Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
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?
|
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.