What would we do with Romeo and Juliet? Some say that teenagers today are becoming sexually active at a younger age. Parents of sexually active teenagers face problems such as teen pregnancy, STDs, or, in some cases, their son or daughter facing criminal charges for statutory rape. Whoa, whoa, whoa, criminal charges? Yes, teenagers could face statutory rape charges for consensual sex with their teenage girlfriend or boyfriend, depending on the state law's age of consent. But is this "crime" what prosecutors should be spending their resources on? Perhaps yes, considering the substantial effects teen sex has on the individual and society. Perhaps no, considering teens have been having sex throughout history, and maybe these prosecutions are just an attempt to discourage premarital sex.
One concern is that the prosecution of teens, specifically boys, can be a form of discrimination. The Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts held that a 14 year old boy has a constitutional right to determine if the District Attorney discriminates against boys in the statutory rape prosecutions. Another concern is the lifelong effects of being labeled a sex offender (and having to register as a sex offender) for having "consensual" sex when the person (male teen) is so young when the "offense" occurred.
Whatever the motive for prosecuting teens for having sex with other teens, state legislators have considered reforming statutory rape laws. The Vermont legislature recently struck down a bill that would have relaxed the statutory rape law so that a 13 year old could have consented to having sex, so long as his/her partner's age is within 4 years. The current law allows a 15 year old to consent so long as his/her partner's age is within 3 years.
Teens face enough challenges without having to face the criminal justice system for hooking up with their lab partner. While the consequences of teen sex can be great, having a criminal record or being labeled a sex offender are not consequences that should be added. Preventing the problem of teen sex starts at home. Dealing with the consequences of teen sex also begins at home. But the ultimate consequence should not be handed down by the justice system.
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. And where are the fathers of the three girls?? 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 17, 2009 at 12:06 AM