The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has issued a ruling discussing why a 14 year old boy who was accused of statutory rape was charged, but not the three under-aged girls with whom he allegedly had sex. The opinion (available here) suggests that the prosecutor may have discriminated against the boy on the basis of his gender. From the Boston Globe.
A sharply divided Supreme Judicial Court said yesterday that a 14-year-old boy accused of statutory rape may have been a victim of gender discrimination because authorities charged him and not the three underage girls with whom he allegedly had sex.
The case, which originated in Plymouth County, involved a high school freshman football player who is accused of engaging in various sex acts from August to October 2007 with three girls. Two were 12, and the other was 11.
"None of the complainants reported being afraid of the boy's behavior," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote for the majority. "Indeed, sexual behavior seemed to melt seamlessly into games of 'manhunt,' 'truth or dare,' and 'making out.' Some of it occurred with more than one complainant present."
The SJC issued its order in the case last fall and released the written opinion yesterday.
In its 3-to-2 ruling, the majority emphasized that statutory rape laws, which once exclusively protected girls, are now gender-neutral. The boy, the court said, has a constitutional right to see if Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz's office discriminates against boys when prosecuting statutory rape cases.
The state's statutory rape laws say it is a crime for anyone of any gender under the age of 16 to have sex.
Of course, Massachusetts could have easily solved the problem by having a difference in age element as most states do.
H/T: How Appealing.
As I read this and other related articles, the judges were not 'bitterly divided' as noted in the Boston.com article. Let's count them, three Supreme Justices sided with the boy; plus the Single Justice in a previous failed appeal by DA Cruz, plus the lower court judge on two noted appeals ruled in favor of the boy. Two Supreme Justices dissented. So five judges ruled in favor of the boy and two dissented. i.e. 70% of the judges who have reviewed the details and viewed the SAIN video interviews of the girls have ruled in favor of the boy. 70% in favor of the boy is not a bitter division! Add to that, the ALCU in Massachusetts and nationally through the New York office is siding with the boy.
The question in my mind is why is this case even in the courts wasting taxpayer money; per the SJC SLIP Opinion, the three girls admitted on video tape to the SAIN interviewer that the sexual activity/games (truth-or-dare) was consensual, all four kids were under the age of consent (16) in Massachusetts and therefore should be "protected by" not "prosecuted under" the statute; or inanely all should be charged as 'felon sex offenders'. That's a scary thought if this is the true intent of the cited statute as passed by the Massachusetts legislators. And, in my opinion, charging only the boy will clearly be a discriminatory embarrassment for DA Cruz, his staff, and the Clerk Magistrate.
In the end, again in my opinion, it is sadly the children, especially the boy, who will be emotionally scarred for life from the injustices evident in these gratuitous charges at the hands of an injudicious and discriminatory District Attorney.
Note: the boy's lawyer is a well known Boston defense attorney, so if she has seen the statistics and is 'compelled to fill a motion to dismiss' I would be willing to bet that the statistics do show that DA Cruz and his staff discriminate in these cases.
Based on the Massachusetts statute, the girl's have admitted to felony sex offenses against the minor boy in this case. They could well be charged and convicted as felony sex offenders for their statutory crimes against the boy in this case. The statute applies equally and does not discriminate between boys and girls.
Why would the mothers of these three girls even go to the police to begin with, this is clearly a family matter to parent the children, not prosecute. The father of the boy tried to do the right thing, and his son ends up facing multiple felony sex offender charges for playing truth-or-dare. Again, how inane!
Justice Marshall and others got this one right. The two dissenting justices are in error, the Massachusetts statute does not support age difference as justification to charge the boy and not the girls in this case. The statute is clear and not in dispute; as inane as this outcome is to rational thinking. The Massachusetts legislation needs to correct this and adopt Romeo and Juliet exceptions just as 38 other states have already enacted.
Posted by: James Regal | June 23, 2009 at 12:53 AM