Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Juveniles are charged with a "delinquent act." Adults are charged with a "crime." The processes are different and juvenile charges cannot be held against an adult later in life.
"Held against?" That's not correct. They can certainly be used as a basis to deny a job, deny certain admissions to schools or even to obtain a license late (law license, medical license, drivers license.)
No, they can't. Juvenile records are automatically sealed in Maryland upon termination of the court's jurisdiction. You don't have to petition for it. And then they are destroyed after 12 years. When employers run a record check, it does not show up. And, if you get your record expunged, then it's actually a criminal offense for an employer or a school to fire you, not hire you, or not admit you to the school, solely due to the expunged charges.
Wrong on so many levels.
Anonymous wrote:
Girls do this kind of shit all the time, but never get called out for it.
Some women want such a double standard. No man should ever touch you.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Juveniles are charged with a "delinquent act." Adults are charged with a "crime." The processes are different and juvenile charges cannot be held against an adult later in life.
NP. Well that is definitely not true. Have you ever practiced criminal law in the juvenile courts. I have. In Florida at least, if a person is charged as an adult at anytime, the courts can go back three years into the juvenile record for inclusion in the computation of a crime. Therefore, if this action was committed in Florida and the boy committed no other crime until he turned 16 and committed a misdemeanor petty theft and charged as an adult or juvenile, the sexual assault is included as a prior.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Yes -- sexual assault is unacceptable. But why can't a suspension deliver that message? Why can't his parents? Why jail?
Jail? It's unlikely that a juvenile assault charge would land him in jail.
Anonymous wrote:Imagine that your wife comes home and says that a male coworker stuck his tongue in her mouth on a dare from a friend. Their boss suspends him for a week without pay. Is that good enough for you? It'll teach him a lesson, right? The other male employees should be deterred by seeing how he was punished? Why would you and your wife still be upset? No need to get the police involved.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Juveniles are charged with a "delinquent act." Adults are charged with a "crime." The processes are different and juvenile charges cannot be held against an adult later in life.
"Held against?" That's not correct. They can certainly be used as a basis to deny a job, deny certain admissions to schools or even to obtain a license late (law license, medical license, drivers license.)
No, they can't. Juvenile records are automatically sealed in Maryland upon termination of the court's jurisdiction. You don't have to petition for it. And then they are destroyed after 12 years. When employers run a record check, it does not show up. And, if you get your record expunged, then it's actually a criminal offense for an employer or a school to fire you, not hire you, or not admit you to the school, solely due to the expunged charges.
Anonymous wrote:Juveniles are charged with a "delinquent act." Adults are charged with a "crime." The processes are different and juvenile charges cannot be held against an adult later in life.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Do I think he needs a criminal juvenile record so for his lifetime he has to answer yes, he has been charged with a crime, whenever he fills out a job application, even 30 years from now? No. And yes, I have a daughter.
The job applications don't ask whether a person has ever been charged with a crime. They ask whether a person has been convicted of a crime. And yes, I support banning this question from job applications.
http://www.nelp.org/publication/ban-the-box-fair-chance-hiring-state-and-local-guide/
Anonymous wrote:
Different poster here: Apparently those that feel the kid should have a permanent record and criminal conviction over this, seem to also think that those of us who don't think the punishment needs to be so severe to damage him in many aspects for LIFE are saying that he doesn't deserve any punishment. No one has ever said that boys will be boys, this was harmless, she'll just forget it, etc. What we're saying is if a kid with the cognitive abilities of a 13 year old does something stupid that like this, he SHOULD be punished but not in a way that will haunt him from here on out. Would you want him to have to register as a sex offender for life over this?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Imagine that your wife comes home and says that a male coworker stuck his tongue in her mouth on a dare from a friend. Their boss suspends him for a week without pay. Is that good enough for you? It'll teach him a lesson, right? The other male employees should be deterred by seeing how he was punished? Why would you and your wife still be upset? No need to get the police involved.
What is the relevance to a 13 year old child?
Does the age of the victim (14) mean that she deserves less justice?
Maybe we should have a sliding scale of victimhood cause "boys will be boys" after all...
You're probably hoping she'll just forget about the whole thing over time anyway? And she's not anyone's wife yet, so it's not like some man should feel violated.
We don't base punishment on the age of the victim, we base it on the age of the offender and the offender's cognitive abilities and maturity. I don't know what you are going on about with "boys will be boys" and "she'll forget." Frankly, you sound a little deranged.
Different poster here: Apparently those that feel the kid should have a permanent record and criminal conviction over this, seem to also think that those of us who don't think the punishment needs to be so severe to damage him in many aspects for LIFE are saying that he doesn't deserve any punishment. No one has ever said that boys will be boys, this was harmless, she'll just forget it, etc. What we're saying is if a kid with the cognitive abilities of a 13 year old does something stupid that like this, he SHOULD be punished but not in a way that will haunt him from here on out. Would you want him to have to register as a sex offender for life over this?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Imagine that your wife comes home and says that a male coworker stuck his tongue in her mouth on a dare from a friend. Their boss suspends him for a week without pay. Is that good enough for you? It'll teach him a lesson, right? The other male employees should be deterred by seeing how he was punished? Why would you and your wife still be upset? No need to get the police involved.
What is the relevance to a 13 year old child?
Does the age of the victim (14) mean that she deserves less justice?
Maybe we should have a sliding scale of victimhood cause "boys will be boys" after all...
You're probably hoping she'll just forget about the whole thing over time anyway? And she's not anyone's wife yet, so it's not like some man should feel violated.
We don't base punishment on the age of the victim, we base it on the age of the offender and the offender's cognitive abilities and maturity. I don't know what you are going on about with "boys will be boys" and "she'll forget." Frankly, you sound a little deranged.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Yes -- sexual assault is unacceptable. But why can't a suspension deliver that message? Why can't his parents? Why jail?
Jail? It's unlikely that a juvenile assault charge would land him in jail.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Imagine that your wife comes home and says that a male coworker stuck his tongue in her mouth on a dare from a friend. Their boss suspends him for a week without pay. Is that good enough for you? It'll teach him a lesson, right? The other male employees should be deterred by seeing how he was punished? Why would you and your wife still be upset? No need to get the police involved.
What is the relevance to a 13 year old child?
Does the age of the victim (14) mean that she deserves less justice?
Maybe we should have a sliding scale of victimhood cause "boys will be boys" after all...
You're probably hoping she'll just forget about the whole thing over time anyway? And she's not anyone's wife yet, so it's not like some man should feel violated.