WTH? 2 N.J. teens labeled sex offenders for life after 'horseplay'

[Texashiker]

judges can't just ignore the statutes passed by the legislature

Your right, that job is left to the jury.

The problem is, most juries ignore their rights and act as servants to the state.

 

[Beev]

The fact you aren't appalled by the judgement makes me agree with Spidey.

You were farted on, weren't you?

Nope, I wasn't bullied in school at all. And after everything else I see happen in this country every day the judgement just doesn't surprise me. What can I do about it?

 

[uclaLabrat]

They were 14, not 7. They know better than to do stupid shit like that.

No sympathy. I don't care if the judgement is "right" or not, but ultimately I don't care that they're registered for life, either.

Edit: Reading comprehension for the fucking lose, guys. I have no opinion on the judgement and penalty. I'm just irritated by the two guys being dumbshits. Nothing more. I can't hate on them for acting stupid?

Sure, you can hate on them for being idiots...that's what kids do...they are idiots. You CAN'T label them as sex offenders for life because they pulled a prank. Complete fail of accountability on all parts.

 

[SunnyD]

judges can't just ignore the statutes passed by the legislature

Yes, actually they can. It's the judicial body's responsibility to review the work of the legislative body, and interpret it and/or remedy issues with it and ensure it's in the best interests of the public.

It's the executive body's job to uphold the laws written by the legislative body.

 

[JimKiler]

judges can't just ignore the statutes passed by the legislature

No but they should understand the intent of the law which this crime does not fit.

 

[manlymatt83]

Zero tolerance = zero intelligence.

This.

 

[ElFenix]

Yes, actually they can. It's the judicial body's responsibility to review the work of the legislative body, and interpret it and/or remedy issues with it and ensure it's in the best interests of the public.

It's the executive body's job to uphold the laws written by the legislative body.

no. they really don't.

No but they should understand the intent of the law which this crime does not fit.

they look at the language of the statute and if it's clear that's the end of the inquiry. so, no, they don't necessarily or even often look at the intent of the law.

that's how you can tell the difference between societies of law and societies of norms, norms don't lead to strange results at the edges, laws do.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

You wanted emotional knee jerky laws you got em. I can't imagine how the soon to be passed caylees law could possibly backfire.

 

[Scotteq]

You wanted emotional knee jerky laws you got em. I can't imagine how the soon to be passed caylees law could possibly backfire.

This


NJ is a shithole state, and the Police/Courts/Govt here Can, Do, and *Will** thoroughly screw anyone unlucky enough to get in their crosshairs.


Can't wait to move...

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Sure, you can hate on them for being idiots...that's what kids do...they are idiots. You CAN'T label them as sex offenders for life because they pulled a prank. Complete fail of accountability on all parts.

You get charged as a SO for pissing in public as well.

 

[SP33Demon]

This


NJ is a shithole state, and the Police/Courts/Govt here Can, Do, and *Will** thoroughly screw anyone unlucky enough to get in their crosshairs.


Can't wait to move...

Yep, gtfo of NJ and NY as fast as you can. Freaking communists when it comes to taxes and draconian laws.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

They were 14, not 7. They know better than to do stupid shit like that.

No sympathy. I don't care if the judgement is "right" or not, but ultimately I don't care that they're registered for life, either.

Edit: Reading comprehension for the fucking lose, guys. I have no opinion on the judgement and penalty. I'm just irritated by the two guys being dumbshits. Nothing more. I can't hate on them for acting stupid?

Being dipshits when you are 14 doesnt mean you should get that kind of punishment, community service sure but this is just retarded.

 

[Kev]

so if a kid pants somebody or gives them a wedgie the kid is going on the sex offender list for the rest of his life?

 

[highland145]

so if a kid pants somebody or gives them a wedgie the kid is going on the sex offender list for the rest of his life?

In N.J.

 

[Wreckem]

so if a kid pants somebody or gives them a wedgie the kid is going on the sex offender list for the rest of his life?

So you are equating a wedgie to sitting on someones face while bare-assed?

 

[CPA]

no. they really don't.



they look at the language of the statute and if it's clear that's the end of the inquiry. so, no, they don't necessarily or even often look at the intent of the law.

that's how you can tell the difference between societies of law and societies of norms, norms don't lead to strange results at the edges, laws do.

You are correct. While I don't agree with the statute, I find it interesting that people are essentially calling for the judges to be activists in this case. Nothing worse than an activist judge...well, maybe stupid legislatures and their stupid statutes are on the same level.

 

[Wreckem]

The fact you aren't appalled by the judgement makes me agree with Spidey.

You were farted on, weren't you?

So farting = sitting on someones face bare-assed?

 

[Wordplay]

So does Megans law also apply to girls?

Remember the story [linked here] about the girls who stripped off a boys pants/underwear? Did they face court charges? Will they be branded for life as sex offenders? Nope.

But..oh no... if boys do anything that has sexual overtones - the entire world comes crumbling down on them so the rest of their lives are ruined.

I thought about that incident while reading about this one.

I thought the boy's mother didn't want to press charges? She wanted the parents to handle the children instead.

 

[spidey07]

100.0 °F

Feels Like 137 °F

http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=zmw:40241.1.99999&MR=1

 

[FDF12389]

Ridiculous

 

[FDF12389]

100.0 °F

Feels Like 137 °F

http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=zmw:40241.1.99999&MR=1

Wrong thread?

 

[drebo]

You are correct. While I don't agree with the statute, I find it interesting that people are essentially calling for the judges to be activists in this case. Nothing worse than an activist judge...well, maybe stupid legislatures and their stupid statutes are on the same level.

I agree, and while this case may be within the letter of the law, it definitely is not within the spirit of the law.

This whole "sex offender" thing is bullshit anyway. America is way too prudish.

 

[zokudu]

I thought about that incident while reading about this one.

I thought the boy's mother didn't want to press charges? She wanted the parents to handle the children instead.

No the police didn't want to press charges but she wanted some kind of punishment as long as it didn't ruin the girls lives.

 

[SunnyD]

no. they really don't.

"can" and "don't" are two different classes of words. To that extent, I agree with you - they "don't". Mostly because it's all about politics and money. That doesn't mean they "can't" though, considering it's their job to.

 

[highland145]

So you are equating a wedgie to sitting on someones face while bare-assed?

But an act is considered criminal sexual contact if it is done for sexual gratification or to degrade or humiliate the victim

According to the law, yes.