[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Or your parents sucked at being parents. Not until about 11, 12 when supervision started becoming less and less did I have opportunities to get in more and more trouble. And some of the things I got away with had I been a kid growing up in the USofA, I would have been incarcerated at 10 and grown up in Juvenal with how screwed up your laws are. Trying to sneak out at 8, not a chance.

Nah, sounds like you were just a sad excuse for a child, same as a lot of kids today. We went out and rode bikes in the summer, played football, played baseball, went fishing, swimming at the pond, camping in the local woods, all this was basically unsupervised when we were ~8 years old. We weren't coddled and fussed over, we were taught to be self-reliant and to develop our own wits. Sneak out at 8? Come to think of it, I didn't have to sneak, I just walked out. "Mom, I'm going to Daniel's." "Be back by dark."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Yes I know, the US lacks social programs and worker rights which would allow for such a thing.

But there are always options
- Send kid to Grand Parents
- Send kid to uncles or aunts
- Send kid to neighbors house
- Send kid to school anyways
- Pay a babysitter
- Stay home from Work
- Bring kid to work

-Kid by this point has been raised to have some responsibility for their own actions.

Show of hands, who was ever left alone for 5 minutes when they were 8 years old and still managed not to kill or molest anyone?

*raises hand*

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

-Kid by this point has been raised to have some responsibility for their own actions.

Show of hands, who was ever left alone for 5 minutes when they were 8 years old and still managed not to kill or molest anyone?

*raises hand*

Hell, I was left alone all day, running around every square inch of the countryside with my cousins and mates.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Nah, sounds like you were just a sad excuse for a child, same as a lot of kids today. We went out and rode bikes in the summer, played football, played baseball, went fishing, swimming at the pond, camping in the local woods, all this was basically unsupervised when we were ~8 years old. We weren't coddled and fussed over, we were taught to be self-reliant and to develop our own wits. Sneak out at 8? Come to think of it, I didn't have to sneak, I just walked out. "Mom, I'm going to Daniel's." "Be back by dark."

I think we're similar in age, so I'll note none of us had cell phones either.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Show of hands, who was ever left alone for 5 minutes when they were 8 years old and still managed not to kill or molest anyone?

I was acquitted. Does that count?

[Uncle Skeleton]

That depends, was it "not guilty by reason of mental defect?"

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That depends, was it "not guilty by reason of being too young to understand?"

fixed.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think we're similar in age, so I'll note none of us had cell phones either.

My mom and dad had something better, they could "holler". You could hear them from a mile away, their voices would echo off the hills into the valleys. If that didn't work, they'd call my aunt, grandmother, or some neighbor and they'd holler. It didn't take long, we'd hear the yell and know it was time to get back home.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That depends, was it "not guilty by reason of mental defect?"

I seem to recall it had something to do with all the witnesses disappearing.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Nah, sounds like you were just a sad excuse for a child, same as a lot of kids today. We went out and rode bikes in the summer, played football, played baseball, went fishing, swimming at the pond, camping in the local woods, all this was basically unsupervised when we were ~8 years old. We weren't coddled and fussed over, we were taught to be self-reliant and to develop our own wits. Sneak out at 8? Come to think of it, I didn't have to sneak, I just walked out. "Mom, I'm going to Daniel's." "Be back by dark."

Depends where you live and when, I mean that was the norm in the 50s or small towns. I grew up in the city in the 80s.

So your saying you would let your 8 year old kid go in and out as he or she pleases?

And Clifford Olson might have had something to do with changing things a bit as a kid. No one let there kids out of sight for years after that monster was captured.

[brassplayersrock²]

You're basing all of your assumptions on your personal background. Not everyone has had the same life.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

You're basing all of your assumptions on your personal background. Not everyone has had the same life.

what are you blabbing about. What does my personal background have to do with parental responsibility. If a f*ing kid gets a hold of a gun and ammo that's in the house and blows away some one, that's the parents fault period. When you see 8 and 10 year olds in gangs, and out on the streets committing crimes at 2am that's the parents fault. Shaddim grew up in the country not in a City, he made the comment about being left alone all day well good for him, its a little different for parents in the city. What kind of jerk defends the parents that allow a kid access to guns to kill people.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Depends where you live and when, I mean that was the norm in the 50s or small towns. I grew up in the city in the 80s.

I did too, so I wasn't trolling for crawdads, I was at the arcade where all the punks hung out playing Crazy Climber.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by subego 

I did too, so I wasn't trolling for crawdads, I was at the arcade where all the punks hung out playing Crazy Climber.

I honestly think your parents where nuts to let you wonder around at 8 years old as you pleased. I sure the hell wouldn't let my kids at that age. Any kids I see running around at that age with out supervision pisses me off. 12, ok but not at 8.

[subego]

By the time I was nine I was riding public transportation to school, which was about a half-mile from the type of scary housing project where kids fall out windows and get shot in crossfire.

Edit: they even made a movie about it where a bunch of white guys get "trapped in da hood". Anyone who lived here knew if you got trapped there what you do is walk three blocks and catch a cab.

Edit 2: holy crap, the bus was 15 frigging cents back then. I feel like my grandpa.

[subego]

I like this thread much better when it's "crazy shit our parents let us do".

[Shaddim]

So, we've proven that different kids can have different reactions and behaviors based on how they're raised. Thus, blanket statements about how "no 8 y/o kid can understand that a certain action is sexual" is pure rubbish. Hell, I technically lost my virginity at 9, though it was some time later before everything was physically working as it should.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

So your saying you would let your 8 year old kid go in and out as he or she pleases?

Around here? Sure, it's a nice community. I look forward to my child riding a bike, playing in the creek, climbing trees, and generally being a kid.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So, we've proven that different kids can have different reactions and behaviors based on how they're raised. Thus, blanket statements about how "no 8 y/o kid can understand that a certain action is sexual" is pure rubbish. Hell, I technically lost my virginity at 9, though it was some time later before everything was physically working as it should.

I lost it at 10 and still does not change understanding. Your purely locked and focus on the act not the emotions, the concepts, the meaning, and everything else which makes up sexualness (i know that's not a real word) Just like a 8 year old can not grasp the true nature and meaning of death. Its conceptional understanding im talking about when I say understanding. You can teach a 5 year old sex, does not change his understanding of the conceptional and emotional aspects of it. Same for a 8 year old. The ability to conceptional understand and emotionally understand do not develop until well after 10.

Between the age of 6 to 12 is when the human brain develops a understanding of space and time, logical and practical methods, a better understanding of cause and effect and calendar time. Reading, writing, telling time are key points in this age group. Development of moral values begin, and the ability to recognize cultural and individual differences. During this stage is when competence develops. Should read up on Erikson's stages of psychosocial development. Its the most accepted theory on human brain development. So since competence is developing at this stage its hard to hold a 8 year old culpable for actions when development in the ability to be competent is incomplete. This is what im arguing against.

Think of it this way, you tell a kid that he just sexually assaulted a girl (in his mind play). Kids response, what does that mean. It means you did something bad. So kid been told its bad but does not know why. Tell the kid its the private area that no one is allowed to touch. You tell the kid its because its a special place. Kids still at a lost of the meaning of it. You continue trying to explain why its bad. Its a special place because you make babies with those parts. Kids still at a loss of the importance of what was done. Eventually you just give up and say because god says its bad. Hell while writing this I can't even think of a way to explain what makes it bad. I just know it is. Its a concept that has to be understood. The only way to explain it is with other emotions and feelings, all conceptual which has to have developed to be understood.


There is no way neither of us are going to agree on this point. So i don't feel like arguing about that any more. Your set in your thinking and im set in mine.

[Big Mac]

Athens, you naively assume far too much about children and their mental development/lack thereof. Children gain intellectual awareness of various aspects of life at different ages, depending on their innate intellects, environments, biology and other factors. Arbitrarily saying a 9 year-old can't grasp the true meaning of death or can't understand what sex means is ridiculous. You're probably about four or five years too late on both accounts for many children.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So, we've proven that different kids can have different reactions and behaviors based on how they're raised. Thus, blanket statements about how "no 8 y/o kid can understand that a certain action is sexual" is pure rubbish.

And yet you think its fine to argue that the 8 year-olds in question must have known exactly what they were doing and how evil they were being, but arguing that they might/probably didn't have a clue what it really meant is unreasonable?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Athens, you naively assume far too much about children and their mental development/lack thereof. Children gain intellectual awareness of various aspects of life at different ages, depending on their innate intellects, environments, biology and other factors. Arbitrarily saying a 9 year-old can't grasp the true meaning of death or can't understand what sex means is ridiculous. You're probably about four or five years too late on both accounts for many children.

When it comes to being held accountable for some kinds of crimes I don't think so. A 8 year old pulling down some ones pants, not a chance they fully understand what was so wrong about it.

[subego]

Fully understand? No. Understand enough? Possibly.

[Athens]

Kid - > Fireflies --8year old boy singing fireflies - YouTube

Adults -> Five Stupid Men - YouTube

maybe you will have a different appreciation for kids when you actually have some.

Oh and im glad the legal system does not work the same way. Guilty or guilty enough....

[subego]

I don't really have the patience to watch YouTube videos right now, but I'm sure these two of them completely blow my argument that it's possible out of the water.

[ghporter]

A 9 year old CAN understand that death is permanent. A 9 year old CANNOT grasp the abstract issues that surround death, such as "right/wrong" decisions that are not entirely concrete. Children do not start to use abstract reasoning until at least 11 or 12, and don't get it "right" until at least 18 or 19.

This isn't some "child development guru's opinion," but neurodevelopment science. The brain is not fully structured to handle fine enough distinctions and abstract causes and consequences for a person to really "understand" death until the early to mid 20s. Those insurance tables that say young men aren't good driving risks until at least age 26? They're based on empirical evidence of behaviors that are backed up by brain development studies. Young men's frontal lobes, particularly the prefrontal cortex, where risks and rewards are balanced, do not completely finish organizing and connecting until age 25 or so. Young women's brains settle down a little earlier.

So, like with any child rearing issue, you have to take into account the PHYSICAL development of the child's brain before you decide whether or not a child can appropriately process a situation. Sexuality is not part of this issue, but actions taken based on sexual drives are. Intelligence isn't part of it, but actions that a child learns from are. Decision making is hard, and if you expect a child who's brain isn't yet wired together enough to make adult decisions, you're setting up everyone involved for failure.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A 9 year old CAN understand that death is permanent. A 9 year old CANNOT grasp the abstract issues that surround death, such as "right/wrong" decisions that are not entirely concrete. Children do not start to use abstract reasoning until at least 11 or 12, and don't get it "right" until at least 18 or 19.

This isn't some "child development guru's opinion," but neurodevelopment science. The brain is not fully structured to handle fine enough distinctions and abstract causes and consequences for a person to really "understand" death until the early to mid 20s. Those insurance tables that say young men aren't good driving risks until at least age 26? They're based on empirical evidence of behaviors that are backed up by brain development studies. Young men's frontal lobes, particularly the prefrontal cortex, where risks and rewards are balanced, do not completely finish organizing and connecting until age 25 or so. Young women's brains settle down a little earlier.

"Full," "complete," "real," "right" understanding is totally irrelevant. You only need a minimal understanding of something in order to use it for harm.

So, like with any child rearing issue, you have to take into account the PHYSICAL development of the child's brain before you decide whether or not a child can appropriately process a situation.

First of all, that smacks of phrenology. Second, all individuals' physical biology and neurobiology is different, and we're neither willing nor able to dissect or interpret a "suspect's" physical brain before deciding if they are competent to stand the proverbial trial. I don't see how accounting for the PHYSICAL attributes of the brain is possible or even desirable.

Sexuality is not part of this issue, but actions taken based on sexual drives are.

I can't tell if you are referencing this or not, but I want to make it clear that the sexual drives of the perpetrator aren't the issue, it's the sexual reactions of the victim, and the fact that the perpetrator knows to target these reactions.

Even adult rapists generally aren't interested in sexual gratification. It's the sadistic motive that they know they can derive the most pain in the victim, the most feelings of helplessness, and thereby feel the most powerful, by using sex. So the fact that the perpetrator is effectively asexual actually changes nothing. All that matters is that they know that the victim will feel especially victimized and powerless, due to the sexual aspect.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A 9 year old CAN understand that death is permanent. A 9 year old CANNOT grasp the abstract issues that surround death, such as "right/wrong" decisions that are not entirely concrete.

No, but even a four-year-old is capable of understanding that when you do certain things (like pulling hair or hitting somebody), others get hurt. Or that if you don't go to bed now, you'll be in a really really bad mood tomorrow morning, when you haven't slept enough.

Kids don't understand the concept of "why", but they DO understand that their actions have consequences, and that certain consequences need to be avoided.

At least, my kid responds very well to that kind of reasoning.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And yet you think its fine to argue that the 8 year-olds in question must have known exactly what they were doing and how evil they were being, but arguing that they might/probably didn't have a clue what it really meant is unreasonable?

Considering the way it happened, yes, I believe he did know what he was doing.

[Big Mac]

I find it especially humorous that for most of human history children weren't treated that differently from adults. They had fewer rights and responsibilities, but they were often expected to work at early ages, and people got married at much younger ages.

I'm not claiming that the more traditional role of children was superior, but I do think there's a tenancy as demonstrated by this thread to go far to the opposite extreme. Now childhood has been mythologized and lengthened to such an extent in the minds of so many that you've got well meaning people in this thread arguing that not only do 8 year-olds not have the capacity to understand the simplistic aspects of death or sexual assault, you even have them arguing that they still don't fully understand such things into legal adulthood and beyond.

Glenn is right, according to science, that certain areas of the brain aren't fully developed even into the second decade of life (my understanding is that the fullness of impulse control is the last part of the brain to develop), but making that narrow physiological argument shouldn't signify to anyone that children are incapable of exercising reason at very young ages because that's simply false. I know that because I was once a child, and I had no difficulty from a very young age grasping both that people die and that everyone has private parts that others shouldn't touch. I know that by four I was reading simple children's books and had an independent intellect. Yes, I recognize that I have a higher IQ than most people, but I've seen kids at 4 and most of them appear to have similar levels of development and understanding.

8 year-olds, aside from the developmentally challenged ones, know better than to force themselves on a girl. They know it's wrong. Don't make excuses for them - they would likely read your excuses and call you stupid for selling them short.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

there's a tenancy as demonstrated by this thread to go far to the opposite extreme.... arguing that they still don't fully understand such things into legal adulthood and beyond.

Glenn is right, according to science, that certain areas of the brain aren't fully developed even into the second decade of life...

I agree, good post (not just the part I quoted ).

The disconnect here (illustrated in the part I quoted) is between thinking about first steps vs running a marathon. "Full potential" is being able to run a marathon. It is completely irrelevant to whether you're developed ENOUGH to walk precisely where you intend to go. There is no "I haven't figured out how to use my feet yet" excuse at 8 years old.

I wouldn't expect any 8 year old to be capable of running a marathon. I WOULD expect any 8 year old to be capable of not stomping on the flowers and not falling down the stairs. These were true in the good/bad ol' days of extreme child discipline/expectation and they are still true today. There's a MINIMAL level of development necessary to stay OUT of trouble, and then there's a FULL level of development necessary to get IN to peak performance. Modern science has updated our knowledge about that FULL level of development, but not much has changed about that minimal development necessary to merely function without crapping the bed.

[Athens]

50 years ago a child touching another child would not have been looked at as sexual assault. 70 years ago we hung black people for saying the wrong thing. 100 years ago it was common place for a 25 year old to marry a 12 year old girl. 300 years ago killing in cold blood was easy to get away with.

You can't look back XX number of years saying I knew this and that as a kid because your current grasp on these things now cloud what your grasp of things back then where. There is no way for you to know exactly when you had full understanding of death for example. Sure you can remember the people that died. But I find it hard to believe that you remember your understanding of it because your current understanding taints your memories of it.

I do think your have mistaken the general theme of what is being discussed in the thread. No one is making excuses for the kids actions. No one is saying that a kid does not know better then to pull down another kids panties. The debate is really all about Adult Definitions of Sexual Assault applying to a age group that does not fully appreciate the gravity of the action. Applying Adult situations on kids. Thats really all that's being discussed.

A) Its adolescence misbehavior and inappropriateness
or
B) premeditated sexual assault

I just can't go with B. Not when they are still developing and learning. I see a big difference in the meaning of the crime due to age. A kid "should" know better, but a kid is still a kid. Its we don't allow 12 year old's to drive cars. Or do dangerous jobs. Seriously no one has defended the boy against what he did. Some of us are just defending the boy from over reaction and simplistic black and white view of the situation from some other adults.

One thing this thread shows is how polarized "Americans" are in thinking. I've seen this too in the POL. And im not trying to insult Americans with this line here. But everything seems to be black and white. The law is the law with no grey area. The rules are the rules with no grey area. Your either a Dem or a Rep. Its either social security and no social security. Its either Sexual Assault or its not. Am I off base with this observation?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Athens 

50 years ago a child touching another child would not have been looked at as sexual assault. 70 years ago we hung black people for saying the wrong thing. 100 years ago it was common place for a 25 year old to marry a 12 year old girl. 300 years ago killing in cold blood was easy to get away with.

It wasn't raised as a model to emulate, only as a disproof of the claim that such a thing is not possible.

You can't look back XX number of years saying I knew this and that as a kid because your current grasp on these things now cloud what your grasp of things back then where. There is no way for you to know exactly when you had full understanding of death for example.

Actually there is, because I'm 31 and I still don't fully understand it, and I don't need to fully understand it. I will be happy to go the rest of my life without needing to fully understand death (or rape). That's why it's completely irrelevant to this thread.

I do think your have mistaken the general theme of what is being discussed in the thread. ... The debate is really all about Adult Definitions of Sexual Assault applying to a age group that does not fully appreciate the gravity of the action.

I don't think you understand that adult punishments don't apply when kids do adult crimes. Kids don't go to prison for rape or murder. That doesn't mean we need to invent a new word for it.

I see a big difference in the meaning of the crime due to age.

That's why the punishments are different and why they go to family court, not "big boy" court.

A kid "should" know better, but a kid is still a kid. Its we don't allow 12 year old's to drive cars. Or do dangerous jobs.

"We?" You mean the law, right? See even you can't escape that the law is involved. Guess what, "we" don't allow them to sexually assault people either.

One thing this thread shows is how polarized "Americans" are in thinking. I've seen this too in the POL. And im not trying to insult Americans with this line here. But everything seems to be black and white. The law is the law with no grey area. The rules are the rules with no grey area. Your either a Dem or a Rep. Its either social security and no social security. Its either Sexual Assault or its not. Am I off base with this observation?

Yes, you're off base. First of all, look at yourself. YOU're the one polarizing things by framing it as "A vs B" and "inappropriate vs sexual assault" with no grey area. YOU're the one polarizing "Americans vs auslanders" and "polarized vs not polarized." All you're doing is cherry-picking and trying to draw a pattern where there is none, so you can pigeonhole people you disagree with as "oh those Americans are just polarized, it's not that they have a valid point." Secondly, many many NN characters break the mold, and have opinions that don't conform to a party line. If you don't see that then it can only be willful ignorance on your part.

[Shaddim]

Agreed, no one has said anything about the kid(s) being tried as adults and being sent to prison. Athens just has a bee in his a** about it and has been ignoring what other people are saying, having formed some ridiculous scenario in his mind.

When a kid commits sexual assault, it's still sexual assault, they simply don't get punished the same way or as severely (by a long shot).

Put it this way, when an adult who has the emotional maturity of a child sexually assaults someone it's still sexual assault, even if that person doesn't completely understand what they did was wrong. And, just like with an actual child, the punishments are less severe and largely center around counseling and removing them from places where they can do it again.

[Athens]

Athens and near a dozen other people that posted here......

[Poliphilo]

I agree that what happened was totally inappropriate.

Even if it didn't have an overt sexual motivation, it was an outrage upon the dignity of your little girl. And no doubt a terrifying experience.

You need to fight fire with fire and do something equally inappropriate.

Find those boys and tell them that if they ever try anything like that again, you will chop them into little pieces, boil them into soup, and feed it to your dog.

Your daughter will become "the girl will the crazy father."

Trust me, they'll treat her like little gentlemen from that day forth.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Full," "complete," "real," "right" understanding is totally irrelevant. You only need a minimal understanding of something in order to use it for harm.


First of all, that smacks of phrenology. Second, all individuals' physical biology and neurobiology is different, and we're neither willing nor able to dissect or interpret a "suspect's" physical brain before deciding if they are competent to stand the proverbial trial. I don't see how accounting for the PHYSICAL attributes of the brain is possible or even desirable.


I can't tell if you are referencing this or not, but I want to make it clear that the sexual drives of the perpetrator aren't the issue, it's the sexual reactions of the victim, and the fact that the perpetrator knows to target these reactions.

Even adult rapists generally aren't interested in sexual gratification. It's the sadistic motive that they know they can derive the most pain in the victim, the most feelings of helplessness, and thereby feel the most powerful, by using sex. So the fact that the perpetrator is effectively asexual actually changes nothing. All that matters is that they know that the victim will feel especially victimized and powerless, due to the sexual aspect.

With all due respect, neurodevelopment is a major part of my graduate work. It is science, based on real studies with real people. And I was specifically referring to CHILDREN being expected to make right/wrong decisions in complex situations. Children are exempted from responsibility for most actions because they are assumed to be incapable of the abstract reasoning needed to be responsible for their actions, based on both tradition and scientific evidence. I'm almost insulted that you used the term "phrenology" in response to my post-that mumbo-jumbo is absolutely not scientific, while a large body of evidence based on MRI, CT and PET imaging of developing children's brains, plus decades of psychological research into the development of personality, reasoning and responsible behavior are solid, peer reviewed science.

While your point that individuals' development is unique is true, it is also true that when dealing with populations, it is completely valid to state "this occurs at approximately X age." It is still not possible for a 9 year old child to reason abstractly the way an adult can, though it is possible for a 9 year old child to perform reasoning that includes some abstract qualities. Development is continuous, despite the appearance that at 12 children suddenly "change" their behavior patterns. That "change" is merely due to the child "putting things together" and testing their new found abilities to see things at deeper cognitive levels. My lumping of developmental milestones is as valid as relating that teenagers all experience such things as the "personal narrative" and the impression that everyone is watching them; everyone does feel these things when going through the teenage developmental stages, and these are merely examples of how brain and psychological development express themselves to the individual and in the individual's behavior.

On to the rest of your points. I was involved in an investigation of abuse committed by one child on another in a preschool. Was the perpetrating child "responsible" for victimizing the other child? Investigation revealed that the perpetrating child had a family member who abused him, and cloaked the abuse in "games," which the child passed around among his peers. The family member was arrested and charged with child abuse, and all the children involved were provided with counseling and therapy. A preschool child can't understand the sexual aspects of those "game" behaviors because the parts of the brain that process such motivations are dormant until near puberty when sex hormones start to flow, and multiple investigators concluded that the child who was abused at home was entirely innocent of intent to harm anyone.

As for adult rapists, you are correct that the primary motivation is not sexual gratification in the vast majority of cases. Most rapists have a consistent sexual relationship. But they use their sexual apparatus as weapons to control, subjugate and harm their victims in a way that is so intimate as to produce more psychological harm than the mere physical attack. My training as a rape crisis counselor included a considerable amount of background on who commits such attacks and what their motivations might be, along with whom they choose as victims. It is all about violence and control, and almost completely not about sexual gratification.

[Spheric Harlot]

So would you support my assertion that there was nothing inherently sexual about the situation described in this thread initially? Those were 8-year-olds, and people here were calling for them to be punished for a sexual transgression — an entirely adult projection IMO with no bearing upon the situation.

It would be more important to look at the kids' upbringing and their role models.

[Athens]

ghporter, as the most experienced person on the issue, do you think its fair to label inappropriate behavior as sexual assault on a child or should it be just called bad child behavior. My issue has always been the misuse of the label sexual assault in this thread. Even if the kid isn't facing prosecution it still "PAINTS" the kid as a monster, a terrible label which in my opinion is totally out of context and unfair.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

With all due respect, neurodevelopment is a major part of my graduate work.

Mine too. I study parkinson's disease (in research a lot of it gets done in developmental animal models, due to convenience, even though it is a disease of aging). Nice to meet you.

It is science, based on real studies with real people. And I was specifically referring to CHILDREN being expected to make right/wrong decisions in complex situations. Children are exempted from responsibility for most actions because they are assumed to be incapable of the abstract reasoning needed to be responsible for their actions, based on both tradition and scientific evidence.

As I already posted, that is why the sentencing is so remarkably different between adult and underage perpetrators. It is already taken into account, and there is plenty of room for fine-tuning within that framework, as new science is developed.

I'm almost insulted that you used the term "phrenology" in response to my post

Most assuredly, I don't want to insult you. And you don't have to convince me that neuroscience is legit. But I DO want to give you an eye-opener, that haphazardly translating probabilistic neuroscience to determinisitc social sciences like criminal justice is very much akin to phrenology. And my science background aside, as a human being I am somewhat insulted when people try to misuse or exaggerate the state of science or technology to excuse the guilty (OR condemn the innocent). Make no mistake, there is still much we don't know about the brain. I would be horrified if tools as crude as MRI and PET were perceived as evidence in the criminal sense, rather than the sense of statistical sampling in research.

Remember the Simpsons episode, "The Boy Who Knew Too Much" where Freddy Quimby was on trial for beating a waiter... Dr. Hibbert (testifying): "Very few people have what we call the 'evil gene.' Hitler had it, Walt Disney had it. And Freddy Quimby has it." Lionel Hutz: "I rest my case."

This thread has taken a disturbing turn in that general direction.

While your point that individuals' development is unique is true, it is also true that when dealing with populations, it is completely valid to state "this occurs at approximately X age."

But we're not talking about populations, we're talking about a single individual. And it's very dangerous to think in terms of populations and averages when you are dealing with a biased, self-selecting extreme minority, like in this case.

It is still not possible for a 9 year old child to reason abstractly the way an adult can, though it is possible for a 9 year old child to perform reasoning that includes some abstract qualities. Development is continuous...

Yes but consider that you are referring to "development" from a score of 90 to a score of 100, on a scale where a score of only 20 is sufficient to "fit in" and not cross over into criminal territory.

I renew my walking/running analogy. It is still not possible for a 9 year old child to run a marathon the way an adult can, though it is possible for a 9 year old child to perform running tasks that include some long-distance qualities. Development of running is continuous...

We're not asking the child to run a marathon, we're only asking him not to step on other children's toes. To put it in context, that task is challenging for a 4 year old, or a non-human primate, but not for an 8 year old. By 8 years old, if a child tells another child "I'm going to step on your foot," and then does exactly that, there is no room for doubt as to whether maybe he was just unable to adequately control his feet at that young developmental stage. The fact that the 8 year old still has much further to develop later in life, while completely true, is irrelevant.

On to the rest of your points. I was involved in an investigation of abuse committed by one child on another in a preschool. Was the perpetrating child "responsible" for victimizing the other child? Investigation revealed that the perpetrating child had a family member who abused him, and cloaked the abuse in "games," which the child passed around among his peers. The family member was arrested and charged with child abuse, and all the children involved were provided with counseling and therapy. A preschool child can't understand the sexual aspects of those "game" behaviors because the parts of the brain that process such motivations are dormant until near puberty when sex hormones start to flow, and multiple investigators concluded that the child who was abused at home was entirely innocent of intent to harm anyone.

I do believe that this sort of investigation is precisely what me and the other "polarized cretin Americans" are calling for. If an investigator finds no abuse, what then? I believe responsibility would default back to the person that actually committed the attack, don't you? There is a serious danger of letting all genuine deviants go free, due to overgeneralizing. It brings up another Simpsons quote... Chief Wiggum: "I'd rather let a hundred guilty men go free, than chase after them." Let's not fall into that trap either hmm?

As for adult rapists, you are correct that the primary motivation is not sexual gratification in the vast majority of cases. Most rapists have a consistent sexual relationship. But they use their sexual apparatus as weapons to control, subjugate and harm their victims in a way that is so intimate as to produce more psychological harm than the mere physical attack. My training as a rape crisis counselor included a considerable amount of background on who commits such attacks and what their motivations might be, along with whom they choose as victims. It is all about violence and control, and almost completely not about sexual gratification.

I am glad we agree

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

So would you support my assertion that there was nothing inherently sexual about the situation described in this thread initially? Those were 8-year-olds, and people here were calling for them to be punished for a sexual transgression — an entirely adult projection IMO with no bearing upon the situation.

There is nothing inherently sexual about most sexual assaults. Glenn and I were just now agreeing about that. It's about power and dominance, not sex. So the question whether it is non-sexual has no bearing on whether it was a "sexual assault" or not.

It is named after the _victim's_ sexuality. It is an attack ON sex, not FOR sex. Like the way vandalism is a "property" crime. You can commit this "property" crime even if you have no "property" (and get none from the crime).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

So would you support my assertion that there was nothing inherently sexual about the situation described in this thread initially? Those were 8-year-olds, and people here were calling for them to be punished for a sexual transgression — an entirely adult projection IMO with no bearing upon the situation.

It would be more important to look at the kids' upbringing and their role models.

So, you don't punish the child, you don't provide the child with counseling, you don't even remove the child from the class to protect the other children... so, what do you do when the kid does it again? It's still sexual assault, regardless of whether the attacker or even victim feels that it is. The ramifications for such actions can be very far-reaching, for the kids involved and for those who witnessed it.

Like I said days ago, you separate the offender from the others, have a meeting with the parents, and get the kid(s) professional help.

I have to say, I'm just staggered that some of you don't see this behavior as dangerous, it actually makes me wonder what's wrong with you.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

There is nothing inherently sexual about most sexual assaults. Glenn and I were just now agreeing about that. It's about power and dominance, not sex. So the question whether it is non-sexual has no bearing on whether it was a "sexual assault" or not.

I'm quite aware of this.

The exchanges on the first page of this thread:

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's adults that read a sexual context into it, not the children. It's a brawl/prank between three children and should be handled as such.

which was the first bit of intelligent human life in the thread since the original post, and shortly after that this post of mine:

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

In a more civil time, the offenders' fathers would have whipped their sons until it hurt to sit for a week. That would have been the first and last time they did this.

Nothing like showing kids that violence is a legitimate option for teaching people a lesson.

They'll never dare try that out again, for sure. Unless they're in a position of power and the lesson is really, really worth teaching.

Because we all know that eight-year-olds pinning down a girl and doing demeaning things to her is all about sexuality, and not about power and violence.

And the whole thing was about appropriate PUNISHMENT for the kids.

See Shaddim's post just above for another example.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So, you don't punish the child,

How do you confuse not attaching a adult level crime label to a situation as the same as not punishing? When a kid hits his brother do you first label it first degree assault before punishing or do you just punish the kid for bad behavior....

Punishing some one under crimes of law requires the law to punish. You can't as a parent ground a child for Assault with out given the kid due process. You can ground the kid for misbehaving though.

you don't provide the child with counseling,

Again how do you confuse not attaching a criminal definition of a action as letting a kid go free of all punishment and counselling resources?

you don't even remove the child from the class to protect the other children...

By that logic every single kid would need to be isolated from every other kid to protect them from being bullied, pushed, spit on, made fun of, teased.....

so, what do you do when the kid does it again?

Increase the punishment level, increase counselling? Increased intervention from the school with the parents?

It's still sexual assault, regardless of whether the attacker or even victim feels that it is. The ramifications for such actions can be very far-reaching, for the kids involved and for those who witnessed it.

The way its explained in this thread its misappropriate behavior not sexual assault. You fail to take into account location, context, activity and age. You would make a poor Judge in the legal system.

Like I said days ago, you separate the offender from the others, have a meeting with the parents, and get the kid(s) professional help.

A little extreme for/if it's a one off incident. Have the meeting with the parents, punish with detention at school and parents whatever methods they use at home. I wouldn't even bother with professional help unless there is a actual pattern of misappropriate behavior. Overreact much?

I have to say, I'm just staggered that some of you don't see this behavior as dangerous, it actually makes me wonder what's wrong with you.

I can say the same, im staggered at how much you are over reacting and how much more dangerous your trying to make it out to be. How you ignore everything that's important such as location, context, activity, and age plus lack of prior history as far as we know.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So, you don't punish the child,

Correct, not before investigating the parents. In all likelihood, it's THEM that need the punishment.

If they've taught their kids that violence is a legitimate way to assert authority and power (which, incidentally, you suggest, as well), then all the more.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

you don't provide the child with counseling

I don't? Where the hell did I say that?

As for the rest of your post, I've said all I need to say: It seems that you haven't understood a word of what glenn and Skeleton have written.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Correct, not before investigating the parents. In all likelihood, it's THEM that need the punishment.

If they've taught their kids that violence is a legitimate way to assert authority and power (which, incidentally, you suggest, as well), then all the more.
.

heh we finally disagree. The kid should be punished for inappropriate behavior. I think only if the kid shows additional problems or repeated incidents then the boys personal life should be investigated which includes parents and any one around the boy. Could easily be a family member doing something to the boy that even the parents are not aware of. But should be more then a one off incident before any of that is done. Kids make stupid mistakes that don't always have a cause and are not repeated either. This is where the school counselors need to be involved, at the very least monitoring the boy and his behavior for other indications of problems.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The kid should be punished for inappropriate behavior.

You're probably right.

Just calling for a beating, however, is pretty much guaranteed to make sure these kids STAY maladjusted and anti-social (if that's what they are — which is why I'm saying "look at the context", i.e. parents, before deciding on a punishment. It's quite possible that they have sensible parents who can be trusted to determine appropriate punishment.).

[Athens]

I don't see what he did as deserving a beating. Im for corporal punishment when appropriate. Some things are serious enough to warrant it. IE 5 year old reaching up to a pot of boiling water (Parental failure for not using the inside burners but that's another topic) a quick few swift smacks to the bottom with a forceful NO, followed by explaining to the kid after he has calm down. Its the shock effect of the quick spanking that has the affect not the amount of force or even spanking hard enough to cause pain itself. i do agree with you that violent beatings and mis use of corporal punishment creates bigger issues of maladjustment and anti social kids. So Im not saying your wrong either. But I think it still has a place in a wide range of tools to parent for punishment. Just to many people use it badly and to much.

Anyways back to this kid in this thread, detention (not suspension) and grounding, loss of privileges are all appropriate from my view point.

[Shaddim]

So, it's some PC BS definition that bothers you? Fine, we can call it "hide and seek" or "private places" or whatever you like, just keep the kid away from others until he knows that what he did was wrong and it's much less likely to happen again.

And damned right I'd want my child to defend themselves in this situation. In fact, if this behavior happens when my kid goes to school I'll be homeschooling them until they know a respectable amount of self defense.

"Billy tried to grab my no touching place today, so I punched him in the nose and threw him down to the ground."
"Good girl."

[Athens]

I'm just curious, if your 13 year old daughter was busted by you having sex with a 14 year old boy. How would you punish her? How much Hospitalization would be involved?