While the Daily News has come out swinging against such a policy, I'm thinking in terms of the larger context.
Most parents are unaware that the age of sexual consent in this state is 16.
And I guarantee you that few outside government have any clue about the Byzantine laws governing sexual contact between children, because such an awareness would lead to an "ah ha" moment of Olympic proportions.
I bring this up because, in their editorial, the following excerpt illustrates the issue:
Yet, in the State of Washington, we find ourselves in a position where Kelso schools believe they can regulate what's sent over and to cell phones, an obviously incorrect ruling, since they have no such authority; but if these two 13 year olds actually engaged in sexual conduct, including actual sexual intercourse, there's nothing the schools or anyone else could legally do about it.Sexting is occurring elsewhere. In January, Kelso schools disciplined two 13-year-olds after they exchanged nude photos of each other via cell phones.
The Federal government regulates cell phones, not individual schools. While schools can, of course, regulate when the use of cell phones is appropriate, the content of those phones is beyond their reach. On this rare occasion, I agree with the ACLU that anything a school wants to do concerning the information on a cell phone should be handled appropriately through law enforcement with the same protections afforded by the Constitution to anyone else.
The laws in this state concerning sex between adults and children are rightfully harsh and strict... but completely bizarre and almost incomprehensible when it comes to the issue of sex between minors.
Here are the laws in question:
So, what's it all mean?9A.44.073 - Rape of a child in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four months older than the victim.
(2) Rape of a child in the first degree is a class A felony.
[1988 c 145 § 2.]
Notes:
Effective date -- Savings -- Application -- 1988 c 145: See notes following RCW 9A.44.010.
9A.44.076 -Rape of a child in the second degree.(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the second degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least twelve years old but less than fourteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least thirty-six months older than the victim.
(2) Rape of a child in the second degree is a class A felony.
[1990 c 3 § 903; 1988 c 145 § 3.]
Notes:
Index, part headings not law -- Severability -- Effective dates -- Application -- 1990 c 3: See RCW 18.155.900 through 18.155.902.
Effective date -- Savings -- Application -- 1988 c 145: See notes following RCW 9A.44.010.
9A.44.079 - Rape of a child in the third degree.(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.
(2) Rape of a child in the third degree is a class C felony.
[1988 c 145 § 4.]
Notes:
Effective date -- Savings -- Application -- 1988 c 145: See notes following RCW 9A.44.010.
Well, the first thing it means is that 13 year olds can have sex with each other.
And it seems kind of bizarre that a school district believes they can make some effort to regulate "sexting" but they can do nothing about two 13 year olds not only seeing each other naked, but doing a heck of a lot more than that.
Here it means that legally, a 12 year old can have sex with a 14 year old, but not a 15 year old; a 13 year old may have sex with a 15 year old but not a 16 year old... and a 12 year old may also engage in sex with a 10 year old.
Simple, eh? Maybe not if you're a child.
And taking it to the next level, a 14 year old can have sex with an 18 year old, but not a 19 year old; a 15 year old can have sex with a 19 year old but not a 20 year old.
Now, I'm thinking that the way to deal with this issue is to make it illegal for children to have sex with anyone, including each other.
But that's just me. And with confusing laws like this on the books, and a lack of knowledge by the parents (The only reason I know this stuff is I had to deal with it as part of constituency relations a time or two) what it seems to me to be is an official seal of approval for our children to engage in sexual conduct with each other.
And does anyone foresee a good outcome from that?
Meanwhile, Kelso schools want the right to regulate pictures. Seems to me that the cow's been let out of that barn awhile ago.
.
4 comments:
I was with you until the "make it illegal for 13-year olds to have sex with each other."
Illegal, huh? Do we fine them? Throw them in juvie? Expel them from school? Give them inhibitor drugs? Ground them at home? Detention? Make them write "I will not have sex" on the blackboard 1000 times?
Yikes.
You got me, Martin. I'm thinking here in terms of all the other things it's illegal for 13 year olds to do.
What do we do with them when they shoplift? rob, steal, kill?
Do we just throw up our hands and say "well, they're 13. Let them do what they want."
Because of the outcome of sexually involved 13 year olds, the state has what's known as a "compelling interest." And part of that interest shouldn't be sanctifying sex between 13 year olds, which this law actually does by making it legal.
The state's involvement in this in some way besides making it explicitly legal, provides both the parents AND the kids who may be (and based on my experience as a parent of teenagers) actually are the recipient of peer pressure a tool to use to say "no."
Now, no such tool exists.
When you drive by, say, Prairie High School, and you see what amounts to a daycare center to take care of the children of children while they're in class, haven't you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, we're doing something wrong?
Doing nothing fixes nothing. And whatever it is we're doing now doesn't seem to work. With this suggestion, I'm first pointing out the ambiguity and complexity of the current law for purposes of children understanding it; second, pointing out the idiocy of Kelso schools believing they have the power or right to review what may be on someone's cell phone and third, starting the discussion to address this issue... and I believe that it must, in some way, be addressed.
Okay, I'm still with you on Kelso. Dorks.
Sex at 13. Hmmm... Wish I had sex at 13 but shyness, what girl would have me, and I wouldn't have known what to do anyway prevented the act. No law would have made a lick of difference. There are kids at 13 who have sex - they need education on birth control.
And I'm GLAD we as a society provide day care for childen with children. 20 years from now, both the parent and the child won't give a hoot how old the mother was at the time.
I don't argue with the idea of having day care at our high schools. At no time is it the infant's fault they were born, and we do have a duty to offer the opportunity to complete a high school education.
I just wish we didn't need those day care centers. It's a business our high schools shouldn't need to be in.
Post a Comment