quote:Two middle-school students in Oregon are facing possible time in a juvenile jail and could have to register as sex offenders for smacking girls on the rear end at school.
Is it me or is having two 13 year olds face the possibility of having to register as sex offenders and spend time in juvi a little severe?
Posts: 66 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure they should be punished, but to ruin their lives for something so stupid? All they really "need" is some "sensitivity training" - they may not even realize that some people don't like the contact.
What's this DA thinking? The mental picture of two goofy-looking kids being led away from a middle school in cuffs is just something that I'm having trouble dealing with.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The local district attorney has since backed off -- the felony charges have been dropped and the district attorney said probation would be an appropriate punishment. The Mashburns' lawyer said prosecutors offered Cory a plea bargain that would not require him to register as a sex offender, which the family plans to reject.
The family is the one forcing it to go to court. Probation might seem a little overboard, but in my mind the DA isn't being outrageous.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just the fact that it was brought to court with the possibility of the penalty being what it was in the first place. What happened to good ol' suspension, expulsion or having to go weekly to the guidance counselor? Issues like this handled within the school as opposed to court.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I trust the girls who slapped boy’s bottoms will also be arrested!
This is crazy – yes it is inappropriate behaviour, but it should be dealt with in the school. If you start putting every child who has done something inappropriate on the sex offenders register it will become completely useless.
A sex offenders register should be there to identify people who are a risk to others, particularly children or vulnerable adults. When you dilute it with kids like this, how does anyone tell the people who are a risk apart from those who did something silly as a child?
I don’t think any children under 16 should be put on the sex offenders list for life unless there is a reason why they are judged to be a risk to others (and the it should be subject to review at 16 and 18).
Posts: 169 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This case seems so completely ridiculous as reported that I can't help thinking that there must be some information that didn't make it into the article.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate the way our "justice" system works. Have we gotten so desperate to write people off that we are willing to forever label 13 year olds as sex offenders? Even if what they had done was worse than what these kids actually did, I think I'd be very against that.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What happened to good ol' suspension, expulsion or having to go weekly to the guidance counselor?
Over the years parents have been taking schools to court over these kinds of penalties (some of them the schools should have thought twice about. Others the parents have defended their "perfect" children). As such, some schools have relied more on the judicial system to punish, and therefore the schools wouldn't be held responsible. It is a vicious system that has gotten out of control.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: This case seems so completely ridiculous as reported that I can't help thinking that there must be some information that didn't make it into the article.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: This case seems so completely ridiculous as reported that I can't help thinking that there must be some information that didn't make it into the article.
I agree.
The pdfs of the initial police reports document a complaint of a pattern of abuse (over weeks, I think), including groping a breast and holding a girl pinned against a locker to dry hump her, as well as smacks on the bottom. [Far, far more than what is reported in the article of the OP, as several of us had suspected.]
From a quick scan, it appears that the young [girls?] giving the initial [complaints] may have later said they were under pressure to say those things (though I also wonder if there was strong community pressure to recant later, myself, as well). However, I don't think the initial response by administration, DA, and police was beyond the pale, from what I read.
If you want to read the pdfs yourself, try a Google search on the young man's name. Some of the news stories link to them. I don't have time to relook myself -- on the way to a meeting. (Ironically, one that touches on the theme of dealing with sexual abuse.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even given that egregeous behavior, how far do we want to go with treating kids as adults? Should they know better than to behave in that fashion? sure... but again, at 13, do we really want to label someone for life? with *any* label?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: sure... but again, at 13, do we really want to label someone for life? with *any* label?
Is that the only reason to charge someone with a given offense? My understanding was that a prosecutor can make an initial charge, but then use the possibility of reducing it to a lesser charge as leverage.
At least initially, one of the young man characterized this as "a common way of saying hello practiced by lots of kids at the school, akin to a secret handshake," according to the originally-linked article. He might well have needed a wake-up call. I'm fine with having a prosecuter exercise that discretion, so long as the outcome isn't egregious.
Of note, it looks like the outcome won't be egregious in this case.
---
Edited to add: Part of me is very sympathetic to the desire not to brnad a 13-year old for life. That part is at war with the irrational, growling-bear part of me that is still enraged at having had my breast groped during geometry class and the years of emotional fallout*** from that (& some similar incidents).
RRRRAAAAAWWWRRRR! Keep your flippin' paws to yourself, you junior mint harrasser-freak!
[/obligatory conflict-of-interest disclosure]
----
*** including being so sick of fending off gropes, comments, leers, and innuendos -- for years, from both peer-age young men and those older -- that I was fervently glad to settle for an early marriage. Mind you, it was my decision, and I am responsible for it. Nonetheless, there's no doubt in my mind that had I felt safe as a young single woman, I would have made different choices. Jeff the Jerk from freshman geometry was just one of the more outstanding of the lot, and he set the tone for the next 7 years of my life.
I don't think he thought it was a big deal. Being able to go to school without my secondary sex characteristics getting fondled was a big deal to me, though.
posted
No argument with anything you said, CT, except that they are discussing having him register as a sex offender. The word tossed around was "lifetime". Since they were talking about juvenile incarceration, the boys are presumably not being tried as adults... so why is it appropriate to assign a "lifetime" registration to them? Come to think of it, it shouldn't even be legal to do that.
I have no problems with punishing people, even punishing them severely, for their actions, but if we are so hot to paste permanent scarlet letters on every wrong doer, it's much more fair (and effective) to drop the pretense of rehabilitation and just lock them all away in their own separate penal asylum ala "Escape from New York."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: No argument with anything you said, CT, except that they are discussing having him register as a sex offender.
Who do you mean by "they"? (honest interested question, not just trying to challenge you)
I think the possibility of doing so is being used as leverage. From the article originally linked:
quote:The Mashburns' lawyer said prosecutors offered Cory a plea bargain that would not require him to register as a sex offender, which the family plans to reject.
Were I to hazard a guess, I would say that the prosecuter would rather not put the young girls (I assume) on the stand to be cross-examined, and he/she is holding out the offer of probation specifically without sex offender registry as an offer. The family appears to be rejecting even probation, as they say (according to the article) that this was "admittedly inappropriate but not uncommon juvenile rowdiness."
Were I the prosecuter, I might well want to be able to use the full prescribable penalty to get them to see that "no, actually dry-humping/breast-fondling/butt-slapping on a regular basis for weeks at a time is more than 'not uncommon juvenile rowdiness.'"
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
By they, I meant the writers and editors of article which, as has already been discussed seems to be leaving out some things.
Leverage is senseless unless someone intends to use it. I think threatening someone with outrageous punishment in order to get them to agree to plead guilty to a legitimate charge is bullying, not justice. It's like saying to a 13 yr old kid that went on a joyride and injured someone that they had better plead guilty to some relatively minor charges or they will be tried as an adult for Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
And again, that's presuming guilt. If stories are changing, it might be because of pressure being put on the girls to recant, but it might also be because the charges are unwarranted or the witnesses were exaggerating.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Leverage is senseless unless someone intends to use it. I think threatening someone with outrageous punishment in order to get them to agree to plead guilty to a legitimate charge is bullying, not justice.
I agree with you on this. As far as I'm concerned, if it's not appropriate to convict someone of an offense, then it isn't appropriate to charge them with it.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: By they, I meant the writers and editors of article which, as has already been discussed seems to be leaving out some things.
I have gotten to the point where I assume newswriters and editors care little for rigor and accuracy, and so I do not expect it of them. This is a shame.
quote:Leverage is senseless unless someone intends to use it. I think threatening someone with outrageous punishment in order to get them to agree to plead guilty to a legitimate charge is bullying, not justice. It's like saying to a 13 yr old kid that went on a joyride and injured someone that they had better plead guilty to some relatively minor charges or they will be tried as an adult for Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
I have a different level of comfort with prosecutorial discretion (and, of course, the associated warranted oversight) than you do, I think. If a 13 yr old had pursued a pattern of joyriding despite ongoing injury to others, then I would want the prosecutor to to be able to try the child with Assault with a Deadly Weapon. I don't think you have to be an adult to be charged with this (and I don't think you need to be tried as an adult to be charged with sexual harrassment, either -- although I may be wrong), so I am not going to comment on the "tried as an adult" part.
I am not sure where the idea that these young men are "being tried as adults" comes from, although I could be missing something obvious.
quote:And again, that's presuming guilt. If stories are changing, it might be because of pressure being put on the girls to recant, but it might also be because the charges are unwarranted or the witnesses were exaggerating.
Of course. That is why I made sure to note the potential recanting (I can't tell exactly what was going on from the stories I read) in my original post -- despite the fact that it could only weaken my point -- as the story would be misleadingly incomplete otherwise.
I am still comfortable with leaving the assessment of witnesses up to the prosecutor in deciding the viability of a case, with (of course) separate assessments at trial if appropriate. We might well differ on this point, and I'm okay with that, for what it's worth.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Leverage is senseless unless someone intends to use it. I think threatening someone with outrageous punishment in order to get them to agree to plead guilty to a legitimate charge is bullying, not justice.
I agree with you on this. As far as I'm concerned, if it's not appropriate to convict someone of an offense, then it isn't appropriate to charge them with it.
I would argue that it is appropriate to have this on the list of things which could be charged. That is, although it might not be what I would consider the wisest or best option, I do think it is a defensible option to choose, if it is warranted by the facts.
I note that it is being used as leverage (I think) to underscore that I believe the prosecutor would also not have it at the top of the list of his/her preferred outcomes, but that does not mean I don't think it is defensible. rather, I suspect that the prosecutor would agree with me that this is on the list of justifiable, warranted outcomes, although not at the top of the list.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I am not sure where the idea that these young men are "being tried as adults" comes from, although I could be missing something obvious.
No, but that is my disconnect-- they aren't being tried as adults, that's precisely why a lifetime punishment is so extreme.
quote: I am still comfortable with leaving the assessment of witnesses up to the prosecutor in deciding the viability of a case, with (of course) separate assessments at trial if appropriate. We might well differ on this point, and I'm okay with that, for what it's worth.
I don't think we do. I have no reason to doubt the prosecutor's integrity. I strictly and solely object to the idea that a person in trouble and being charged as a juvenile should be subject to an adult punishment. This is a subset to a larger objection that our system is, in many ways, one strike and you're out. I would much rather serve 10 years and have my debt considered paid, than serve two years probation and have it follow me the rest of my life.
And if we disagree on that, it's ok too Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh... as if I could ever flame you, m'lady.
I don't think we are all that far apart either. We're just latching on to different points in the situation. I certainly don't suppose you think it is just to try to "reform" someone without ever allowing that they might change, and I know you don't think I support anyone's right to behave as these children did on either version of the story.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why, wonder, do news stories consistently downplay the offenses of minors in this way?
I realize on the one hand that even a protracted pattern of misbehavior is not enough to warrant the punishment speculated on in this article, but the article mantains for at least the first half that ALL the boys were doing was slapping butts. The article mentions none of the probable reasons why the families would push charges against the boys: was there harassment aside from the physical stuff? Was there more agressive behavior beyond slapping? Was there intimidation? Were there repeated warnings?
Low and behold the police report indicates there were all of these or the suggestion of all of these, tied into the incidents. Why did the article not bring that to our attention?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "boys will be boys" defense for things like breast-grabbing, shoving girls against lockers and dry humping them, and butt-slapping is obviously one that has a long and successful history in our culture. I think it's entirely appropriate that it be taken more seriously than that. I want to know that my daughters can go to school with full confidence that the authorities will not have any degree of tolerance for such behavior.
I would personally instruct my girls to injure or maim anyone who did that to them. Or at least to cause them severe pain, if at all possible. Their defense can be "I was terrified and struck out to defend myself by instinct". Gouging out eyes, kicking groins, stomping feet to break bones, all these are appropriate ways to defend against such assaults. Whoever thinks they aren't should avoid provoking such defense by keeping their hands to themselves.
In other words, I think if the boys are still able-bodied and in full possession of their faculties by the time the justice department gets hold of them, they've already been dealt with quite gently, and should not complain. Doubly so for trying to maintain "that's just the way we say hi around here".
posted
So Cory Mashburn should be happy he may not be able to be alone with his younger brother for the rest of his life because he didn't get kicked in the balls?
quote:Doubly so for trying to maintain "that's just the way we say hi around here".
quote:"It's like a handshake we do," one girl said, according to the police report.
Should she get kicked in the crotch too? The reports indicate that males and females in the school smacked the butts of males and females alike.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would personally instruct my girls to injure or maim anyone who did that to them. Or at least to cause them severe pain, if at all possible. Their defense can be "I was terrified and struck out to defend myself by instinct". Gouging out eyes, kicking groins, stomping feet to break bones, all these are appropriate ways to defend against such assaults. Whoever thinks they aren't should avoid provoking such defense by keeping their hands to themselves.
One does not kick a boy in the groin without knowing EXACTLY where one is aiming. Your "defense by instinct" is useless, Tatiana, both from a parental guidance viewpoint, and from a personal defense viewpoint.
The girls who reported this situation acted appropriately-- they (apparently) reported the behavior that made them uncomfortable to a responsible adult, who took measures to stop it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would personally instruct my girls to injure or maim anyone who did that to them. Or at least to cause them severe pain, if at all possible. Their defense can be "I was terrified and struck out to defend myself by instinct".
You would teach your daughters to lie? To blind and break bones in response?
quote:So Cory Mashburn should be happy he may not be able to be alone with his younger brother for the rest of his life
The article doesn't suggest this as a possibility.
Any probation conditions will be set by the judge.
As to complaints about sex registration, they need to be directed at the legislature. There is generally no discretion for the prosecutor to remove registration as a consequence of conviction of certain crimes. The only discretion he has is to change the charge, which he may have already offered to do. He may have offered a conditional conviction, which means the conviction would be removed from their record after successfully completing probation. It is impossible to achieve that kind of result without the defendant pleading guilty (or the juvenile equivalent).
Also blame the parents who seem to think their little darlings have done nothing wrong. That parental attitude would make me want to make sure a significant probation sentence were handed down on these boys if I were the prosecutor, because it's clear these parents aren't going to teach their boys how to behave in society.
And I wouldn't allow the registration requirement to affect my decision too much, even though I'd be against it in this case based on the facts I've heard. The legislature has mandated registration for certain crimes. If these boys committed the offense, then state action is needed. If the boys won't cooperate in that, then so be it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The article doesn't suggest this as a possibility.
My bad. I misremembered an thought it was a condition of registering as a sex offender. It could however be a condition of probation, which could last years. From the article:
quote:Depending on the terms of probation, it's likely that the boys would not be allowed to have sexual contact with anyone or any contact with younger children, McFarlane said. For Cory Mashburn, that would mean he couldn't be left alone with his younger siblings.
posted
There's ample opportunity to present arguments to the judge to prevent that from happening - that is, to create an exception applying to the younger sibling.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's the parents who are pushing the system these days, it seems.
I remember all they time when I was in school, there were ocassional fights. These issues were dealt with by the principal, sometimes along with conferences with parents, and punishment was given at the school.
But when my son was 14, he was hit by a younger kid (with a golf club) and he struck back (bad idea, since he was older). The principal was right there (TEACHING the golf lesson) and saw the whole thing, and intervened and acted appropriately. Punishment was given at the school.
But that didn't keep the other kids' parents from going to the sheriff to press "assault" charges against my son.
Used to be, the parents allowed the schools to handle these things, and support their decision.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Being able to go to school without my secondary sex characteristics getting fondled was a big deal to me, though.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
