BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: meself
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 05:32 PM

I guess I'm a little dense then, because I don't find it particularly clear. Sooz said, " ... offences can be committed by anyone, male or female, over the age of 10, which is the age of criminal responsibility.... It is an offence to intentionally engage in sexual touching with a young person aged 13, 14 or 15. .... " First of all, where does that leave eleven- and twelve-year-olds (or those younger)? And are we really to believe that if, for instance, two eleven-year-olds engage in "sexual touching" that they are committing a criminal offence? And, in this case, that the twelve-year-old could be prosecuted for engaging in "sexual touching" "with a young person aged 13, 14 or 15" (and how "young" is a fifteen-year-old in relation to a twelve-year-old anyway?).

Further: "A person may claim in their defence that they believed the young person to be over 16." So the twelve-year-old could use this defence?

Oh, apparently not: "Intentional sexual touching of a young person under 13 is an absolute offence. This means there can be no defence in such a case that it was believed the person was over 16."

This is the kind of stuff I was referring to when I said that posters had "cited law that seems to imply adult/minor activity". I find it hard to believe that there is no proviso or common-law precedent that exempts children from prosecution under these laws. If the law that Sooz gave is the only relevant law, then that's the law. But it's unclear as to how or why it would apply to childish or adolescent sexual activity.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: GUEST,corie
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 06:35 PM

look just because he is 13 dosen't mean he can't be a good dad

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 06:55 PM

From a work-lifetime involved with the law and the courts, I offer you two truisms:

1. Laws are very often not clear in their provisions, their coverage, despite what may have been the unspoken intentions of the legislators.

and

2. There are many, many, many situations which do constitute crimes that are never charged, even when the facts are clear: Prosecutors have better things to do; their workload is too heavy as it is; prosecutors are afraid of political backlash if they misjudge the climate of opinion in their bailiwick; prosecutors are often as nonplussed about the applicability of statutes as the rest of us, and so do nothing.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Barry Finn
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 07:37 PM

and in this case, who would've touched who first?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Leadfingers
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 07:38 PM

Interesting titbit in todays papers , that TWO other lads have said THEY could be the father ! Apparently the girl's parents didnt think there was anything wrong wrong with several lads spending nights in her bedroom ! The Mind Boggles !!

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 07:43 PM

Hmmmm. Kendall, is 'screwing around' on one's marriage "against the law"? Against one's vow, no question, but does the magistrate care?

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 07:51 PM

Maybe only if there were kids involved, Jacqui, esp. if the screwer were preggers by their partner or screwee...then there would be a case of paternity for the courts, right?

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 07:58 PM

Kat:

then there would be a case of paternity for the courts, right?

A matter "for the courts", presumably; not necessarily "against the law", which was the question. That is, a civil controversy, not criminal.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: kendall
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 08:56 PM

The location is important here. In most US states, adultery is a civil offense. Grounds for divorce. But, in Muslim countries it can mean a death sentence for a woman.
In Maine, the age of consent is 16. If the girl is under14 it is carnal knowledge, and if she is between 14 and 16 it is statutory rape if the male is over 18.

You must have heard that Mickey Mouse sued Minnie for divorce? The judge said, "I'm sorry Mickey, but you can't divorce Minnie just because she's crazy." Mickey said
"I didn't say she is crazy, I said she's fucking Goofy."

A little humor! (Yeah, damn little.)

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 09:24 PM

"The location is important here. In most US states, adultery is a civil offense." Kendall

Is that true generally? That brings up an image of the police storming up the stairs at an assignation.

Can a person turn in an errant spouse? I just can't get my head around that concept.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 10:14 PM

Wow. Here is some information dealing with the legalities of adultery/ Evidently Utah, Florida and Illinois mandate prison sentences of 1, 2, and 5 years respectively! Who'd a thunk it.

Here

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 03:39 AM

"The location is important here. In most US states, adultery is a civil offense." Kendall

Is that true generally? That brings up an image of the police storming up the stairs at an assignation."

Not for a civil offence, Ebbie, the police's interest is only in criminal offences surely? Unless, of course, the US legal system differs in this?

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 09:00 AM

Those laws (in the US anyway) date back to a time when people took marriage vows seriously. As late as the 50s, a divorced woman, in some circles, was ostracized. A straying wife was a pariah.
Times have changed as have sexual mores.

In the 50s and early 60s, couples did not live together before getting married and brides were expected to be virgins.Take a look at the movies and TV programs of the time. They reflect the existing mores if not reality.

These laws may still exist but I would be surprised if anyone has gone to jail recently for infidelity. I am not even sure they go to hell anymore...

Which reminds me - all those people who went to hell for eating meat on Friday - have they been let out? Have they been paid compensation? How does that work? And all those babies in limbo? Now that it doesn't exist, are they homeless?

It's he first day of work after a long and somewhat stressful weekend. Sorry for the thread drift.
M

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 09:46 AM

Sinsull, if a man was executed for a crime which no longer calls for a death sentence, is he still dead?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 10:24 AM

Yes, Dave. My question is "Is he still guilty?" lol

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 11:12 AM

Such conundrums. Where, oh where, is the mountaintop man? :)

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 12:50 PM

What exciting lives some Mudcatter have led.
I felt as though I should be sitting in an adjoining room, listening through a wee grille.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 01:15 PM

On the Net it's called lurking, Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 01:25 PM

How many Hail Mary's is that worth?

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: SINSULL
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 02:49 PM

A whole rosary's worth, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 03:20 PM

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030042_en_2#pt1-pb5-l1g9

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 03:21 PM

THat's the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (of the UK)

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:22 PM

Sexual offences Act 1956 NB see notes about how the new Act is not yet fully in

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:02 PM

Meticulously detailed and longwinded as the first Act is, it appears that a woman could get away with practically anything in the UK, since it speaks only of "he", and the same thing is true if "A" is a male up to and including the age of 17 years and 11 1/2 months.

I didn't find anything relating to both participants being under the age of 18.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: meself
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 09:01 PM

Well, it is still muddy. The Act in Richard's first link above (1956) explains that the terms "man" and "boy", as well as "girl" and "woman" are interchangeable for the purposes of the act. The implication is that the law applies identically to a "boy" as to a "man", likewise for females. So when the law states that "It is an offence ... for a man to have unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl ... under the age of sixteen", it would seem to indicate that this 12- or 13- or 14-year-old boy could be charged for having "unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl ... under the age of sixteen". The second document (2003), however, specifies that a number of the otherwise pertinent offences are offences (only) if committed by "A person aged 18 or over" ....

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: meself
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 09:13 PM

Wait a minute - I missed this, from the 2003 Act:


13 Child sex offences committed by children or young persons (1) A person under 18 commits an offence if he does anything which would be an offence under any of sections 9 to 12 if he were aged 18.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.


So there it is. Sections 9 to 12 cover pretty well all the usual types of sexual activity - therefore it is an offence for any person under 18 (or over) to have any kind of sexual activity with a person under 16 .... Now we know.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 10:31 PM

Sorry- I think my eyes must have glazed over just before then.

So, let's see: If a 7 year old boy touches (with sexual intent, of course) a 10 year old girl (possibly at her invitation) the boy will go to prison for up to six months or alternatively he will owe X amount of dollars to the state.

Got it.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: meself
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 10:54 PM

Yup, you got it ... strange but true, apparently ...

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 11:08 PM

Finding more information about underage sex penalties in the USA - it appears that most states now have statutes on the books that are termed 'Romeo and Juliet' cases, cases where the older minor is not more than four years older than the younger.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: meself
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 11:37 PM

And presumably there is an age below which a child cannot be held criminally responsible for any type of crime in the UK ... ?

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:45 AM

Yes, it's generally considered to be 10 years old although courts may be instructed to consider the maturity of the child in question and the nature of the crime.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 03:27 AM

The doli incapax rule is this.

A child under the age of 10 (or is it 10 or under? I think it's under 10) is conclusively presumed not to be able to form criminal intent.

A child under the age of 14 (or is it 14 or under?) is presumed not to ahve formed criminal intent unless it is shown that he knew what he was doing is wrong.

As to gender, according to the Interpretation Act, references to one gender include references to all genders unless otherwise required (that is not the exact workding but I'm not looking it up now).

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: meself
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 10:55 AM

Thanks for the info., Richard. It's all a little clearer now.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 05:21 PM

This is yet another story to hit the headlines which we will, in time, find out that the whole thing is a was of making money out of the media. It's total crap, I am sure about it... just like the Shannon story. The sick parents are out for what they can get from the mugs in the media.

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: the lemonade lady
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 05:25 PM

See what I mean, take a look at this

Sal

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: skipy
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:09 PM

& the mugs will pay! But who the hell buys the papers that print this stuff?
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 06:13 PM

pah... What if the DNA results show that Alfie is NOT the father. Do we get to see a would-be papa sob on live television? To add to the sensational aspect of it, Chantelle should be there also, holding her breath.

I can just see it now. Not.

Glad to see that the UK is as insane as the US.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 07:16 PM

"Publicist Max Clifford, who is representing the Patten's, "

Summarises my views of Max Clifford. Please add to the grammar thread.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: jacqui.c
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 07:17 PM

and who the hell is looking out for these children?

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: paula t
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 07:26 PM

Jacqui C,
That's precisely my worry. As I said earlier, If these children had robbed someone their identities would have been protected. If the parents are being paid for their story there is still a case to answer by the media.They should not be allowed to pay to reveal their identity.These children are not mature enough to decide for themselves whether or not to be on TV and in the papers.They are not able to see the effect this "15 minutes of fame " could have on their future life - and their parents don't appear to care.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 11:09 PM

So right Jacqui and Paula T - WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS........

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 11:58 PM

In a somewhat related news item, Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, has said, that baby Tripp brings her joy but, "I wish it would happen in 10 years so I could have a job and an education and be, like, prepared and have my own house and stuff... I just hope that people learn from my story and, I don't know, prevent teen pregnancy, I guess."

Apparently she also said that abstinence-only education is not enough.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 01:22 AM

Well, she didn't actually say that abstinence is not enough. She said that she wishes that teens would not engage in sex but that expecting abstinence is "totally unrealistic".

I still would like to see the emphasis changed from preventing pregnancy to promoting 'safe sex'.

It is almost a given that a pregnant girl and boy did not practice safe sex. That is what I would like to see the stigma shift to.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: GUEST,AR
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 05:41 AM

Pregnancy rates among under-18s in England and Wales have risen. The under-18 conception rate increased from 40.9 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 17 in 2006 to 41.9 in 2007, according to data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The Government had pledged to halve teenage pregnancy rates among girls under 18 by half by next year but is widely expected to miss that target. The government has to now prepare to dish out more free council houses and feed more state benefit babies.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: SINSULL
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 12:44 PM

And the Octuplets Circus goes on. The "father" wants a paterntiy test. The hospital is suggesting that they can not release the babies to the mother until or if she can prove she has a safe environment for them to live in - not likely. She is supporting the first six with food stamps and disability pay (They by the way are in hiding becuase of death threats). Her Mom is filing for bankruptcy so the three bedroom house may not be available.
And in steps the Master of all psycho-babble, Dr. Phil. Now it's a three ring circus.
Those poor children. None of them will have any semblance of a normal life.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: SINSULL
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 12:48 PM

Oh, it gets even better:
From the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Pornographers have made a million-dollar offer to Suleman, plus a year of health insurance for her family, if the mother agrees to star in a hard-core porn video. Vivid Entertainment spokeswoman Jackie Martin said the offer was sent Tuesday by overnight mail to Suleman's home address."


You couldn't make up this stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:14 PM

What sick shits!

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:20 PM

I don't agree with 13 year olds having babies. In my book they're still children.

When society says that it's OK for children to have children, as we seem to be doing, then I think we've either lost the plot completely or everyone has become groomed by the Corporate Paedeophiles into thinking it's all completely normal.

It isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: SINSULL
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:23 PM

Agreed, Lizzie. But then what do you do when a 13 year old shows up pregnant? Force her to have an abortion? Force her to give the baby up for adoption? Or allow her to make some choices within the framework of a supportive family and network?

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 02:45 PM

You have to make the best of the situation, I guess, Mary.   


But society needs to open its eyes as to what's happening. Already it's now 'accepted' that kids under 16 are openly having sex. It wasn't like that when I was 16. Yes, there was the occasional incident, there always has been, always will be..but in the main, it didn't happen and it wasn't accepted as being normal.

Nowadays, I hear, over and over..."Oh, but that's what kids are like these days!"

Nope, it's because parents aren't being parents, and kids are saturated with sexual images and information at every turn, but more than those together, it's that society itself has now chosen to accept everything. Somethings are not acceptable.

I would never force anyone to have an abortion, nor to give up their child, but I fear for the child of a child. I'd imagine it more often than not falls to the grandparents to bring the baby up, as their child would find it hard to be responsible for a baby, on a day to day basis I'd imagine.

I just think that children should be children, not mothers or fathers.

Call me old fashioned, whatever, but I do truly think we've lost the plot.