Juvenile Law Center et al. Amicus Brief, In re: D.B.

This amicus brief by The Gault Center, Juvenile Law Center, and National Center for Lesbian Rights argue that strict liability statutes run counter to the principles of adolescent development. Here, amici argue that a 12-year old child who engaged in non-forcible sexual conduct with his peer, who was then prosecuted under a strict liability sex offense statute, violated fundamental fairness under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Amici argue a child adjudicated under this strict liability sex offense statute faces harsh collateral consequences that are disproportionate to the alleged act. Finally, amici argue applying this law to children under 13 creates an inherent risk of selective enforcement.

From the summary of the argument in the brief: “As Courts are increasingly relying on principles of adolescent development to reinforce their decisions that children should be held to a lesser degree of culpability than their adult counterparts, statutes that impose strict liability on children counter those principles. A strict liability rape statute like the one at issue here fails to consider the developmental incapacities of a 12-year-old and imposes severe punishments on a child who engaged in non-forcible sexual conduct with his peer in violation of fundamental fairness. Furthermore, the imposition of strict liability on any child who engages in non-forcible sexual conduct with a peer is unjust as it requires an arbitrary prosecution when both individuals could be deemed either the victim or perpetrator. Children like D.B. who are adjudicated delinquent under a strict liability rape provision are stigmatized and traumatized by the resulting mandated treatment and lifelong consequences attached to an adjudication for a sex offense. Using the statute as a sword against children rather than a shield to protect them from possible exploitation, there is also a risk that prosecutors will draw upon their own perceptions and biases to enforce strict liability upon young children who could be considered both a victim and a perpetrator under the facts.”