Overblown Charges

(Click the picture to see full size in a new window.)

At a time in our nation when it's ok for strangers to view you naked at the airport without your consent (and I find a 74% positive response suspect; what were the questions? How random was this sample of the population?), and includes scanning of and photographs of nude children in the name of "national security" (I know I feel more secure that they can see me naked), we continue to swing just as widely to the extreme when it comes to children and any form of sexualization.


(Click the picture to see full size in a new window.)

In March, a couple in Utah were arrested for sexual abuse of their infant son when pictures were processed at a local drug store revealing the father kissing the nude baby all over, which based on established, cultural norms is a sign of pride and affection from a father to a son. The store employee who processed the photographs overreacted to the photos out of context and contacted authorities. However, even as the charges of abuse were dropped, the couple remained in custody as illegal aliens.


(Click the picture to see full size in a new window.)

And in other over-the-top charges, Andrew Buck, a 27 year old middle school teacher and a golf coach at a high school, was arrested for having sexual contact with an 18 year old girl. Faced with a class D felony with up to 5 years in prison... and for what? Sex with a legal adult? The reporters haven't said much about this case since, but not one mentioned any contact between Buck and the alleged victim before she reached age of consent. The only concern is that she is a student at the high school where he coached golf. Not one mention was made as to whether he was in a position of authority over her, his full-time teaching status was at the local middle school.

Even if, somehow, their relationship crossed the bounds of his contract with the school, suspension or resignation would make more sense than five years in prison for screwing an 18 year old. Now this man will be marked a sexual predator for the rest of his life, serve hard time, and likely be unable to ever gain employment in any profession for which he was trained. For having sex with an adult. Whom is this protecting? Whom do these laws serve to protect?

Recent cases of true concern include the following:

Although it concerns me that authorities would consider prosecuting the underage teens as well, a 19 year old man brought underage girls and their friends over to his house to have sex while he watched through a hole. This is one of those times when one must consider the poor judgment and lack of warnings given to those crossing over the threshold into "adulthood" who still may be socially involved with (and find easy to seduce), those younger than them. Clearly, though, as a legal adult, the 19 year old should be tried, however, the grey area comes when we discuss those who engaged in sex between the ages of 11-14. When we have taken away the legal right and ability of those under 18 to consent, how can we then speak to any of them consenting to have sex with one another? Let us hope, though, that should these activities have been through some form of willing experimentation, none of the minors are permanently labeled criminals for their curiosity.

While the reports are coming in decades too late, at least those former singers of the Vienna Boys' Choir are now coming forward to speak out against those priests who abused their positions of power over them. Despite my distaste for the overzealous use of sex abuse laws where they are not needed, the awareness of such crimes, and the clear path for discourse has allowed many people to step forward and shed light on similar abuses. As for comments by Merkel and the Pope... Perhaps I shall let my politics lie here for the moment, and be grateful to the agency that final is giving voice to survivors of real abuse.