Now, thanks to the gag order (which I personally think should never have been given), it can't be said how likely it is that the kid will end up in juvie. However, the charge is sexual assault. That means that he has to register as a sex offender if convicted. Since sex offender status is mandatory in all cases to which it can legally apply, there is absolutely nothing short of not getting convicted or getting the conviction (if it happens) overturned that can be done to avoid the kid having to register.
What. The. F@&$. The kid is six years old, and he was playing doctor. What he was doing was, if a bit inappropriate, was totally normal for a kid his age. The cops should have never been involved. The girl's parents should have called his parents, and he should have been talked to about it. What's juvie going to do accomplish? Absolutely nothing. Charging him with a crime that'll put him on a sex offender registry for life for youthful curiosity is completely disproportionate to the "offense" committed.
Why, why, WHY do people have to go and do stupid b%~!#$+$ like this?
Oh, yea. I forgot to point out that the kid has a mental disability.
What the f~%$. That's pretty much all I can say right now. This is just so stupid, pointless, and disproportionate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's things like this that make me believe the human race is stupid.
Welcome to the wonderful world of "0 tolerance".
If we have hard coded laws, we won't need to use discretion or common sense, favoritism or predjudice can't enter into anything, therefore we have hard coded equality. So what if a 6 year old kid suffers for it? Greater good, here ppl.
/sarc off.
The circumstances surrounding the case are that the girl told her mother she was playing "butt doctor" with the boy, according to the Wisconsin State Journal....Dr. Mix-a-Lot declined to comment.
O_O
I have no idea whether to be amused or offended.
Now, thanks to the gag order (which I personally think should never have been given), it can't be said how likely it is that the kid will end up in juvie. However, the charge is sexual assault. That means that he has to register as a sex offender if convicted. Since sex offender status is mandatory in all cases to which it can legally apply, there is absolutely nothing short of not getting convicted or getting the conviction (if it happens) overturned that can be done to avoid the kid having to register.
What. The. F+%%. The kid is six years old, and he was playing doctor. What he was doing was, if a bit inappropriate, was totally normal for a kid his age. The cops should have never been involved. The girl's parents should have called his parents, and he should have been talked to about it. What's juvie going to do accomplish? Absolutely nothing. Charging him with a crime that'll put him on a sex offender registry for life for youthful curiosity is completely disproportionate to the "offense" committed.
Why, why, WHY do people have to go and do stupid b+%%~$@~ like this?
He can't end up on the sex offender registry. If he's charged as a juvenile, then his juvenile record can be expunged. Most states allow juvenile records to be sealed by age 21 so long as there are no serious adult offenses on record.
That said, charging someone so young with a sex crime is ridiculous.
Now, thanks to the gag order (which I personally think should never have been given), it can't be said how likely it is that the kid will end up in juvie. However, the charge is sexual assault. That means that he has to register as a sex offender if convicted. Since sex offender status is mandatory in all cases to which it can legally apply, there is absolutely nothing short of not getting convicted or getting the conviction (if it happens) overturned that can be done to avoid the kid having to register.
What. The. F+%%. The kid is six years old, and he was playing doctor. What he was doing was, if a bit inappropriate, was totally normal for a kid his age. The cops should have never been involved. The girl's parents should have called his parents, and he should have been talked to about it. What's juvie going to do accomplish? Absolutely nothing. Charging him with a crime that'll put him on a sex offender registry for life for youthful curiosity is completely disproportionate to the "offense" committed.
Why, why, WHY do people have to go and do stupid b+%%~$@~ like this?
He can't end up on the sex offender registry. If he's charged as a juvenile, then his juvenile record can be expunged. Most states allow juvenile records to be sealed by age 21 so long as there are no serious adult offenses on record.
That said, charging someone so young with a sex crime is ridiculous.
Just because it can be expunged doesn't mean it will be. Plus, he still has to register until then.
The new federal lawsuit contends the whole investigation was biased because the girl's father is a "well-known political figure in Grant County," and her aunt a regional social services supervisor. It claims now-retired Grant County Sheriff's Sgt. James Kopp "waged a relentless campaign to discredit and embarrass and humiliate 6-year-old D," and that the entire process was unreasonable and unconscionable.
I am going to lay the blame for this one with the girl's parents, since if this article is true, the father appears to have abused his influence to punish this 6 year old.
It should be obvious to anyone with a shred of common sense (or just a brain in general) that applying sexual assault charges to a developmentally disabled 6-year old is the opposite of productive or appropriate behavior. Sadly prosecutors and judges can score political points with sex offence cases and any time politics is involved, a certain grip on reality is lost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hate to say it... But legislation like that will never be scrapped unless there are clear-cut cases to blame it for. Perhaps there will be some sort of good from the entire sack of misery.
Still... F!*!ing monsters.
Just because it can be expunged doesn't mean it will be. Plus, he still has to register until then.
He can't end up on the sex offender registry. If he's charged as a juvenile, then his juvenile record can be expunged. Most states allow juvenile records to be sealed by age 21 so long as there are no serious adult offenses on record.That said, charging someone so young with a sex crime is ridiculous.
It will be if he asks for it to be. That's the law. As for the registry itself, that varies from state to state. Some states don't have a registry for juvenile offenders, others only for offenders above a certain age. In some cases, the judge decides whether or not the juvenile's name goes on a registry.
Again, I'm not saying that what is happening to this boy is right, only that there recourses for the child involved. It won't be the end of the world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We can solve this problem by increasing the number of prosecutors, judges, laws, and the size of government. Don't you know? Increasing government is the only way to achieve social justice!
(yes, I'm being sarcastic)
Actually lets give it a go. After all everyone has been talking about shrinking government for decades now and all that has happened is that it's gotten bigger. With that track record lets go for growing it and see what happens.
I don't think "all everyone has been talking about" is shrinking government. In the decade of Bush the lesser and Obama, that's certainly not true. A minority has been talking about shrinking government. Everyone else has been trying to expand their pet cause.Actually lets give it a go. After all everyone has been talking about shrinking government for decades now and all that has happened is that it's gotten bigger. With that track record lets go for growing it and see what happens.We can solve this problem by increasing the number of prosecutors, judges, laws, and the size of government. Don't you know? Increasing government is the only way to achieve social justice!
(yes, I'm being sarcastic)
I've been hearing from good old Ross, Ron Paul and even a bit from Newt for a while now on shrinking government (or at minimum it's role in everything) since well before the 1990s, at such time it even sounded like a good idea to me.
Of course I was in my wild and crazy single digits age at the time so...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And most of them voted for the PATRIOT act (I think).
Potentially the single biggest step towards outright fascism I've seen in my lifetime. Nixon would have had wet dreams about it.
Like I said a horrible track record of it -- so rather than continue down that broken and obviously failing path lets make them grow government.
Considering how everyone keeps saying that government can't do anything right I say we set them up for the fail -- tell them we want the biggest most wasteful government around and wait while they screw it up thereby giving us the smallest most efficient government possible.
Like I said a horrible track record of it -- so rather than continue down that broken and obviously failing path lets make them grow government.
Considering how everyone keeps saying that government can't do anything right I say we set them up for the fail -- tell them we want the biggest most wasteful government around and wait while they screw it up thereby giving us the smallest most efficient government possible.
So, you believe that because we've never elected officials who push for shrinking government, we shouldn't try?
That because history shows that expanding government is a terrible idea, we should expand governmment?
You want a MAD (mutually assured destruction) political arms race going on in the Federal government?
Did MAD ever make sense?
Well that sure is one way to completely misinterpret what I said.
Again:
1. We've elected politicians that claim they want to shrink the government.
2. They have failed at such and have indeed seen the government grow.
3. Many people claim in fact the government can do nothing right, regardless of who is elected.
4. As such electing different people isn't going to matter.
So my position is why try hiring new people that will just do the same thing if not worse (see tea party)?
We apparently know the government stinks at doing what it is told and tends to do the exact opposite even when the people we elect claim to be trying to do what they were supposedly elected for.
So rather than fight the system that is predictable in its failure, we should set it up so it fails in the method we want.
Trying to get a smaller more efficient government has to date failed, indeed it has led to a bigger and more wasteful government (supposedly). As such we should tell it to do the opposite of what we want it to do, and watch as it instead does as we want.
It's simple reverse psychology.
To me the funny thing is that government is supposed to be the people's voice and will... so to shrink government is also to shrink said voice and will.
Not something I think is a good idea honestly.
The [b]majority[\b] of US citizens have, historically, not wanted government shrunk. What they've wanted is for their pet projects to be protected. What has been needed is a raising of consciousness in the majority of US citizens that "social justice" is a ten dollar word for a reach around. That raising of consciousness is just starting to happen.
People tend to only want to shrink the parts of government that don't help them and keep the rest. People are more vocal for the parts of the government they want then the parts of government that they dont, so what the representatives end up doing is keeping all of it.
Ross, Ron Paul, and Newt are NOT "everyone". And most of them voted for the PATRIOT act (I think).I don't think "all everyone has been talking about" is shrinking government. In the decade of Bush the lesser and Obama, that's certainly not true. A minority has been talking about shrinking government. Everyone else has been trying to expand their pet cause.Actually lets give it a go. After all everyone has been talking about shrinking government for decades now and all that has happened is that it's gotten bigger. With that track record lets go for growing it and see what happens.We can solve this problem by increasing the number of prosecutors, judges, laws, and the size of government. Don't you know? Increasing government is the only way to achieve social justice!
(yes, I'm being sarcastic)I've been hearing from good old Ross, Ron Paul and even a bit from Newt for a while now on shrinking government (or at minimum it's role in everything) since well before the 1990s, at such time it even sounded like a good idea to me.
Of course I was in my wild and crazy single digits age at the time so...
Ron Paul was one of precious few in the House with the courage to fight and vote against the Patriot act.
Yeah it's one of the things Ron Paul and I agreed on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because it can be expunged doesn't mean it will be. Plus, he still has to register until then.
He can't end up on the sex offender registry. If he's charged as a juvenile, then his juvenile record can be expunged. Most states allow juvenile records to be sealed by age 21 so long as there are no serious adult offenses on record.That said, charging someone so young with a sex crime is ridiculous.
It will be if he asks for it to be. That's the law. As for the registry itself, that varies from state to state. Some states don't have a registry for juvenile offenders, others only for offenders above a certain age. In some cases, the judge decides whether or not the juvenile's name goes on a registry.
Again, I'm not saying that what is happening to this boy is right, only that there recourses for the child involved. It won't be the end of the world.
I think states lost some of that flexibility with the passage of the federal version of Megan's law.
As I understand the federal law currently even though a juvenile's record may be sealed or expunged there is effectively no way to be removed from the federal sex offender's data base.
Basically people who wind up on the data base are screwed, and there are an awful lot of ways to get on the data base with out ever hurting anyone. Peeing in your own back yard and flashing your boobs at a party are among the ways to wind up in the data base.
This is yet another example of government taking a great idea and turning it into a train wreck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but I'd like to see one where Stabler and Tutuola go harrass the girls parents for wasting thier time, then going after the DA.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one here who wants to see a Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episode where Elliot Stabler yells and threatens a six year old mentally disabled kid? Anyone?
I remember a case down in florida where a cop shot a... 12 year old kid in the stomach 3 times that someone tried to make a stink of, up until it was pointed out that the 12 year old was jump/lunging with a knife at the cop's partner while in the middle of a psychotic episode when the cops had just entered the house, and that the 12 year old had lived.
But that's the closest to such that I have, not much tv watched here.
ADDITION:
Part of the problem with the national database isn't so much its continued existence or the ease with which you can get on it as much as it is the full on stigmata of being on it in the first place.
People don't ask questions like, "Well why are you on it?" Instead they simply perma-ban you from living anywhere near them. This has lead to large problems nation wide as anyone labelled sex offender suddenly has nowhere to live and ends up homeless or lying about their status.
Am I the only one here who wants to see a Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episode where Elliot Stabler yells and threatens a six year old mentally disabled kid? Anyone?
How about one where the "victim" was flashed at a party. Scarred. For. Life!
Stabler left SVU permanently :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The law in this area is stunningly stupid. Here are a few examples.
20 Years Later, Mandatory Minimum Sentences Are Still Mindlessly Draconian
Perverted Justice
Sex offender laws represent the triumph of outrage over reason.
Maybe Teenaged Sexters Shouldn't Be Treated Like Child Pornographers
I could go on ad nauseum.
Stabler left SVU permanently :)
Well, there goes my enjoyment of the show.
Did the character retire, or get shot...?
Ok, first off he has been charged, not convicted. He's not on any list yet, no ones branding the big M into his forhead yet. The system hasn't failed yet.
Secondly if they include an option to get off the list then someone will manipulate that and then the governnent will be bone headed for allowing the exception
Or maybe this is a slightly more nuanced case that reason.org (perfect beacon of neutrality that it is) is spinning to make some sort of point.The law in this area is stunningly stupid. Here are a few examples.
I'm missing your point here, and I don't see what your link adds to the discussion.
Seriously what's your point?
Stabler left SVU permanently :)Well, there goes my enjoyment of the show.
Did the character retire, or get shot...?
He retired. Benson is supposed to leave mid-season.
Well crap.
Is it just gonna be Munch and Tutuola?
Well crap.
Is it just gonna be Munch and Tutuola?
They got a couple new characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's things like this that make me believe the human race is stupid.
Hey, watch out who you're accusing. It's not the whole human race. It's only a certain country. And not even that. It's the braindead idiots who are allowed to make laws for that country.
And they're certainly not human.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The law in this area is stunningly stupid. Here are a few examples.
20 Years Later, Mandatory Minimum Sentences Are Still Mindlessly Draconian
Perverted Justice
Sex offender laws represent the triumph of outrage over reason.Maybe Teenaged Sexters Shouldn't Be Treated Like Child Pornographers
I could go on ad nauseum.
You did. After stuff like that, I'm not sure whether I want to laugh or throw up.
That the initial charges include charges that he had sex with a 15-year-old
So? As long as she didn't feel that she was not ready to grasp the consequences and filed a complaint, there's nothing really wrong with it. She was 15, not 5.
So? As long as she didn't feel that she was not ready to grasp the consequences and filed a complaint, there's nothing really wrong with it. She was 15, not 5.It's not possible to know if she was the complainant, since her identity is sealed. Additionally, at 15, she's still a minor in both the law of Indiana and federal law, and not able to give consent.
Yeah most people I know stick to the, "If it's not 18 it's 9" Rule of thumb -- just helps avoid all sorts of problems.