SIX year old being charged with sexual assault?

[OVERKILL]

Got this in my Inbox today as part of my "this is true" subscription. I was utterly flaberghast.


Quote:
THE OBVIOUS NEXT STEP IN ZERO TOLERANCE: Prosecutors in Grant County,
Wisc., have filed charges of first-degree sexual assault against a 6-
year-old boy after he was found "playing doctor" with a 5-year-old
girl. The boy's family has been forced to hire a lawyer for the boy,
who calls the charges "crazy". Child behavior experts consider such
activity normal, even before considering the boy is developmentally
disabled -- the lawyer says his maturity level is below that of a
normal 6-year-old. Plus, state law makes it clear the boy is too young
to be prosecuted with a crime. But prosecutors are pushing the case
forward anyway, and have told the family they are looking into labeling
the boy a "sexual predator." District Attorney Lisa Riniker says she
doesn't want to jail the boy, but rather get a judge to force the boy's
family to submit him to treatment. The family says he is already under
treatment. "You're going to have to prove a criminal act," Circuit
Court Judge Edward Leineweber warned. "If he was 2, would we be here?"
But the judge refused to dismiss the case, noting that "Even the most
immature 6-year-old could appreciate" the "concepts" involved in the
case. (RC/Wisconsin State Journal) ...Even though a lot of adults have
a hard time grasping the concepts of the case.

 

[FL_Rob]

Sounds like this could be retribution against the parents for really #$%#$%'ing in somebodys Wheaties.Theory two says the prosecutors are trying to make a name for themselves.This reminds me of the movie 'Idiocracy',where the justice system was running itself and no authority personnel could actually think for themselves and take [appropriate] action.

 

[OVERKILL]

A lot of what is happening in society reminds of that movie nowadays..... LOL

 

[oilboy123]

People talk like lawyers are sleaze........I believe that some prosecutors are sleaze, and I have personal experience to back it up. A lawyer saved my bacon.

These prosecutors are idiots.

 

[crazyoildude]

Give me a break! I hope the parents go after the state when they win...Actually in most States the parents are responsible...Procecutors are Lawyers also they are just underpaid state amd federal ones..

 

[tinmanSC]

This same thing happened to a kid in my neighborhood. He is also a little developmentally challenged. He was 8 ( about 5 mentally), and played "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" with a girl a few doors down. The prosecutor threw the book at him and he was charged as an adult, convicted and labeled a sex offender. Because he was a sex offender, he could not live in his house. There was a registered daycare a few doors down, so he had to move. That situation didn't work out, mostly because he is a little slow. By the time he was 15 he was living on the street. Because he was a sex offender, no homeless shelter would take him and all church groups and charity organizations would not assist him. He has to register as a homeless sex offender every other day. As he does not have a car, and does not always know where he would be sleeping this is very difficult and it has landed him in jail several times over the last 2 years. Because of this, he is "non-compliant" according to the state and is now a life-time sex offender and has to register for the rest of his life (the previous registration requirement was 10 years). Getting on a list of sex offenders can ruin your life over something this silly.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: oilboy123
People talk like lawyers are sleaze.......I believe that some prosecutors are sleaze,


I deal with defense attorneys a couple of times a week. They are often giant dripping sleazebags. Not everyone of them. I'm pleasantly suprised when I speak with a defense attorney who is professional. They are the exception though. Most are complete and utter degenerates.

And in attempting to prosecute a 6 year old, these prosecutors are every bit as idiotic as the defense attorneys that I often face

 

[Spyder7]

Thankfully that can't happen here. Our laws recognize that kids under 12 are not yet old enough to have fully internalized "right" versus "wrong" or appreciate the consequences of their actions. They are still very much in the development stage until that age. Up to 12, they can't be charged with a criminal offense; instead its referred from police to Child Protection who look into the home environment, as typically (though not always) any kind of acting out can be linked directly to neglect or abuse.

If either exists to the point of it being criminal, the parent(s) responsible will be charged with neglect or abuse and all of the kids will be removed. If either exists and is serious, though stopping short of criminal, the kids are again simply removed.

In mild cases CYFS (Child, Youth, and Family Services) may decide to leave the kids where they are but under provisions where the parents are required to make the necessary changes or lose custody of their kids.

Twelve and older but younger than 18 are treated as adults in that they can be charged. Punishment is followed under the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, which recognizes rehabilitation is more likely at that age, and focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment. If they remain free of crime for a long enough period after the offense was committed (which could be the day they turn 18) no record of the offense can be used against them by the police or employers. It becomes sealed in such a manner that its as if the offense was never committed.

Some believe the Young Offenders Act is too lenient, and I think we're going to see changes to it up here soon. I'm in favor of stiffer penalties for serious or repeat offenders, which, from my understanding of it, is what is currently being proposed here as part of a larger crime bill aimed at taking a tougher stance on crime overall. This is one of the issues I side with conservatives on, and why I really don't like being labeled a "liberal."

-Spyder

 

[Al]

I played "Doctor" when I was little. This is nuts.

 

[tigrpal]

It's important to read the entire article: Wisconsin State Journal

Seems the boy has a bit of a history and the DA wants to get the boy some help and this is the only legal way she can make that happen. I'm not saying that is the right course. I'm just saying there is more to the story. It's just not as simple as "DA wants to prosecute a six-year-old."

 

[sciphi]

That's a silly way to get a child help. Don't scar the kid for life just yet. Get him the help deemed appropriate, monitor, and if he continues to be a problem, then throw the book at him.

That's also a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars and the judicial system over what should a social services matter. The judge should say to the social services people to get this kid some help, or be held in contempt of court. Same for the family.

 

[KrisZ]

This is pretty crazy.

Here is a nice quote from the article:

Quote:
Dr. Lucy Berliner, director of Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress in Seattle... responding after the State Journal described the allegations, called the charge “very unusual” and equated it to charging a 6-year-old with physical assault for hitting another child.



Stay tuned... soon your kids will be prosecuted for all sorts of things.

 

[tigrpal]

According to the article the boy has a history, has been receiving services, continues the behavior, and the parents of the girl tried to work it out between the families but the boy's family wouldn't cooperate. Is it time to throw the book at him yet?

 

[Cutehumor]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
This is pretty crazy.

Here is a nice quote from the article:

Quote:
Dr. Lucy Berliner, director of Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress in Seattle... responding after the State Journal described the allegations, called the charge “very unusual” and equated it to charging a 6-year-old with physical assault for hitting another child.



Stay tuned... soon your kids will be prosecuted for all sorts of things.


When I have a kid, I'll remember that. I'll be sure to prosecute the kid and sue the parents if he gets beat up at school.

 

[LTVibe]

Originally Posted By: tigrpal
According to the article the boy has a history, has been receiving services, continues the behavior, and the parents of the girl tried to work it out between the families but the boy's family wouldn't cooperate. Is it time to throw the book at him yet?

Throw the book at the boy's parents.

The boy is too young to understand he has a problem. His parents do understand and should be held accountable for the boy's behavior.

 

[Nick R]

If they can really prosecute and convict a child for this, my guess is something like 70% of the population just became sex offenders.

 

[JHZR2]

Im pretty sure a Stevie Wonder song specifically mentions playing "doctor"...

 

[dwendt44]

A clear case of 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' mentality.
Then cut funds for treatment and rehabilitation, child services etc..

Knee jerk reaction rarely solves the problem.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: tigrpal
According to the article the boy has a history, has been receiving services, continues the behavior, and the parents of the girl tried to work it out between the families but the boy's family wouldn't cooperate. Is it time to throw the book at him yet?


According to the article, when he was FIVE, he ran around naked and grabbed the chests of his teenage babysitters (this is the "history" of the behaviour). Now, my kids STILL run around naked after they have a bath or shower. They are 2, 4 and 7. We just tell them to go put some cloths on, and they do.

And a boy will always be curious about breasts. If he wasn't told that it was inappropriate when he did it, sternly by the baby sitters (who for all we know, may have been giggling and laughing at the antics of this kid at the time, then thought it was weird later) then how is he supposed to know what he is doing (remember, we are talking about a developmentally challenged 5 year old at this point here) is wrong?

Also from the article, the boy has had problems with his bowel or rectum that involved visits to the doctor who was taking a look at his bottom. And then, the girl is in the yard with him, and when asked by the mother what they were doing, and she remarks "playing butt doctor" well, it isn't hard to see the link there.

He's a kid, discovering his world and his sexuality. If the mother is uncomfortable with her daughter being involved, then she should teach her daughter that dropping her panties to play butt doctor in the yard is just as inappropriate as the little boy wanting to play it in the first place.

Another quote from the article you linked is very telling:

Quote:
The boy needed only to have penetrated the girl and known she was under a certain age, he wrote, adding, “Even the most immature 6-year-old could appreciate these two concepts.”


So the little boy is supposed to know that playing doctor is "illegal" and that he needs to wait until he's 18+ to play doctor "legally". And that at 6, he should be fully capable of understanding that concept?

Yeah.....

I think this whole thing is a HUGE overreaction.

 

[mechanicx]

Stuff like this really irks me. It reveals the real nature of all this "sexual offender" hysteria and the radical people behind it. First of all it is sexist. The male is always considered the victimizer and the female the victim whether there is really a victimizer and victim in the first place. A lot of these prosecutors are men haters to begin with. It's not much different from the Salem witch hunts. Based on no good reason let's just label the target the "witch" (sexual offender). While they won't burn you at the stake they do the next thing to it and completely ostracize and make the target a complete outcast.

Nowadays it's not even about morals because anything goes in today's culture. It's just predatory prosecutions by predators in the justice system. It's to the point where people, especially males, fear proseution for basically normal human behavior and expression. Real criminals commiting real crimes like armed robbery and armed robbery aren't treated as the scourge that "sexual offenders" are who often times are charged with largely fabricated offenses. We always had laws against certain behavior for 100's and even thousands of years. why do we need all these newfangled laws?