2 N.J. teens labeled sex offenders for life after 'horseplay' incident

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 1:46pm

SOMERSET COUNTY — Call it bullying or call it horseplay. Either way, a state appellate court panel says roughhousing with a sexual connotation by a pair of 14-year-old Somerset County boys was a crime that requires them to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.

In a decision handed down Monday, the three-judge panel acknowledged the severity of its decision, but said it was bound to uphold the law.

"We are keenly aware that our decision may have profound lifelong ramifications for these two boys as well as others similarly situated," Judge Jose Fuentes wrote.

One of the boys, whose case went to trial, said he had sat on the faces of a pair of 12-year-old schoolmates with his bare buttocks in November 2008 "cause I thought it was funny and I was trying to get my friends to laugh," he told a family court judge.

But an act is considered criminal sexual contact if it is done for sexual gratification or to degrade or humiliate the victim, and punishable by lifetime registration — even for juveniles — under Megan’s Law, which requires a person convicted of a sex crime against a child to notify police of changes of address or employment.

The trial judge concluded the teenager intended to humiliate or degrade his victims and found him guilty of criminal sexual contact. The second teenager who was implicated pleaded guilty to criminal sexual contact, and received the same penalty.

What do you think about this court ruling?
The punishment fits the crime.

The judges made a big mistake.

VoteView Results
Share This

The convictions were appealed, and the attorneys for the teenagers argued that their behavior amounted to horseplay, which other appellate court panels had exempted from Megan’s Law. David Fassett, an attorney for the boy who pleaded guilty, argued that the court should not take such a literal view of the law.

"I think the Appellate Division was simply offended by the conduct here and just couldn’t get past that issue,’’ he said.

The appeal did not challenge the application of Megan’s Law to the 14-year-old youths since courts have already ruled the law applies to offenders as young as 13, but on the ground that the offense was not severe enough to carry a lifelong stigma.

SOME VIEW RULING AS 'HARSH' PUNISHMENT

Ronald Chen, the state’s former public advocate who is vice dean at Rutgers-Newark Law School, said in an interview that the ruling highlights the "collateral" consequences of Megan’s Law.

He said that although the boys’ convictions for criminal sexual contact met the law’s requirements, "I don’t think lifelong registration is a proportionate response.’’

Chen said that is something the Legislature has to take up.

"It is a very harsh result and maybe the Legislature should take a look at it,’’ he said. "But for now, it is what it is.’’

The panel, which also included Judges Victor Ashrafi and William Nugent, noted its constraints under the law.

"Although we are not unsympathetic to the arguments criticizing the application of the lifelong registration requirements in (Megan’s Law) to 14-year-old offenders, we are bound to uphold such application because that outcome is mandated by the Legislature,’’ the court said in its ruling.

The Somerset County prosecutor, Geoffrey Soriano, and Robert Wilson, a lawyer for the teenager who was tried, both declined to comment.

For the boys, who are now 16, there is still a possibility of having their convictions overturned. The appellate panel sent their cases back to Superior Court, where one youth will have a hearing on whether he understood the ramifications of pleading guilty, and the other will get to argue that his trial attorney was ineffective.


Your thoughts...

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 1:54pm

My opinion is that laws that are enacted as a kneejerk reaction to a media-hyped crime are almost always a bad idea. Most laws that are named after a crime victim may be well intended, but usually do little or no good, and often do some harm.

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 2:04pm

I think this punishment is too harsh. They are only 16 yrs. old and will have to live the rest of their lives as sex offenders. I don't believe the intent was sexual. I perceive it more as bullying. What are these judges thinking? I hope their verdict doesn't hurt Megan's law in the end.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 2:08pm

"But an act is considered criminal sexual contact if it is done for sexual gratification or to degrade or humiliate the victim"

Well...the judges' were clearly referencing the second part of the law. And rightfully so. We can say that the law itself is wrong...but I think the judges' application of the law is not incorrect.

What madbrian said about laws named after victims.

[Q]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 2:09pm

I think this falls into Namo's oft-stated issue of American need for 'black or white' answers. And it's grotesque.

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 2:10pm

Actually, I do hope this case causes the legislature to rethink the law. I am a father of three daughters, and I don't think the law does anyone any good.

[singtopher]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 2:25pm

Given the fact that the boys were 12 when they incident occurred, I doubt they any other intention than horseplay.

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 2:53pm

That is my theory too, sing. Weird, but the article doesn't mention if the 2 faces the boys sat on were girls...it just says "classmates", but most people just assume they were girls.

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 3:12pm

I agree that to me it seems like it was just horseplay.
I think the boys should be punished, undoubtedly, but to have what amounts to a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives is just absurd.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 3:13pm

Didn't even cross my mind that they'd be girls. It struck me as the sort of "horseplay" that boys engage in with other boys. My opinion falls somewhere in-between. I don't think they should necessarily be branded as sex offenders, but forcibly sitting on someone's face bare skin to bare skin is a hostile, humiliating and aggressive act, and the fact that one of the offenders can so lightly brush it off as something that was intended to be funny gives me pause. It's horrible behavior that needs to be paid attention to. That's pretty extreme behavior.

[singtopher]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 3:24pm

I assumed the victims were boys. Were they not?

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 3:36pm

We can only assume they're boys. Although some colleagues are suggesting that they were girls and that is why the judges are being so severe.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 3:41pm

I think they're right to be severe, and the victims' sex should not be an issue at all. This kind of extreme behavior should be nipped in the bud, but it sounds as though the sex offender label is something they they had to uphold by law.

eta: can we get a link on this, please? Updated On: 7/20/11 at 03:41 PM

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 3:47pm

Here you go...

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/teens_sex_offenders_horseplay.html

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 3:49pm

I can't for the life of me figure out how this kind of behavior could be considered horseplay. Unless the victims were people who were actively in on this kind of thing (and thought it was funny), it seems like an utterly debasing, degrading, humiliating thing to do to another human being. If I was the parent of one of the victims, I'd be the one in jail for kicking the SH*T out of the bully who would dare try that with my kid.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 4:01pm

Having read the link provided, and a couple others, I believe now more than ever this was a serious event. Two 14 year old boys held down 12 year olds and put their bare buttocks on their faces? Who, at the age of 14, doesn't know the ramifications of such a vile act? What's next on their agenda?

"I don't believe the intent was sexual. I perceive it more as bullying."

I can't imagine what possible difference that makes. I'm with Son o' Robbie. I'd be in jail if that were my kid.

[Q]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 4:12pm

I guess I fall in the minority on this. They're teenagers, and I can't ascribe the level of maliciousness to the act that others seem to. In a world that encompasses and embraces the antics of grown men known as Jackasses on tv and in movies, I don't think this stands out as the 'horror' as it's being classified.

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 4:21pm

"I can't imagine what possible difference that makes."

The difference is why would you have to sign up as a sex offender if you were bullying? I am not saying they should get away with this...they should be punished, but NOT as sex offenders.

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 4:23pm

Like I said - this needs to be punished. I can DEFINITELY see two idiotic kids joking around while bullying, and thinking that what they did was just funny. Maybe they tried farting in the kids' faces that they were bullying.

I'm not excusing it at all - it's a horrible thing they did and it DEFINITELY deserves punishment. If I was the parent of one of the victims (or hell, the idiots who did this), I'd be in court for beating someone up also.

Given that, I really think this is a case of the punishment being more severe than the crime. People do a HELL of a lot worse things than this (for example, we don't know if the boys held the victims down for seconds or minutes - and I do think there's a difference as it would indicate if there was a sexual motivation) who don't get branded for life for it...

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 4:23pm

Sadly, it does not seem you fall into the minority here, but I surely do not embrace "Jackass" mentality, nor do I believe in the old nostrum "boys will be boys" when it comes to things like this. They didn't TP someone's house here, they violated someone's personal integrity in a vile way. Let me ask you this, Q. If two 14 year old boys were to knock you to the ground, pull their pants down, and sit on your face because they thought it was funny, how would you classify it?

eta: I guess I just don't see much difference between such extreme bullying (farting in their face is less objectionable?) and something that strictly speaking was sexual in nature. It was horribly demeaning and aggressive, done against the will of the victims. I don't see how such a thing gets classified as "horseplay", and we've come to a sad state of affairs when it is.
Updated On: 7/20/11 at 04:23 PM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 4:26pm

My response is not in any way an informed legal one, but it seems that in order to label them as sex offenders for the rest of their lives the offense would need to be a sexual one.

Yes, I know that bare buttocks are sometimes involved in sex acts. But not always. I suppose I might feel different if I heard actual testimony about what had occurred. But did it become a sexual assault because the buttocks were bare? Otherwise it would have been plain old bullying?

Punish them, by all means. But I'm just not sure that this sentence is accomplishing what that law was intended to accomplish.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 4:30pm

Interestingly there are hundreds of videos of boys doing this kind of thing to each other, so it seems to be a popular joke to play. Check youtube or ebaumsworld.

I dont see it as sexual, but definitely meant to humiliate.

These slopes are so slippery!

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 4:57pm

If it was a Jackass-style thing (ie. everyone involved was, in some way, a willing participant), then I get it. But if the 12-year-olds involved were not? Then the behavior does, in my opinion, fall under Megan's Law. Now...I'm not actually saying I think these boys should be registered sex offenders for life. I don't. I believe that is a problem with the law. But I do believe the judges made the right decision here.

Honestly...there are humiliations I suffered in high school that I think about to this day...and they are far less invasive and awful than what is described in that article.

[Q]

Posted: 7/20/11 at 5:10pm

"Let me ask you this, Q. If two 14 year old boys were to knock you to the ground, pull their pants down, and sit on your face because they thought it was funny, how would you classify it?"

Obviously, I'm going to assume that my age -48- is NOT a factor to be taken into consideration here. That being said, I would honestly classify it as 14 year old boys being how 14 year old boys behave - like hormonally driven creatures who are full-blown in the midst of discovering their power, and the limits of it, as well.

Do I think it's excusable? No. But I do think it is attended to in a MUCH better way than this. I don't even think it should be wasting time in a courtroom, to tell the truth.

Even worse, I suppose, is how I DO think it should be attended to. If they want to expose their behinds that badly, I'd make them do it publicly - and then strap their asses HARD.

NOW you can think I'm as barbaric as I probably am
Updated On: 7/20/11 at 05:10 PM

[jasonf]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 12:08am

Q, I think you should be in charge of sentencing from now on.

Ghostlight - intention DOES matter here, especially when we're talking about pinning something on someone for life. No one is saying this shouldn't go unpunished - it's the level of punishment that's in question here.

If it was a jackass type thing, or even if it was just bullying (and didn't NJ's esteemed governor just sign an anti-bullying law?), then that's NOT something that should be treated as a sexual offense like this. If the intention was to get sexual gratification, then, yeah, ok, I can see the argument a bit more.

To me, it sounds like 14 year olds who idiotically thought their bullying was funny, and did something that went a step over the line. Would you really put it past a bully to think farting in someone's face isn't funny? Put yourself in the shoes of a 14 year old bully.

Once again, there's no excuse for this behavior and it ABSOLUTELY needed to be addressed with a punishment. A lifelong stigma though? I don't know...