a good psychiatrist and/or therapist.

2) My son, even at age 6, when in the shower, giggled when accidentally stimulated and said things like "that tickles and feels really funny" and things like that. It's pretty typical for 4 year old boys to "discover" themselves and they're often caught touching those private parts. They don't have the exact same reaction, obviously, as a teenager, but the nerves are there and it registers as pleasure.

3) If they've seen it done (porn, movies, internet, whatever) or had it done to them, they may still try to do it, even they aren't physiologically capable of it.