Brickbat: Juvenile Justice

Prosecutors in Marathon County, Wisconsin, have charged a 19-year-old woman, who wasn't named by local media, with two felony counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child. The alleged offenses happened almost a decade ago, when the young woman was 10, when she allegedly ordered three younger children to perform sex acts on one another. But prosecutors say that because none of the alleged victims reported the crime until after the accused turned 17 they had no choice but to charge her as an adult.

Comments

[Snark Plissken]

According to a Marathon County criminal complaint, an investigation began in March 2011 when a girl, then 14, told investigators that sometime between 2003 and 2005, the suspect ordered the girl, her sister, and a 5-year-old boy to perform sex acts on each other

What sex acts does a five-year-old boy perform? Touching her hee haw? I can barely order my six-year-old to pick up his Legos.

[Fist of Etiquette]

Sounds like investigators may have been playing around with recovering repressed memories. It's science, so you know you can trust it.

[invisible furry hand]

I have hazy memories of you claiming you could improve my singing voice if I just laid back and lifted my skirt...

[Fist of Etiquette]

You still haven't paid me for that.

[invisible furry hand]

You just haven't remembered that yet

[Snark Plissken]

Which is how the execrable built her prosecution career in Florida.

[Robert]

I'd like to know how a 10 YO can order anything.

[Scruffy Nerfherder]

Some interesting comments below the article about how pursuing it as an adult case allows the "victims" to seek disability thus providing a perverse incentive.

Question: In these types of cases, do the attorneys for the "victims" receive a portion of the disability or are they paid a flat fee for services rendered?

[db]

I get my disability check and *POW* --dahn ta Pants 'n 'At!

[Night Elf Mohawk]

Whatever happened to statutes of limitation?

[SugarFree]

Pfft. Next you'll be demanding nonsense like evidence and proof of intent.

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

But CHILDREN

[invisible furry hand]

This:

However,for certain sex crimes against children, charges may be brought until the time the victim reaches age 45, raised from age 31 by
2003 Wisconsin Act 279.

source: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/ib/04ib3.pdf

[Neoliberal Kochtopus]

Statutes of limitation on sex crimes against children have been rendered virtually meaningless. Wisconsin, for example, permits charging the offender until the victim reaches 45 years of age. Fall out from the pseudoscience of "recovered memories" and the attendant witch hunt.

[Night Elf Mohawk]

It was rhetorical.

The idea that the word of someone who was six at the time, now eight years later, could prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt makes witch hunts seem measured and deliberative.

[invisible furry hand]

It was rhetorical.

There's your mistake - using fancy foreign ideas like rhetoric. If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for you

[Night Elf Mohawk]

IFH, why have you forsaken me?

[invisible furry hand]

Because even at today's prices 30 pieces of silver are not to be sneezed at

[Ted S.]

You should be thrilled that he's using Aussie ideas like rhetoric.

[JeremyR]

How exactly does a 10 year old girl order anyone to do something? Much less 3 other children?

Hell, I remember some 10 year kid in the neighborhood would show all the other kids his penis every chance he got. Could he be retroactively be charged with flashing?

[Ted S.]

Could he be retroactively be charged with flashing?

Yes. Don't give the prosecutors any ideas.

[Bramblyspam]

So if a 4-yr-old plays doctor, they can wait 15 years and then charge the 19-yr-old as an adult? Sounds lovely.

[Mainer2]

But prosecutors say ...they had no choice but to charge her as an adult

Interesting how sometimes prosecutors have wide discretion on what charges to level, or to even bring charges at all, and other times their hands are tied, they are mere automatons with no discretion at all.

[sarcasmic]

That's because they are dishonest pieces of shit.

[Rasilio]

i"But prosecutors say that because none of the alleged victims reported the crime until after the accused turned 17 they had no choice but to charge her as an adult."

Um, I believe they had the choice to not charge her at all.

All it would have taken is the recognition that 10 year old memories of a young child are not reliable and therefore there is not sufficient evidence to charge.

Perhaps they could have use the threat of charges to get the woman in question to see a shrink to determine if she is a danger to be continuing such behavior but they always had a choice.

[wareagle]

Um, I believe they had the choice to not charge her at all.

not really. As employees of the state, they are required to do something. Not charging her would have meant doing nothing and that is not allowed in the handbook. Procedures were followed, obedience to the state was maintained.

[UnCivilServant]

As an employee of the state, I can assure you, nothing is something we can do, and some would insist that we do very well.

[Drake]

"sometime between 2003 and 2005, the suspect ordered the girl, her sister, and a 5-year-old boy to perform sex acts on each other."

The accused will need a damn good alibi that covers 3 years.

[Zombiebeard]

This happened to a college friend of mine in FL. Unfortunately the media did release her name, so she lost a job and a scholarship. The indecent allegedly happened 10 years prior (girl was 8, my friend 15). The case was thrown out due to lack of evidence. Not before, wiping out my friend's family savings in legal fees.