Recently a 6 year old was charged with first degree sexual assault for playing doctor with a 5 year old girl in Grant County, Wisconsin. I wanted to make a thread discussing this because if you follow a few of the stories, there are several topics that are worth discussing. Penis. Since nobody has likely read the story, here's some relevant background info I've gathered from news sources:
Right now, the parents of the 6 year old are attempting to sue the Grant County District Attorney over the charges [Jacob Sollum, Reason].
According to JSOnline, the DA is being sued based on civil rights violations.
My main question that I wanted to get at is, what exactly is the point of doing this?
Many people interpret the legal system differently. People have complex moral systems that often oppose each other at the fundamental level. Not only do people argue over these moral differences however, they also argue over how collective morals should be enforced. Obviously sexual abuse, assault, pedophilia, rape, and other sexually-based offenses are considered especially heinous, and should be dealt with seriously, but how exactly should we deal with them with our legal system? If this is how, then something is wrong.
Our legal system isn't just based around rules, it's based around enforcement. Even though judges, lawyers, and law enforcement have a duty to interpret and uphold the law, values go into legislation, and they go into enforcing legislation. Becoming a criminal goes beyond breaking the law, you are only a criminal when people acknowledge and prosecute you for breaking the law.
My main argument is that even though people can claim to do things "just because the law says so," it's virtually impossible to enforce anything without making judgments about the nature of a crime and what is an isn't necessary to enforce.
And the day we put a 6 year old on the sex offender list for life is a day we decide to stop using that reason.
Right now, the parents of the 6 year old are attempting to sue the Grant County District Attorney over the charges [Jacob Sollum, Reason].
According to JSOnline, the DA is being sued based on civil rights violations.
My main question that I wanted to get at is, what exactly is the point of doing this?
Many people interpret the legal system differently. People have complex moral systems that often oppose each other at the fundamental level. Not only do people argue over these moral differences however, they also argue over how collective morals should be enforced. Obviously sexual abuse, assault, pedophilia, rape, and other sexually-based offenses are considered especially heinous, and should be dealt with seriously, but how exactly should we deal with them with our legal system? If this is how, then something is wrong.
Our legal system isn't just based around rules, it's based around enforcement. Even though judges, lawyers, and law enforcement have a duty to interpret and uphold the law, values go into legislation, and they go into enforcing legislation. Becoming a criminal goes beyond breaking the law, you are only a criminal when people acknowledge and prosecute you for breaking the law.
My main argument is that even though people can claim to do things "just because the law says so," it's virtually impossible to enforce anything without making judgments about the nature of a crime and what is an isn't necessary to enforce.
And the day we put a 6 year old on the sex offender list for life is a day we decide to stop using that reason.
