So the boys who "requested and received oral sex" from a 15 year old girl at Milton Academy have been charged with statutory rape (which makes it a crime to have sex with anyone under age 16, regardless of consent). They face a possible sentence of life in prison. (That’s right: life in prison.) And even if they’re only sentenced to probation or to some lesser prison term, a conviction will require them to register as sex offenders for at least 10 and possibly 20 years. (I’ll have more to say about "statutory rape" in a subsequent post.)
I don’t know any more about what really happened at Milton Academy than what I’ve read in the papers. And I think most would probably agree that this was not good behavior on anyone’s part. But nothing that has been reported has suggested that this girl was forced or coerced into "performing oral sex" on these boys. So charging them criminally under a harsh statute that carries the possibility of a long prison sentence and that will brand the boys as "sex offenders" for much of their adult lives seems to me more than a bit extreme. Like it or not, this kind of thing happens not infrequently at high schools (and, sadly, probably middle schools too) around the country. Are all of these kids sex offenders? Are they criminals? Maybe the DA wants to "send a message" to the public that we don’t tolerate this kind of behavior in Massachusetts. There has to be a better way to do that than by ruining these boys’ lives.
UPDATE: Prosecutors have struck a deal with these kids which will basically mean that the charges will be dropped if they stay out of trouble for two years. Which leads one to ask: what was the point of charging them in the first place? Sending a message? Is this really an appropriate use of the criminal justice system? Surely there was a better way to accomplish what has been accomplished here.
Statutory rape laws do nothing to help us help our kids understand sex and its responsibilities, pleasures, and consequences, but you’re right, it ruins young lives. It also causes a normal human function to be viewed as more shameful, more illicit (and to teens, sometimes more desirable because it’s forbidden). Our society needs to acknowledge that we’re asking our kids to “wait til they’re older” while the age of puberty, for whatever reason, is getting younger and younger. So the window for “trouble” with teens and sex gets wider and wider, and all we adults do is stick our heads in the sand, forget about when we were teens, and fail to help them cope with sexual issues – whether that’s engaging in sex, or not engaging in it.As the product of repressive head-in-the-sand parents (I love them to death, but some things were totally beyond them), I know it’s not healthy or wise. Luckily most of us learn how to cope on our own – and often through experimentation, disappointment, and success in our teen years. We have to recognize teens are sexual beings, and jailing teens who sleep with slightly younger teens doesn’t do anything useful.Or at least, that’s my opinion. It also doesn’t help that from what I understand, the law isn’t enforced equally – an older girl with a younger man isn’t quite as “offensive” to society as an older boy and younger girl. As a girl, that pisses me off – no fair treating us more protectively. (And yes, I’m also for the military draft being for both girls and boys – or really, I’m against it all together…)
I’d say give them all counseling, INCLUDING the girl. How does she get away scott-free in all of this? Add some community service to the boys (help at an STD clinic?), and be done with it.
Statutory rape laws, while designed with the best of intentions, are often abused by overzealous (or bigoted) prosecuters.Consider poor Matthew Limon, who is serving 17 years in Kansas for having consensual oral sex with another boy.http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/waldman/2005/04/25/limon/index.html
I just read that they got 2 years pre-trial probation, and have to go to counseling. After 2 years, they will have no criminal record. It all sounds good to me except for the girl. Why isn’t she being held accountable for anything?
It’s my understanding that each of the boys involved was 16 or older, meaning that the girl did not technically violate the statutory rape law. But I would wager that if one if the boys were 15, she still wouldn’t have been charged.
So who is talking to this girl about how wrong it is to blow the hockey team? If you asked me who needed more counseling, it would be the girl who freely gives out group bj’s. If you think a 15 year old girl can’t be held responsible for this, Then I guess it’s valid she should have parents’ permission to get an abortion. I mean, is a 15 year old girl responsible for what she does, or not? We’re not talking about a retarded kid here.
One of the saddest aspects of this case is how screwed up the girl’s family (particularly her father) is – see this Globe story. It’s not that surprising that she did what he did. I don’t dispute that she could use counseling – the problem is that since she didn’t break any laws, she can’t be required to undergo it in the same way the boys can. (I suppose the school could have ordered it as a condition of letting her back in – maybe they did, I don’t know.)
I believe statuatory rape is a registerable offense. Having to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life for getting a blowjob from a girl one year younger than you is a bit draconian, eh?
It is definitely a registrable offense (see the links in the post). The question is whether the deal they struck will end the registration obligation – my understanding is that their criminal records will be wiped clean after 2 years.And yes, a bit draconian.
SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!The REASON for statutory rape laws is the presumption that a child cannot have consesnual sex, but is being exploited. After all of you put away your hankies for these young gentlemen, and finish trashing this CHILD who was trying to please them, ask yourself why you are condoning child prostitution.I am copying all your remarks, and will forward them to the next 30 year old who violates a 12 year old girl. Ater all, what did she do to bring it on?Yes, no more statutory rape…
WW, this case is about a sixteen-year-old and a fifteen-year-old, not a 30-year-old and a 12-year-old. By your argument, the “young gentlemen” couldn’t consent to sex, either, and were thus also victims of statuatory rape at the hands of the female.And no one is “trashing” the alleged victim. Rather, they’re wondering why she consented to the behavior and lamenting that she cannot receive counseling.
As it turns out, I had one of my facts wrong – one of the boys was in fact 15 years old, so anyone having sex with him was technically guilty of statutory rape. I wonder whether wonderwhy believes that the girl should have been charged accordingly?And please, WW, let’s not get careless with our accusations. Nothing in this case even remotely hints of prostitution, child or otherwise. This is a serious and important issue, and discussion of it deserves better.