12 & 13-year-old kids labeled sex offenders for having consensual sex with each other

In 2003 a 13-year-old girl and a 12-year-old boy from Ogden, Utah had consensual sex that resulted in a pregnancy. They were both labeled as sex offenders because of a state law that prohibits having sex with someone who is under the age of 14. So the boy was the girl's "victim" and the girl was the boy's "victim." In other words, they were both offenders and victims at the same time. Is it just me or is that confusing?


Read more in ¿Qué más?: What would you do if your child was a sex offender?

Fast-forward to the present, the girl in the case is now 23 years old and is asking Utah's Supreme Court to overturn the ruling (she had asked for the same in 2004, but was unsuccessful). Her motion states that for juveniles who are 16 or 17, having sex with a peer does not constitute a crime and that she is being unfairly treated.

The reason that both the girl and boy were deemed sex offenders is that the law does not consider children under 14 capable of consenting to sex.

Okay, I get it. The law is meant to protect children, but this just makes no sense to me. Especially since now these two people are grown and walking around with a sex offender label, which has got to be awful. They were children at the time and as a mother I think they were definitely too young to be having sex, but they are not sex offenders and now that they are grown do we really think that they pose a danger to children or the general public?

The Utah Supreme Court has not yet issued a ruling. We'll see what they decide, but in my personal opinion branding both of these people as sex offenders for the rest of their lives for something they did with each other as children is absolutely absurd.

Image via Thinkstock

Topics: children  sex  trial