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

^Hear hear.

---

"I really think we need to know more about the case than is out there to fully understand it"

Oh, where's the fun in that?!?

That's probably the case with most everything 'mentioned' on the Interwebs, especially here.

Bold thoughts expressed can be invigorating, though, no?

I just hope no lives are ruined through this particular scenario. Any of them.

And Jason - I would gladly accept the duty, but NEVER in juvenile court.
Although, my methods would remain the same

Updated On: 7/21/11 at 02:08 AM

Well, there you are.

And now, I risk real ostracization with this opinion - they still shouldn't be labeled for LIFE. Is it actionable and punishable? Obviously. But I really believe we need to draw a line somewhere between punnishment and removal of life opportunity.

Is this an easy line to draw? No. We here in California (and I hope elsewhere) watch a court case unfolding of a 14 year old accused of murder (shooting his gay classmate in the back of the head.) How do you approach the two teen scenarios with any kind of balance?

While a part of me wants to just throttle those ingrates, I can't find a way to justify ruining the rest of their lives. And make no mistake, that's what we're talking here. Unless you have experience with the 'system', you can't possibly understand.

Ultimately, as in so many other situations, I find myself simply sitting back and screaming, "THIS SUCKS!!!" But that doesn't answer or solve anything. Obviously.

My heart breaks for all those involved, and the level to which it has exploded. I don't know if ANY kind of objective outcome is possible, considering the publicity now involved.

But, isn't that the case in general now? Have we gotten to a point where any kind of objectivity or perspective is impossible? I try to think not, but things like this - and so many others - have to make you wonder.

I agree with Ghostlight. Have all of you that posted on here read the ENTIRE "opinion" (that GL2 posted)? Horseplay - not by a long shot. In my opinion, a most disgusting, perverted sexual assault upon a child. If one is doing that **** by age 14, one wonders what they'll be doing later on. I may be in the minority, but after reading the entire court opinion, I think the punishment fits the CRIME. Some teenage boys are ****ing idiots.

I agree, Reg. This is a whole different story.

---

I don't usually tend to stand to the extreme sides of issues, but on this one I absolutely think the boys should be labeled sex offenders. They committed a crime of a sexual nature.

---

I don't know. I can't say reading the opinion changed my initial impression all that much. All due respect, if someone is forcibly putting their bare ass on someone's face, where did you think the penis and testicles would end up? (Fwiw, the defendant denies that his penis was ever exposed).

It still doesn't sound to me that the defendant did this to get sexual jollies, and that still doesn't make a difference to me. By the letter of the law (and I do agree that a "one size fits all" law like Megan's with no room for discretion is a bad, bad idea), there was no choice but to tag these kids as sex offenders. Also, for Q, though probably this doesn't make a great deal of difference to you, Megan's Law has a three tier system. These boys will be in tier one, considered "low threat". Only law enforcement agents are informed of their status. I understand, of course, how information like that has a tendency to get out, but it would be in direct violation of their rights.

I can't say I had any sympathy for these boys before, and I surely don't now. If one of them hadn't tipped his hand, the victims may been too scared to report this crime, and perhaps the behavior would have escalated, as it did, gradually, in this situation. It makes me wonder what kind of behavior they've indulged in before.

"Now, it's a whole new ballgame."

It's the same ballgame. The only difference is that now you know a little more about how the game played out. The facts were there. People were simply forming opinions from a single article.

Thanks for the edit, Q. Now about this:

"The main child in question only turned 14 that day, which I think is important to keep in mind. I agree with Robbie's assessment of the scenario, up to and including the flawed law. "

What sticks in my mind is the manner in which the birthday boy chose to celebrate, running around in a pack (there were four 8th graders), terrorizing younger and weaker kids. Also, if you agree w/Robbie's assessment, then you agree that "Clearly, this was a sexual assault. And how many times do we have to hear that rape is not a sexual act, but an act of violence used to exert power and control over another human being? So yeah...this act was not about sexual gratification...but about power and degradation. Just like rape."

I think most of us agree the law is flawed. Ironically, if I understand the law correctly, if this crime had been performed the day before, birthday boy's record would have been cleared on his 18th birthday.

What I can't totally agree with is this:

"I DON'T believe that this action by a child - which DOES involve certain hormonal challenges and difficulties - necessarily means that he's obviously destined for a life of sexual predation or crime."

Not necessarily, but it's a pretty damn good indication. Anyone capable of such brutal and inhuman behavior at 14 is certainly more likely to escalate to worse if unchecked. It is very clear that he knew he was doing wrong. Immediately after the attack, he offered the kid $10 to keep his mouth shut. He called the victim's sister to ask if he'd been told on yet, and asked her not to tell.

Is it possible that he could turn out to be a great guy and a useful member of society? Sure, but I've gotta say, at 14 you should know better - and he did. I don't give a damn what his hormones were telling him. Along with a group, he performed a prolonged assault on another human being. It's very hard for me to get past that.

I tried to use my words carefully so that people would know that I wasn't equating it to rape. No do I belive those actions to be rape.

What I was trying to do was disabuse people of the notion that because the perps weren't doing this to get their rocks off, as they say, that this couldn't be considered a sexual assault. But the point of most sexual assaults is not to get one's rocks off, but to exert power and control over someone perceived to be weaker. I just went to the extreme of rape to make that point.

And I still cannot buy that this is horseplay or roughhousing. to me, those words imply the consent of all parties involved. The way I am reading this, the 12 year olds were victimized. This situation does not seem to be a Jackass situation in any way.

I don't think anyone was implying that the victims were complicit. And I don't think anyone thinks the crime should go unpunished.

I agree with Q, though, that very similar (and arguably worse) things happened in my elementary and junior high schools. And to my knowledge none of the perpertrators went on to a life of crime, though I confess I haven't followed their lives all that closely.

Well, Robbie, strictly speaking, it is certainly. I just don't think situations like this should be approached with a dictionary mentality. I read every word of the given transcript - twice, in fact - and worked at getting a mental image of what occurred. That's all we have to work with, because we can't actually see the boys involved, or hear how the actually were during testimony.

With what I'm given, i see something less sinister in my head. I see a rather typical scenario of older boys intimidating younger ones that got a little out of hand. If the interpretation is different, obviously the feelings about it are different, as well.

Robbie - you mean we can disagree like adults?!?

And, you're right about what we do agree on

I always did think they needed two angry women . . .