MI- Laws and prosecutors overreact to some typical teen behavior

4-16-2009 Michigan:

Sexting -- the phenomenon of young adolescents texting naked or almost-naked photos of themselves to their friends -- has become something of a media sensation.

Across the country, prosecutors have charged, or threatened to charge, youthful offenders with various serious felonies, including production, possession and distribution of pornography.

Of course, such statutes were never aimed at discouraging "sexting," and these charging decisions demonstrate a disturbing lack of understanding of adolescent development.

Unfortunately, hysterical overreaction by law enforcement has become the norm in response to allegations of conduct by kids that might be criminal if committed by adults.

In Oregon, two geeky, pre-pubescent seventh-graders were charged with five counts of felony sexual abuse for "butt-slapping" their fellow middle-school students on "butt-slap Friday" in the school hallway.

They spent five days in jail before their first court appearance (in shackles), at the start of their incredible journey through the juvenile system. The prosecutor told a local reporter that his office "aggressively" pursues sex offenses because "these cases are devastating to children."

(eAdvocate Post)

In Grand Rapids, a police detective and prosecutor threatened to charge a 5-year-old boy with criminal sexual conduct if his parents didn't sign him up for psychotherapy. The reason? The boy asked a 3-year-old in his day care to "kiss my pee pee."

One of the major costs of such overreaction is the permanency of the punishment. Many thousands of children are now on registries because of conduct -- committed at age 12, 13 or 14 -- that experts say is developmentally normal. When they apply to college, for a job, or try to rent an apartment too close to a school, this stigma will continue to sting them.

But law enforcement officers and prosecutors are not the only ones susceptible to overreacting to juvenile "sex offenders." Our politicians started it. For instance, the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act provides a clear example of how sex-offender hysteria can result in bad policy.

(2 of 2)


The 2006 statute is, of course, named after a high-profile victim of a horrendous crime. It begins with a one sentence description of 17 cases involving horrific acts of sexual violence.



But each of these example cases is an outlier -- that is, none accurately reflects the vast majority of "sex offenses" committed by the children.

There is evidence that important players in the criminal justice system worry about the costs of overreacting. Seven years ago, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld Michigan's sex offender registration act, but observed that the law, which required children of any age convicted of a sex offense to register as sex offenders for life, was draconian.

In many jurisdictions, juvenile courts, individual judges, and even some prosecutors actively seek ways of subverting the application of the law by allowing kids charged with sex offenses to plead guilty to non-sex crimes or by delaying a sentence and eventually dismissing cases without finding any offense.

When judges and courts actively subvert the law, surely this is evidence that the law has gone too far.

Frank Vandervort is a clinical assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan's Law School. Bridget McCormack is the associate dean for clinical affairs. ..News Source.. by FRANK VANDERVORT and BRIDGET MCCORMACK