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

[singtopher]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 12:37am

^Hear hear.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 1:25am

Well, I have said that I don't necessarily think they should be labelled sex offenders for life, or sex offenders at all, perhaps, but in fact, one of the boys did indeed plead guilty to criminal sexual contact.

I just don't see this as a "boys will be boys" thing.

"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."

What Robbie said. I wasn't clear when I said "I can't imagine what possible difference that makes". I was thinking in terms of the victims. Do you honestly think it matters to them whether their assailants sat on their faces for the purposes of sexual gratification or "just" to humiliate and degrade them? The act remains the same, and I can't imagine the victims would be any less traumatized because the bully's intent was "just" to degrade them.

All this said, I really think we need to know more about the case than is out there to fully understand it. I do agree that these kinds of rigid laws are a bad idea.
Updated On: 7/21/11 at 01:25 AM

[Q]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 2:08am

"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

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 2:45am

Well, here ya go: the actual court opinion. One of the victims was punched, slapped, headbutted and forced to say that he liked anal sex. Forced to put his head in a lake. Forced to do push ups. Was threatened to be beaten up. While one of the victims was forcibly held down, one of the aggressors put his penis just inside the victim's lips. When they let the 12 year old up, he was gagging. From the opinion linked to:

"Although James and Daniel may not have done this
for their own sexual gratification, the record showed that the victims were humiliated and degraded by this message of sexual prowess and domination. What occurred here were deliberate acts of extreme bullying, carried out by James and Daniel with a clear intent to degrade and humiliate the two younger and physically weaker victims, using unmistakably sexual connotations to accentuate the message.

[skipped portion]

Labeling these outrageous acts mere "horseplay" runs counter to
the clear language defining the offense of criminal sexual
contact. "

And yes, he also farted in his face.

The thing I find interesting about this is that it seems from a cursory read that it was one of the aggressors who prompted the arrest, not the victims. He called one of the victims' sister to ask if her brother was a "tattletale" and when she inquired why he was asking, he told her what he'd done.




The opinion Updated On: 7/21/11 at 02:45 AM

[Q]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 3:18am

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.

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 4:10am

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.

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 4:11am

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.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 8:40am

What I don't understand is if all this happened (and I have to assume it did), why was it being reported as "roughhousing," mentioning only the sitting on the faces part?

Seems to me the original article was clearly trying to lead the reader to think this was a miscarriage of justice. If they'd mentioned putting the penis in the victim's mouth, I think many people might have reached a different conclusion.

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 9:17am

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

[bdwaygirl]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 9:54am

Obviously not, Tiny, since they posted BEFORE the opinion was linked.

Now, it's a whole new ballgame.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 11:42am

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.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 11:44am

I think we have to ask ourselves what should happen to the perps if they were 18 instead of 14. I think it would be a clear-cut. But because they're 14, we're in this relative gray area where we want to think that boys will be boys and this is just roughhousing. 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 still am unsure about having them registered as sex offenders for life. But in that case, that law is flawed, not the application of the law.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 12:07pm

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.

[Q]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 12:10pm

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.

So, by registering this child as a sex offender, he now will be compared to a 43yo sitting in a car outside elementary schools - for life. One only has to look at numerous examples of how communities deal with this to see how his future has been extraordinarily compromised.

And I find that entirely inappropriate - well, actually, just plain WRONG. Yet another example of the ridiculousness that our legal system can devolve to.

And tinymagic - you know what? 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.

edit for ghostlight - while I'm aware of the distinction, as you point out, information isn't always dealt with as intended. And while it might violate their civil rights, if the info gets out the damage is done. I've seen no indication that society in general is capable of or willing to approach this subject rationally.
Updated On: 7/21/11 at 12:10 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 1:06pm

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.

[Q]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 1:19pm

"such brutal and inhuman behavior"

Part of my difference is I just don't see it that way. Inappropriate to the point of uncofortable (or even disgusting to some, I suppoe)? Sure. But brutal and inhuman just doesn't compute to me. I remember junior high, and especially the locker rooms. That period of 'discovery' led to acts and perpetrations that make this look like child's play - which is, in fact, what I think it was.

And I'm afraid I must backtrack a bit. I did say I agree with Robbie's assessment, but I have to modify that agreement to say that I don't equate this with rape. I think the action was meant to humiliate and intimidate, but equating it with actual rape is a bit beyond my capability.

Essentially, I think a very teachable moment about the inappropriate use of force to control or intimidate has been hi-jacked by an obssession with the 'sexual' aspect of it all. I don't see that as the over-riding element, and I think the result based on that reaction is beyond rational.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 1:23pm

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.

[Q]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 1:30pm

I need to clear up my use of the Jackass point - I agree, this was not a consensual situation, as those men portray. My only reason for mentioning it was to point out that those are visual images that we are exposed to now (pardon the pun,) which I believe lessons their impact, especially on younger developing minds.

I think this is definitely assault - I just don't think it should be classified as sexual. Especially not with the ramifications in place.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 1:32pm

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.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 1:37pm

According to what was posted, one of the perps put his d*ck in the up to and into the lips of one of the victims. How is that not a sexual assault?

I'm really suspecting that the author of the article worked very, very hard to downplay what actually happened and what was recorded in the court case.

[Q]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 1:48pm

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.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 1:56pm

Agreed. I think you and I are looking at the same situation and interpreting it differently.

We do, however, agree that it's inappropriate for a law to require minors to have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives because of this incident.

[Q]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 2:18pm

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

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

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 2:21pm

Of course we can.

But, bitch, if we were two of the jurors, I'd so be Lee J. Cobb and you'd so be Henry Fonda!!!!

[Q]

Posted: 7/21/11 at 2:29pm

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