well the kid diserved,why would you have a butter knife on a lunchbox,clearly he had something against his teacher. Thankfully the law works for everyone !

About the op crime report, age of 6, maybe you guys are too old to remember, but i was already sure of what to do with girls at that age, the tool just wasnt up for the job yet, so no child inocence here,some measure must be applied sure,but to label sex offender when he turns 18 is a bit too much.

Whats so abnormal about this? We had an Attorney General who made a career launch off of this stuff. Anyone remember Janet Reno?

Seemed to work for the 6 year old... I think I'll try that line with the women...

6 year olds should not be prosecuted for any felony.

You know why countries like China do not take our human rights lectures seriously?

Exactly. Wow....words just fail me. This is beyond bonkers, a 6 year old kid criminalised for life for playing 'doctors and nurses'?! The question of 'fairness' doesn't even come into it, this is bat sh*t insane. I agree Rick that teenagers should see consequences for their actions within reason, in the UK we have young offenders institutes etc for this purpose; you'll have the equivalent but it all varies from case to case and the severity of the offence of course.

Is this due to some peculiarity of Wisconsin law? I'm guessing there may be a lot of variation between states, or even no age limit for responsibility in some states at all? In England the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old, which I believe is far too low also.....most European countries vary between 12-18. IMO 12-13 is more reasonable. Below 10 they are considered doli incapax meaning 'incapable of crime', unable to comprehend the consequences of their actions and distinguish between right and wrong. Scotland has a different legal system also and 'technically' children as young as 8 can be put on trial, though I'm not aware of this ever happening in recent times.

The debate was reopened in the UK however with the horrific torture and murder of 2 year old James Patrick Bulger by two 10 year old boys in Liverpool. Throws up a lot of philosophical questions about that nebulous term 'Evil' and whether a child can be held accountable for or even understand 'wickedness'. Turns out after extensive efforts to rehabilitate one of the 10 year olds (John Venables), he re-offended upon release and is now back in custody. I used to believe that 'monsters' are not born, they are 'made' by circumstances in their lives....Venables was raised in an abusive home with parents who had addiction issues himself. Sadly I think this is not always the case. Unfortunately I now think some really are 'born bad'.

That is worlds apart of course from a 6 year old kid playing a silly kids game as kids do, and being considered a sexual criminal and then marked for life. The word 'Incredible' is nowhere near adequate. God....I give up.

The problem is the way that the law is written:



The law has no provisions for the way that young kids can get into sexual exploration without understanding what they're doing, so the DA is choosing to follow the letter of the law.

Six is too young for this kind of liberal BS.

Understood Speedo and thanks for the info. The states definition of sexual intercourse to me however is of tertiary importance in this case; the salient point is still that a 6 year old child is being charged with a sexual offence which I'm sure most would agree is beyond the pale and stretches credulity to breaking point. Surely there is provision within the law for the application of common sense and the D.A's own discretion? It would seem that he is able to be charged for the offence at that age.....yet not prosecuted? Then upon adulthood found guilty and placed on a sex offenders list for life? Insane.

Still, since when has 'Law' been a synonym for or even analogous with the concept of 'Justice'....nothing new under the sun. If I was that kids parents I'd be fighting tooth and nail to get this insanity resolved as it is manifestly unjust. I'm sure they are, and I'm sure in time they will succeed.


“Sexual exploration, curiosity and play among children is common,” Berliner said. “Even if there was an attempt to penetrate, it’s still a 6-year-old doing it.”

Precisely.

Thank God for Dr Berliner anyway, the voice of frikkin reason.

Thats interesting Scylla....I didn't realise Moral alarmism and the draconian punishment of children were considered 'liberal' traits. Thanks for the info. I thought those hippies were up for anything, and anything goes. Wonder what nutters like Michelle Bachmann, Christine O'Donnell et al would make of it....Its probably all Skyrims fault. Behave yourself anyway.

The law does protect him from being charged as an adult or even a juvenile. But apparently it still allows the DA to file a "petition" that would force him to get treatment (counseling?) and would list him as a sex offender when he turns 18. It's the latter that basically f*cks him over for life. He'll be publicly listed alongside rapists and child molesters (in addition to all the people like himself on the list for ludicrous reasons...), forbidden from living or going near places where children are (schools, daycares, libraries, etc). The sex offender listing is one of the most screwed up things in the US legal system.

Anyway, when they tried to have the petition dismissed apparently the DA said "The legislature could have put an age restriction in the statute if it wanted to. The legislature did no such thing", and the judge, well: