Amend child-sex laws
Text 
No comments [ Add Comment ]G
ood intentions or bizarre moralizing.
Those seemed to be the two possible answers to a question being posed by Utah Supreme Court justices last week when they heard an appeal in the case of consensual sex between a 13-year-old girl and a 12-year-old boy. Exactly what was the Legislature trying to accomplish when it passed a law making that type of sexual contact between children that age a felony?
The state's attorney in the case explained the Legislature hoped to "send the message" to youngsters that sex at such an early age was wrong, and that it would be reinforced unambiguously if it was a felony instead of a misdemeanor. The result, as reported by Tim Gurrister in the Standard-Examiner:
* Both the boy and the girl pleaded guilty to second-degree felony abuse of a minor.
* The girl, who became pregnant, had the baby and kept it, appealed, hoping to get the felony conviction overturned.
* Since the boy and the girl are both abusers and victims in the eyes of the law, there remains the question of whether or not the girl (the mother) may ever be eligible to receive child support from the boy (the father), since she has been convicted of abusing him, just as he has been convicted of abusing her.
The justices will render their opinion in the coming months, but Gurrister's report of their questions for the lawyers in the case was revealing of the odd case. In reference to the Legislature attempting to send a message to children engaging in sexual intercourse that it was wrong by making it a felony instead of a misdemeanor, Chief Justice Christine Durham responded that it "is boggling to the mind" that lawmakers would believe children would make that distinction. "Have you ever lived with a 13-year-old?" was her rhetorical question to the state's attorney.
Durham further speculated that this case is so "bizarre" that the Legislature never foresaw these circumstances, and that they may not have intended for the consequences to be quite so severe.
We agree. Not only is this troubling and unfortunate, but a child was born of this coupling and society should be going about the business of trying to make things right for all three children involved -- not stigmatizing them with felony records as they advance through life.
We hope lawmakers are paying attention, and amend the state statute so that, heaven forbid, if something like this ever happens again, the legal penalty will be proportionate to the unusual circumstances.
