'The report begins with Jacob C., who was 11 years old when convicted of one count of sexual misconduct in Michigan for touching, not penetrating, his sister’s genitals. He was not allowed to live in a home with other children, was eventually put into foster care and was placed on a sex registry that was made public when he turned 18. He struggled to graduate from high school, and was shunned because of his registration status. And when he enrolled in college, he said, campus police followed him everywhere. He dropped out.
Now 26, the report says, Jacob’s life continues to be defined and limited by a conviction at age 11.'
I came across this story last night, part of a report on juveniles in the US who are placed on sex offender registers. Leaving aside the justice, or otherwise, of children and young people being labelled, often for life, in this fashion, what occurred to me was how Jacob's case came to the attention of law enforcement in the first place. I don't know the circumstances, of course, but I strongly doubt that he was 'caught in the act' by a policeman, which suggests to me that it was his parents who initiated the process. If that is the case, what on earth were they thinking? Why would any caring parent throw their child, particularly one so young, into a situation with the potential to completely ruin their life for such a trivial 'offence'? If he'd raped, or otherwise seriously assaulted the girl, then it would have been a different issue altogether, but, surely, this kind of 'sibling curiosity' is a family, a parenting issue, not something that law enforcement should ever be involved in. Any parent that would hand their child over to the police in such circumstances should be placed on an 'arrant stupidity register' for life, in my opinion.
Love & best wishes to all
Sammy B
There's only one thing I can imagine would lead a parent to condemn an 11 year child that way. The pathological fear of sexuality felt by so many Christians claims another victim. If only parenthood were licensed.
ReplyDeleteI'm looking forward to a good game at Etihad tomorrow night. I just hope the threadbare Collingwood defence holds up against your mob. I'll be there, watching the game, and all the cute males it attracts!
Hello Billy
DeleteI did consider the religious option, and, as you say, it's difficult to think of any other motivation, apart from utter stupidity. I've long thought that people should have to have some sort of formal 'qualification' before they're allowed to become parents, and, indeed, blogged about it fairly recently.
I can't imagine, on current form, that you're losing too much sleep about tomorrow's game, although we were supposedly 'better' last weekend - just not good enough! I hope to be proved wrong, as ever, but I'm not putting my life savings on a Saints victory!
Love & best wishes
Sammy B
It could have been that the girl casually mentioned it to a friend in normal conversation because she probably saw nothing wrong with it, it was overheard by that kid's parents or grandparents or a caregiver, who went ballistic and notified the world, and it's well known that cops and social workers can twist a child's words to mean whatever they want. Poor kid. And that's just one instance. It's rampant over here. Kids on registries for producing child pornography for taking a provocative picture of THEMSELVES and sexting it to someone...we're so stupid over here. No one is allowed to use good judgement any more, it's ALL OR NOTHING!
ReplyDeleteOn a similar note: I've spent two days tracking down students using stolen teachers' network logon credentials to bypass our Internet filtering (as far as I can tell, to go to Facebook during the school day and chat with friends doing the same thing). The administration has decided that there are too many of them (over 100 - out of 30,000) doing it to suspend them, though use of stolen credentials PLUS circumventing the filter are both suspendable offenses. So apparently they are going to do nothing. Other than talk to the teachers who stupidly either gave their credentials to their children, or left them open on a post-it note on their laptop or on their desk.
In both cases, there is no sense of responsibility for anything any more. Overreact to the max on one case, ignore the other. Rant over.
Peace <3
Jay
Hello Jay
DeleteI know the case I quoted isn't isolated - I saw another one during the day yesterday, where a man in his mid-twenties can't even take his own child to school because of a similar 'offence' involving his sister which took place when he was 12. It doesn't seem to be quite so paranoiac over here - yet - but 'sexting' and the like seems to cause a good deal of huffing and puffing, especially amongst the more 'right-leaning' politicos, so I wouldn't be surprised if we catch up with your country in due course.
And I'm with you on the abdication of responsibility issue, whether by parents, or school authorities in the case you've been dealing with. Had my daughter been involved in some 'curiosity' based sexual contact, with a friend, for instance, when she was younger, I would've used it as an opportunity to talk to her about 'safe sex', not rushed off to the authorities expecting them to deal with my 'damaged' child. Having had more time to think about Jacob's case, and those like it, I'm more, rather than less incredulous that any parent would do such a thing to their own child.
Love & best wishes
Sammy B