s/o camp: If you do overnight camp...

[gstharr]

No, they could not.  The entry itself must be unlawful.  Generally if you have a legal right to be somewhere (and a counselor has a general legal right to be on the camp property) then the burglary charge would not apply.

 

In many states (not all), you would be correct if the person unlawfully entered the home of another to commit a crime.

 

 

Here is a summary of California law. Most states laws generally follow 1&2.  3 is a recent change to California law to reduce the severe consequences of a  felony convictions for simple shoplifting.  You can be convicted of burglary if your intend when you entered the building was to commit a crime when you walked through the door.  AGAIN, THIS IS ONLY A SUMMARY AND NOT THE LAW WHEREVER YOU ARE.   

 

What is the Legal Definition of Burglary under Penal Code 459 PC?

The legal definition of California Penal Code 459 PC burglary is:

1. The defendant entered a building, room within a building, locked vehicle or structure;
2. When s/he entered that building, room, vehicle or structure, s/he intended to commit either a California felony or a California theft; and
3. One (1) or more of the following three things is true:
   1. The value of the property that the defendant stole or intended to steal was more than nine hundred fifty dollars ($950);
   2. The structure that the defendant entered was not a commercial establishment; OR
   3. The structure that the defendant entered was a commercial establishment, but the defendant entered it outside of business hours.⁶

Those numbered sentences are the “elements of the crime†of California burglary. The prosecutor needs to be able to prove each of these elements in order for you to be guilty under Penal Code 459 PC.⁷

Intent to commit a theft or felony is a key element of PC 459 burglary.

Note that you are guilty of PC 459 burglary as soon as you enter a structure intending to commit a felony or theft. There is no requirement that you actually succeed in committing the felony or theft.⁸

Example

: Larry is an office worker. While working late one night, he enters the office of his boss, Bella. Larry knows that Bella has a collection of expensive rare minerals on display in her office and is planning to steal one. But a cleaning person surprises him before he can do so.

Larry is guilty of the crime of burglary even though he never actually stole one of Bella's minerals.

On the flip side, you are only guilty of burglary if you intended to commit a theft or felony at the time you entered the building. If you had no such intent, or if you formed such intent only after entering the building, you did not commit a California burglary.⁹

[wintermom]

I was a competitive swimmer back in the era when we'd billet with families from hosting swim teams. I'm glad that era is over, frankly. Even though nothing bad happened to me, it just added more stress and distractions to the purpose of being there, to swim well. 

 

My ds 13 is now doing FTX overnight camps with cadets, and I'm all for it. The purpose of these sleep-away camps is to learn how to camp and sleep in different conditions. The additional activities are all related to camping. I like keeping things focused.

Edited March 9, 2017 by wintermom

[Bluegoat]

I'm having a hard time understanding your first sentence. I know many women who felt that being touched against their will (as a child/teen) was indeed a really big deal... something that impacted them in many ways for a long time. It sounds like it was a big deal for you too, if it created a bad feeling about male sexuality that lasted into your 20's. Are you saying that if you hadn't internalized it, it would have been fine? Confused.

 

I think I understand what she means - yes, that it was the internalizing it that made it a problem.  If she had seen it more as something that was really not about her, and been able to take action, it would have not mattered so much.

 

This has also largely been my experience and observation, that some people are able to almost have incidents like this, where there is sexual contact but not physical harm or threats, roll off them with not much effect.  Someone did something, but it isn't about them.  Partly I'm sure it's personality, but I think also in part it is the resources they've been given and how others around them react.

 

I guess it isn't really considered quite the right thing to say, but I've often thought that in some ways the framing of these things as a Terrible-Damaging-Thing that a huge deal needs to be made about, makes them much more stressful for kids, maybe even with longer-lasting effect. 

[Bluegoat]

My kids went when they were first 6 and 7, to an established camp, the same one I and my mom went to.  They very much enjoyed it, though the younger girl doesn't choose it as an activity now.  My ds7, though, is looking to go this summer.

 

I don't tend to worry about this sort of thing, beyond looking that it is a well run place where they are safe.  It's much the same way that I would want to know that they look out for water safety at the beach, but then I don't worry about the kids drowning.  Life is what it is, it is never risk free, but mostly it is fine, and even when it isn't fine, often it isn't the end of the world.  Living in fear isn't very worthwhile, and more than that I think it is unhealthy for kids.

[Farrar]

I'm another who hasn't worried about this. There are mandatory background checks and safety measures in place, such as having more than one counselor in a cabin and not allowing campers and counselors to be alone at pretty much every camp I've ever looked at so I don't think of it as being a huge risk.

 

I tend to think of things like this in terms of risk vs. reward potential. The risk is pretty low overall, especially if you choose a camp that's well reviewed and trusted and part of an organization you trust. The reward potential for camp for all the reasons that people have said in this thread is very large.

 

Ds is headed off to camp for three weeks this summer. His brother is hoping to go for five next year. I'm glad they have such a sense of independence.

[TracyP]

The children of one of my closest friends were molested at camp, so yes I worry about it. One on one time was not allowed - this guy molested multiple boys at a time. Background checks were conducted. This guy was a sheriff's deputy; he had no problem passing a background check. That stuff is good and necessary, but it doesn't ease my mind.

 

The year it happened, I determined to never let my kids attend an overnight camp. I've become more lenient now. I do let my kids go to overnight camp, but only once I feel they are mature enough to stand up for themselves.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Here is a summary of California law. Most states laws generally follow 1&2.  3 is a recent change to California law to reduce the severe consequences of a  felony convictions for simple shoplifting.  You can be convicted of burglary if your intend when you entered the building was to commit a crime when you walked through the door.  AGAIN, THIS IS ONLY A SUMMARY AND NOT THE LAW WHEREVER YOU ARE.   

 

What is the Legal Definition of Burglary under Penal Code 459 PC?

The legal definition of California Penal Code 459 PC burglary is:

1. The defendant entered a building, room within a building, locked vehicle or structure;
2. When s/he entered that building, room, vehicle or structure, s/he intended to commit either a California felony or a California theft; and
3. One (1) or more of the following three things is true:
   1. The value of the property that the defendant stole or intended to steal was more than nine hundred fifty dollars ($950);
   2. The structure that the defendant entered was not a commercial establishment; OR
   3. The structure that the defendant entered was a commercial establishment, but the defendant entered it outside of business hours.⁶

Those numbered sentences are the “elements of the crime†of California burglary. The prosecutor needs to be able to prove each of these elements in order for you to be guilty under Penal Code 459 PC.⁷

Intent to commit a theft or felony is a key element of PC 459 burglary.

Note that you are guilty of PC 459 burglary as soon as you enter a structure intending to commit a felony or theft. There is no requirement that you actually succeed in committing the felony or theft.⁸

Example

: Larry is an office worker. While working late one night, he enters the office of his boss, Bella. Larry knows that Bella has a collection of expensive rare minerals on display in her office and is planning to steal one. But a cleaning person surprises him before he can do so.

Larry is guilty of the crime of burglary even though he never actually stole one of Bella's minerals.

On the flip side, you are only guilty of burglary if you intended to commit a theft or felony at the time you entered the building. If you had no such intent, or if you formed such intent only after entering the building, you did not commit a California burglary.⁹

 

 

A counselor entering a cabin to commit a sexual assault is not going to get a burglary charge in any state.  The examples you give rely on intent and are related directly to the crime in question.

 

The Larry example is laughable as there is no way to prove the charge in question.

 

 

[SKL]

I'm having a hard time understanding your first sentence. I know many women who felt that being touched against their will (as a child/teen) was indeed a really big deal... something that impacted them in many ways for a long time. It sounds like it was a big deal for you too, if it created a bad feeling about male sexuality that lasted into your 20's. Are you saying that if you hadn't internalized it, it would have been fine? Confused.

 

By "not that big a deal," I meant not that traumatic compared to other traumas pertinent to this discussion.  I'm not saying it's "fine."

 

When something happened to me at age 4 and I didn't really know what was going on, it didn't affect me emotionally at all.  Also, when my "grandpa" used to sit me on his lap and touch me inappropriately, I didn't get that he was being inappropriate until a certain age, before which it didn't really affect me, and after which I just stayed away from his hands.  So it wasn't a big deal to me.  Also, when a boy about my age grabbed me "there," I knew it was wrong and felt violated, but as long as I was away from him it didn't continue to affect me, because I felt it was his issue, not mine.  So these are examples where being touched wasn't a big deal from an emotional standpoint (not saying they were in any way "OK" for the perps to do them).

 

In the example where I was 12yo, I do believe I would have been better off mentally if I'd had someone explain to me that this was a "dirty old man" who tricked and trapped me, that it was his wrong and not mine, that not all men have desires or commit actions like he did.

[abba12]

Being touched is not that big a deal if you don't internalize and blame yourself.  

 

Totally agree. It's not the act itself which kept me up at night back then, it was the guilt and shame and fear which did. It was the internalised feelings that haunted me and hurt me, not the actual memory of what someone else did. It's different now due to the nature of where the abuse went and how it got more serious, but I remember those first couple of years when it was still just touching and stuff, and with confidence, safety, and freedom from guilt and shame I would have been better. Not perfect, I was still abused, but, better.  

 

The more severe kinds of abuse that are more damaging in and of themselves regardless of internalising it (violent rape, multiple attackers, anything where strong fear is an inherent part of the attack) are not going to happen at a sleepaway camp, they just aren't due to the nature of the camp. Those incidents generally (not always but mostly) happen to vulnerable children, often with absent parents and a lot of time alone with other adults. I feel confident in being able to protect my kids from those sorts of things. But the sort of molestation we are talking about here generally doesn't involve serious fear. Some mild fear and confusion and discomfort yes, but there's rarely weapons or pain in these kinds of abuse, and that makes a big difference.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding your first sentence. I know many women who felt that being touched against their will (as a child/teen) was indeed a really big deal... something that impacted them in many ways for a long time. It sounds like it was a big deal for you too, if it created a bad feeling about male sexuality that lasted into your 20's. Are you saying that if you hadn't internalized it, it would have been fine? Confused.

 

When you talk to these victims, what is the big deal made of, what is the pain felt about? Is it 'I feel so hurt by his hand touching me there and how uncomfortable x was' (things focused on the attacker) or is it more often 'i felt so ashamed, and dirty and violated' (things internalised about the victim). in my experience it's usually the latter. No one cries about how attackers hand felt, they cry about how the attackers hand made them feel about themselves. If we can help deal with and combat the feelings about themselves, then in non-violent attacks like being discussed here there really isn't much left to be terribly hurt about. Of course it effects people, it's a bad memory, I don't want to claim it's nothing. But it's also not usually a horrifically traumatic thing if you take the internalised feelings about themselves out of it. 

 

I want to define that there is a difference in violent attacks or where fear is a large aspect of the attack. That fear does something different and is traumatic in it's own right regardless of the cause. But a large portion of childhood sexual abuse involves only minor fear and discomfort, not serious fear or pain. Of course incidents involving the latter can't be dealt with simply by not internalising, but not internalising will, in my opinion, still help a lot.

 

I guess it isn't really considered quite the right thing to say, but I've often thought that in some ways the framing of these things as a Terrible-Damaging-Thing that a huge deal needs to be made about, makes them much more stressful for kids, maybe even with longer-lasting effect. 

 

Yeah, not politically correct, but, as a past victim myself, I'm treating it as a not huge deal. It may well happen to them one day, in fact with three daughters I pretty much expect it to at least once, and we'll deal with it, and they'll be ok, they'll survive. It's a big deal to tell someone because the other person needs to be stopped, but, kids take on the messages around them. If they're getting the message that this is a massive deal which changes their life, they'll internalise that. You can give hugs and assurance and safety while still keeping your eyes toward moving on and being ok and not letting this change or destroy you. There's a balance. 

Edited March 9, 2017 by abba12

[creekland]

 we let them do a lot of things that probably horrified other parents!  

 

I'm positive many things we let our kids do would horrify other parents.  ;)