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.