Is That 4-Year-Old Really a Sex Offender?

Dec 25, 2005
10,005
173
513
NJ
#1
The opposite side of the spectrum?? :icon_conf

Is That 4-Year-Old Really a Sex Offender?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101901544.html

By Yvonne Bynoe
Sunday, October 21, 2007; Page B04


Could my son be accused of sexual harassment? He's a good boy. He likes watching "Thomas the Tank Engine" on television and playing "Simon Says." Like many 3-year-olds, he's very affectionate. Unfortunately, hugging his teacher may get him suspended from nursery school.
I doubt that it will happen to my son. But the frightening fact is that it could. I recently learned that children nationwide, some of preschool age, have been suspended from school or taken to jail after being accused of sexual harassment. In their zeal to avoid lawsuits, educators seem to be ignoring important information, such as whether the accused child intended to commit a crime or even knows how to pronounce the word "harassment."

Sex education tends to be controversial, partly because parents have such varying and often strongly held beliefs about how, when and even if the topic should be introduced to their children. But if schools have the authority to brand a 3-year-old a sex offender, they also have the responsibility to provide parents with clear guidelines about appropriate physical conduct.
It's great that we are more aware than ever about sexual harassment in schools. But it is a terrible mistake to permanently label children who are barely out of diapers.
Consider these egregious examples: In December 2006, a 4-year-old boy in Waco, Tex., was punished with an in-school suspension after a female aide accused him of sexual harassment. According to a television station there, the child had hugged the woman while getting on the bus, and she later complained to administrators at La Vega Primary School that the child had put his face in her chest. School officials later agreed to remove sexual references but refused to expunge the "inappropriate physical contact" charge from the boy's school record.
In my home state of Maryland, state data show that during the 2005-06 school year, 28 kindergartners were suspended for sex offenses, including 15 for sexual harassment.
Last December, a kindergartner was accused of sexual harassment after he pinched a classmate's bottom at Lincolnshire Elementary School in Hagerstown, according to the local paper, the Herald-Mail. The charge will remain on his record until he enters middle school. "It's important to understand a child may not realize that what he or she is doing may be considered sexual harassment, but if it fits under the definition, then it is, under the state's guidelines," school spokeswoman Carol Mowen told the Herald-Mail. "If someone has been told this person does not want this type of touching, it doesn't matter if it's at work or at school, that's sexual harassment."
In fact, the Maryland Department of Education defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and/or other inappropriate verbal, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed toward others." I am alarmed that Mowen's statement appears to imply that schools will find a child guilty of sexual misconduct even if the child doesn't understand the implications of his or her actions.
Money may be at the root of these school suspensions. A 1992 Supreme Court ruling set the stage for school districts' having to pay damages in sexual harassment cases. In Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, a high school student, Christine Franklin, was sexually harassed by her male teacher.
The court held that sexual harassment was a form of discrimination prohibited under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Since Franklin proved that the school failed to stop the harassment, she was able to sue the school district for monetary damages -- something previously impossible for victors in Title IX suits.
Seven years later, in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the high court extended the liability of Title IX to include "student-on-student" harassment. In 1999, LaShonda Davis, a fifth-grade student, complained to her mother and teacher that a male student had repeatedly made vulgar comments to her and tried to touch her private parts. The school's principal was also made aware of the alleged sexual harassment, but the boy was never disciplined and his behavior worsened. The court ruled that the school's "deliberate indifference" to "known acts of harassment" was itself misconduct under Title IX, and Davis was allowed to sue for monetary damages.
I doubt that the Supreme Court imagined that its decisions in Franklin and Davis would be used to criminalize the behavior of preschoolers. In our legal system, children are not treated as miniature adults. Juvenile courts were founded 100 years ago because children were considered less accountable for their actions than adults -- and therefore less culpable.



second page: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007101901544_2.html
 
Dec 25, 2005
10,005
173
513
NJ
#4
It amazes me that anyone could defend this with a straight face. I mean kindergarten? When I read this today I thought it was a joke.

If someone pulled this shit on my kid, I'd sexually offend them with a supreme court case.

fucking doomed.
 

esswhy

Ever Broken a Puerto Ricans arm for sweat pants $?
Mar 26, 2007
164
0
0
#5
what kind of person rats out a fuckin 4 year old that puts his face in her tits? the women should be fired, stupid bitch. if she came to me I'l just laugh my ass off.
 

Kris_LTRMa

LoseTheRadio.net's Ma
Nov 17, 2006
9,749
1
333
right where I wanna be
#9
I just realized ... my 4 year old nephew is guilty of sexual harrassment. It might even be incest. The kid loves to cuddle while we're watching tv and at times has adjusted his "pillow". I don't know how to tell his mother that he needs an intervention quickly.
 
Dec 25, 2005
10,005
173
513
NJ
#10
The link is from the Washington Post, but the article showed up in the ed page of the Star Ledger today.

I'm really tempted to write a letter. Don't know why this stuck in my mind all day.
 
Mar 2, 2005
6,781
126
578
chicago
#11
the child had put his face in her chest
isnt that a safety thing ,like the kid was lookin for protection. i still try to put my face in womens chests................even at the store
 

weakside

He was stupid. I was lucky. I will visit him soon.
Dec 9, 2004
3,871
0
0
California
#12
Pointless article. The kid is too young to be held legally liable. The end.
 

cozzie

head retard
Aug 7, 2005
1,482
1
176
Norristown PA
#13
unless the teacher is a 7 ft lady where elese is the kid going to put his head when hugging her?











ST. AUG.
BCH . On the ICW, estate guest house do...
ST. AUG.~
BRAND NEW 1, 2, 3 & 4 BR Apartments, G...
A1A-
Seagrove 4BR/2BA, CB/Stucco, Marsh, Front/ ...
ST. AUG.
BCH. Direct Oceanfront, unbelievable vi...
ST. AUG.
1BR/2BA loft condo, $800 mo inclu water...

» View all Top Rentals







the child had hugged the woman while getting on the bus, and she later complained to administrators at La Vega Primary School that the child had put his face in her chest.


Where else will a childs head, face end up when hugging an older woman? Unless she was 7 feet tall , but jesus h christ its time to start shooting these fing do#$@b!& opps forgot I couldn't say that word. fuck, fuck fuck!
 

burky79

62 75 72 6b 79 37 39
Feb 18, 2005
4,341
0
236
in a house
#15
unless the teacher is a 7 ft lady where elese is the kid going to put his head when hugging her?











ST. AUG.
BCH . On the ICW, estate guest house do...
ST. AUG.~
BRAND NEW 1, 2, 3 & 4 BR Apartments, G...
A1A-
Seagrove 4BR/2BA, CB/Stucco, Marsh, Front/ ...
ST. AUG.
BCH. Direct Oceanfront, unbelievable vi...
ST. AUG.
1BR/2BA loft condo, $800 mo inclu water...

» View all Top Rentals
:wtf::idontknow?????
 

Kris_LTRMa

LoseTheRadio.net's Ma
Nov 17, 2006
9,749
1
333
right where I wanna be
#16
Pointless article. The kid is too young to be held legally liable. The end.
For one thing, it stays on his school record
School officials later agreed to remove sexual references but refused to expunge the "inappropriate physical contact" charge from the boy's school record.
For another, even if the child can't be held criminally liable, I believe the alleged victim could file a civil suit and name his or her parents as co-defendants. I've processed cases where one kid hits another on the playground and it's usually one or both parents on behalf of their minor child against one or both of the other kid's parents on behalf of that kid.

My feeling is that the ones who should be sued and counseled are the ones who think that a 4 year old is capable of "unwelcome sexual advances, requesting sexual favors and/or other inappropriate verbal, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed toward others." They're the ones who are sick. They're also the ones who should be held responsible when the kid winds up in therapy because he thinks sex is a bad thing.

What the hell ever happened to common sense??
 

CM Mark

The East is Ours!
Apr 13, 2005
27,472
856
513
Pretty Pretty Unicorn
#17
I just realized ... my 4 year old nephew is guilty of sexual harrassment. It might even be incest. The kid loves to cuddle while we're watching tv and at times has adjusted his "pillow". I don't know how to tell his mother that he needs an intervention quickly.
hot
 
Dec 25, 2005
10,005
173
513
NJ
#18
The next time my neighbor's dog jumps up & punches me in the nuts, I'm callin the cops.
 

weakside

He was stupid. I was lucky. I will visit him soon.
Dec 9, 2004
3,871
0
0
California
#19
For one thing, it stays on his school record

For another, even if the child can't be held criminally liable, I believe the alleged victim could file a civil suit and name his or her parents as co-defendants. I've processed cases where one kid hits another on the playground and it's usually one or both parents on behalf of their minor child against one or both of the other kid's parents on behalf of that kid.

My feeling is that the ones who should be sued and counseled are the ones who think that a 4 year old is capable of "unwelcome sexual advances, requesting sexual favors and/or other inappropriate verbal, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature directed toward others." They're the ones who are sick. They're also the ones who should be held responsible when the kid winds up in therapy because he thinks sex is a bad thing.

What the hell ever happened to common sense??
Libel suit would go away as well because a 4-year-old can't be held liable for a sexual crime. The law recognizes pretty much anyone under 7 as not capable of criminal intent.

However, yes, it would remain on the school record for whatever that is worth.
 

Kris_LTRMa

LoseTheRadio.net's Ma
Nov 17, 2006
9,749
1
333
right where I wanna be
#21
Libel suit would go away as well because a 4-year-old can't be held liable for a sexual crime. The law recognizes pretty much anyone under 7 as not capable of criminal intent.

However, yes, it would remain on the school record for whatever that is worth.

It wouldn't be a liability suit not a libel suit - the plaintiff would be holding the defendant parents liable for the child's actions. And somewhere out there is a judge who will see this liability suit and say yes, the parents should be held liable because they should be teaching their children to be respectful of others' bodies etc etc etc
 

weakside

He was stupid. I was lucky. I will visit him soon.
Dec 9, 2004
3,871
0
0
California
#22
It wouldn't be a liability suit not a libel suit - the plaintiff would be holding the defendant parents liable for the child's actions. And somewhere out there is a judge who will see this liability suit and say yes, the parents should be held liable because they should be teaching their children to be respectful of others' bodies etc etc etc
Your right, it is a liability suit, not libel. Not sure way I wrote that...(maybe because I’m a dope…lol)

Also, I guess you could be right about some crazy Civil Court judge out there making this decision but I seriously doubt it. These types of cases are tough to prove as it is, let alone trying to prove a four-year-old, and then trying to prove that those actions are based on neglectful parenting*. That just seems way too tricky. But I guess anything is possible, which is sad.


*I think it also has to do with the kid. If this kid is a train-wreck from top to bottom then maybe you could more-likely prove this is an outcome of bad parenting.
 

TheDrip

I'm bi-winning.
Jan 9, 2006
5,051
3
228
#23
My thoughts:

The broad had been eying the little guy for months and decided to make her move by starting with an 'innocent hug' where she'd position her tits around the boy's head. When the boy didn't accept her sexual advances, she flipped the story around to make it sound like he was the aggressor.

Women can be very vindictive when they don't get what they want.:action-sm