14 year olds are Sex offenders?!

[Transgirlenstein]

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009/09/there-is-fury-and-and-sadness-inside.html


A blog post about how with American law, teenagers who are exploring their sexuality with each other are being labeled as "sex offenders" for life.

[Jefepato]

Frankly, the sex offender registry as applied would be messed up and quite arguably unconstitutional even if it only included people who committed actual dangerous sex crimes.

[Trieste]

Um...

I don't know how much this blogger knows about Megan's Law, but the simple exploration of a child of 14, if it were marked as a sex offence at all, would probably be a level 1 if anything... which means the cops keep their names on file but don't disseminate the info (in most states, anyway). It's not like they're parading this person's name and address around to the masses.

It's really not right, but it's not the horrible zomg tragedy crying-at-the-picture thing that the blogger has over-dramaticized it to be.

[Morven]

Stuff like this infuriates me.  Is it possible to even tell, on these sex registry lists, who's on there for consensual "crimes" with others more or less their own age?

Oh, and it's not just about Megan's Law, the national law, it's about state laws, which are often broader than them.  So it's hard to say what this info means without investigating that particular state's law and practices.

[Morven]

Oh, on further review; the first case, where the details are visible, is in Idaho.  He was convicted under Idaho statute 18-1508, which reads:

18-1508.  LEWD CONDUCT WITH MINOR CHILD UNDER SIXTEEN. Any person who
shall commit any lewd or lascivious act or acts upon or with the body or any
part or member thereof of a minor child under the age of sixteen (16) years,
including but not limited to, genital-genital contact, oral-genital contact,
anal-genital contact, oral-anal contact, manual-anal contact, or
manual-genital contact, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex,
or who shall involve such minor child in any act of bestiality or
sado-masochism as defined in section 18-1507, Idaho Code, when any of such
acts are done with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the
lust or passions or sexual desires of such person, such minor child, or third
party, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the state prison
for a term of not more than life.

Now, that's a pretty scarily open-ended law.  I did not find any law that qualifies that by making it not criminal if the parties are close in age, and note that this boy was convicted at age fifteen.  The text of the law states, paraphrased, if you do anything physical to anyone under sixteen with the intent of ... well, even "appealing to their passions", it appears ... you are a criminal.  Technically a kiss might even qualify, if done lewdly or lasciviously enough.  No matter how old you are.

Now, one could speculate that Idaho prosecutors don't prosecute every case of under-sixteens making out, and that thus this boy might have been an extreme case, for instance very sexual acts with a very much younger girl, but the scary part is that the basic reading of the law says he didn't have to be doing much at all, and that if someone had a desire to punish, it could have been no more than that.

[Trieste]

Stuff like this infuriates me.  Is it possible to even tell, on these sex registry lists, who's on there for consensual "crimes" with others more or less their own age?

Yep, date of offence is on the record. It shows as being 2006 - and he's born in 1991, makes him ~15

[Elayne]

There were a spate of cases throughout the last year or teenagers 'sexting' (that is, sending nude images via cellphone) and being arrested for child pornography, etc.

I know of one case in Florida where a 18 year old got a nude picture from his 17 year old girlfriend and got smacked with the sex offender tag.

I believe there were other younger kids who got smacked with the sex offender tag due to sexting as well.

[Morven]

Yep, date of offence is on the record. It shows as being 2006 - and he's born in 1991, makes him ~15

I found that, but it doesn't say how old the other person was, except that they had to be under sixteen as well.  The statute doesn't differentiate between day-before-sixteenth-birthday and birth, and there doesn't seem to be any language making it not a crime if they were close in age.

[DarklingAlice]

This situation is a real mess. The law just doesn't really seem to know what to do about the sexuality of anyone past puberty and prior to the age of majority. And it certainly doesn't help that there are multiple overlapping federal laws and differences in most every state law on the subject.

An interesting book on this topic is Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex, which covers sex law, sex ed, and abortion as related to minors in the USA.

[Morven]

I also note that you can get married at fifteen in Idaho, with parental or judicial consent.  I'm not sure if you can have sex once you're married, but in most states you can even if you would otherwise be under the age of consent.

Talk about mixed messages.

[Oniya]

Some states have what's called a 'Romeo and Juliet' clause - something that eliminates the statutory rape offense for the gray area where one of the pair has turned 18, but the other is still 16 or 17.  Not all do, though - Ohio is one that doesn't, and we had to read the riot act to an acquaintance who kept telling us he was taking his 16-year-old girlfriend off to make out.  (He could have been hit with a misdemeanor, since her parents didn't like him, but those of us well over 18 could have been tagged as accomplices.)

[All Powerful Nateboi]

I've done rants on my show about this stuff. Plain and simple, we need to either get the hell rid of the Sex Offender tag as a legal situation, or...actually, we just need to get rid of it.

FOr starters, sex offenses are the only crime in this country where you have to keep being punished after you're done being punished. We don't have special laws dictating what people who commited robbery or murder or arson can do after they get out of prison (not counting the generic "You've been a felon so you lose X, Y, and Z rights" that everyone who's committed a felony gets). Which is funny, because sex offenders are actually the least likely to re-offend (Well, ok. If we're being pedantic, they're the least likely to commit another crime, but those that do are more likely to commit another sex crime in specific. As opposed to, let's say, murderers who get out of prison and go on to commit armed robbery). So they're less likely to reoffend, and yet they're the only criminal that has to keep being punished for the rest of their life,e ven after they're done with prison.

Where the *shit* is this kind of thing right or just? It's not. It's vengence, plain and simple. And now its vengence that's being slapped upon our children, people we claim to be protecting.

[Trieste]

Please bring forth the numbers if you're going to debate a stance like that. Tits Sources or gtfo, etc.

[Morven]

Please bring forth the numbers if you're going to debate a stance like that. Tits Sources or gtfo, etc.

Who was that directed at?  What stance?  Just a little unclear here.

[Oniya]

Which is funny, because sex offenders are actually the least likely to re-offend (Well, ok. If we're being pedantic, they're the least likely to commit another crime, but those that do are more likely to commit another sex crime in specific. As opposed to, let's say, murderers who get out of prison and go on to commit armed robbery). So they're less likely to reoffend, and yet they're the only criminal that has to keep being punished for the rest of their life,e ven after they're done with prison.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/71876/recidivism_among_sex_offenders.html?cat=17

To summarize the article, the chances that a sex offender will re-offend are four times what the chances are that another criminal will re-offend.

[Trieste]

Who was that directed at?  What stance?  Just a little unclear here.

The post that immediately precedes it, Morven. You know, the one that gives unsupported stats. :P

[Transgirlenstein]

I absolutly disagree with getting rid of the sex offender status.

I do agree that kids like the ones mentioned in the article above though should not be classified as a sex offender.

[All Powerful Nateboi]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

RIght there. Sex offenders are less likely overall to commit another crime, though when they do, they are 4 times more likely to commit a sex offense (that is, they're liable to commit the same crime, where as other criminals are more likely to commit *any* crime).

The problem with the sex offender tag is that it was sworn up and down that only the really really bad and horrible and nasty criminals would ever get it. Only the rapist and the child diddlers. But now we've got people getting sex offender tags for humping a picnic table in their own back yard because their back yard is within two hundred yards of a school, or slapping it on people because they got drunk and pissed on a tree and two kids happened to live nearby.

It stopped being about "horrible, nasty sex offenders" and has started to be used for anything that might remotely even a little bit possibly have to do with sex bits maybe.

[Oniya]

From that same source:

Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.

Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.

On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.

Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.

[All Powerful Nateboi]

Right. Those that do commit crimes are much more likely to commit sex crimes.

I said that.

[Merlyn]

(Although I didn't read the blog, just skimmed it and I am admitting that.)

I'm guessing that most of the children that were on the blog as sex offenders were for kiddie porn.  The law does not differentiate between the ages of people other than those who are in the photographs.  This is a very good thing, because it allows for the ability to push kids who are 'sexually abusing' others by passing around photos and what not from sexual harassment to child pornography charges.

There are many kids out there that do some really effed up things, and will undoubtedly turn into effed up people for whatever reasons.

As far as sex between minors goes, many states have a lower age of sexual consent that the age of majority.  Ohio, for instance is sixteen and four years apart.  So, a sixteen year old could conceivably have sex with a twenty year old, but not someone twenty one or older.  Nor could they have sex with an eleven year old, but there may be some leeway with anyone older.  (I'm not so sure on the aspect of under 16 but I do know there is some leeway.)

I do know this for a fact in Ohio, because I had a friend that tried to go after her ex for statutory rape.  (And I wish she had been able to, if you ask me he should have gotten rape charges regardless of the age difference.)  And even though the sex could be proven while she was 15, he was a small ways away from four years of difference. 

But the laws are there for a reason.  And no, it's not ultimately just because the government is full of conservative morons who think that sex is evil.  The rules are there because of society, and came into society for practical reasons. 
Birth control is only so effective, and with that during any intercourse there is a chance of pregnancy.  Now, girls can become pregnant at a very young age, and it can do a lot of damage to their bodies.  Not to mention, that not everyone has the means to take care of a child with a child.  What would happen if all of a sudden it was accepted for over emotional kids to be allowed to have sex at their own will?  Pregnancy would skyrocket, and that would end up costing the government, and taxpayers, a lot of money because many of the 'mothers' would need financial assistance.

Now, as far as the kids being labeled sex offenders, it is obviously not the same as if they were labeled such as an adult.  I say this because I'm sure they are not all now home schooled.  Since if you are convicted of a sexual offense, especially if it involves a minor, there are certain rules you must abide by, such as in many cases not being allowed to live within a certain radius of any school and not being allowed to enter onto school grounds. 
But, if you had a teenage daughter who was dating a boy wouldn't you want to know if that boy had been arrested, let alone convicted, for statutory rape, or for sending nude pictures of another girl around a school.  Or coercing her to send them to him, or even for just keeping the pictures.

[MercyfulFate]

Sex offender laws are a bit screwy, honestly. There's a HUGE difference between a 40 year old and a 15 year old, and a 17 year old and a 15 year old. Of course the exact age differs from place to place, but come on.

I realize a line has to be drawn somewhere, but if it's consensual and the age difference is almost negligible, like 16-15 or 17-15....I don't get it.

[Morven]

I'm guessing that most of the children that were on the blog as sex offenders were for kiddie porn.  The law does not differentiate between the ages of people other than those who are in the photographs.  This is a very good thing, because it allows for the ability to push kids who are 'sexually abusing' others by passing around photos and what not from sexual harassment to child pornography charges.

The boy highlighted at the top was convicted of "lewd conduct" (basically, touching designed to arouse himself, the other person, or a hird party) with another under-sixteen-year-old. 

The rest, it doesn't say.  And the problem is that the law as written does not distinguish between two fifteen year olds doing a little through-the-clothes touching and the fifteen year old physically molesting an unwilling five year old.  Both are technically the same offence.

I also suspect that aside from the knowledge of the convicted offense, the records are sealed for pretty much all these cases, so knowing whether these kids are harmless technical offenders or scary sociopaths is pretty much impossible.

I think some would presume that they tend more towards the latter and that prosecutions would not go forward unless the underlying actions were toward the worse end of the possible scale, but I've seen some things of how the criminal justice system works, and read about a whole lot more, and you can't guarantee that.

It only requires one out of three of the following for prosecution even in one of those more minor cases: a very angry parent of the other kid (especially if they're well-off or otherwise influential), a zealous prosecutor, or a kid whose family don't have the money (or don't care) to get him proper defense counsel.  If two out of three are the case, he's in trouble. 

As to statistics; the stats that are being thrown around in here are, I'm sure, for adult sex offenders, and thus don't really shed much light on any of this for the specific case of people who get convicted of possibly consensual sex crimes when they are themselves children.

It deeply disturbs me that we have laws on the books that could send a fifteen year old to jail "up to life" for consensual making out with someone else the same age.

It also disturbs me that we have a system where he is then classified the same as someone who did something much worse.

It's also bad in the sense that if the sex offender registry is increasingly used for very minor crimes, that its utility is diminished.  Do they really want a situation where people think that everyone so registered probably just urinated in public or had a seventeen-year-old girlfriend when they were eighteen?

Because that's the ultimate end result.  And as more people hear about cases when minor things got someone forced to register as a sex offender, the more it'll happen, and the more that the actual bad people this is supposed to protect against will be able to claim that actually they hadn't done anything all that bad, "did you hear about that guy on the news who has to register as a sex offender for public urination?  That's about what I'm on there for ..."

[Serephino]

I understand why things like Megan's law were put in place, but it really is getting out of hand.  I've heard cases where a 19 year old kid is at a college party and sleeps with a girl whom he assumes is at least 18 because um... they're at a college party.  Then come to find out she was 16 and party crashed.  The guy finds this out when being arrested for stautory rape.  He gets put on the sex offender list and labeled for life.  That's some really fucked up shit.  When you're young, drunk, and horny, is it really realistic to expect you to do a background check on someone you're thinking about having sex with?

I won't argue that teen pregnancy is a bad thing, but the answer isn't making it a crime to have sex.  The answer is better education.  Many of the women I know don't know how to tell when they're most likely to get pregnant.  To me, that's scary. 

My school had piss poor sex education.  One day in the 5th grade the boys and girls were separated and taken to two different rooms.  We watched a video on the mechanics.  That was it.  Oh, we watched a little presentation about STD's sometime in high school, or was it middle school?  I can't remember. 

[Trieste]

When you're young, drunk, and horny, is it really realistic to expect you to do a background check on someone you're thinking about having sex with?

I dunno, does being young, drunk, and horny excuse you from a DUI? Sure, it's stupid, but it's stupid not to ask a girl "how old are you?" before you bang her.

[MercyfulFate]

I dunno, does being young, drunk, and horny excuse you from a DUI? Sure, it's stupid, but it's stupid not to ask a girl "how old are you?" before you bang her.

She can lie to you, run home tell her parents and you go to jail all the same. It's just weird that a 3 year age difference can be considered even in the same ballpark as a 30 year difference.

Dave Chapelle had a skit where he was about to have sex with a woman, and had her fill out like 40 forms before they could. It seems to be coming to that sometimes.

I mean the whole media saturation with pedophiles has made everyone think the problem is an epidemic, when it's not really much different than it ever was.

[Trieste]

She can lie to you, run home tell her parents and you go to jail all the same.

Yes, and it would be interesting to see the statistics on how often "she told me she was 18!" proves to be true.

Although it really tends to be a larger age difference; in my state, 16 is the age of consent last I checked.

[Serephino]

It might be a good idea, but honestly, how many young guys do you think actually will?  And why compare sex to a DUI? 

And yes, the girl can always lie.  It's ridiculous that we have to worry about that.   

[Trieste]

And why compare sex to a DUI? 

Because driving drunk is another stupid mistake that people who are young make that can haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Sometimes, a stupid I-didn't-know-any-better mistake really does stick with you. It sucks, and it's frustrating, but it happens. You don't turn 18, 21, 30, whatever, and say "OOPS, DO-OVER!". It really doesn't work that way. I don't know whether it should, but realistically it doesn't.

[Morven]

Because driving drunk is another stupid mistake that people who are young make that can haunt them for the rest of their lives.

The difference being: 1) that driving when drunk is, except in the very rare case of someone's drinks being interfered with, something one person has all the knowledge and all the decision-making ability, and 2) driving when drunk is guaranteed to be a dangerous idea.  It's a crime based on solid scientific evidence that what you're doing is a stupid and dangerous thing to do every time.  Yes, you're rolling the dice on getting caught or actually getting in an accident, but it's stupid and dangerous and risky to others every single time.

I don't feel that the actual risks and dangers caused by an 18-year-old having sex with a sixteen-year-old are sufficient for the penalties now being, in some cases, attached to it.  A big-ass fine or a couple weeks in jail are quite sufficient for those.

And if under-eighteens having sex was so damaging, then parents should not be allowed to give consent to marriage for under-eighteens either.   You can't tell me that letting a thirteen year old get married, which is legal in several states including Texas and California, is less risky to her long-term health and happiness.

In other words, I guess, I'm not a believer in "It's illegal so it's bad".

Besides, the original post was dealing with kids who are themselves too young to give sexual consent being prosecuted for sex crimes.  That's even more disturbing for me; in fact, the eagerness of the legal system in the US to consider young teenagers as adults when it comes to prosecution, while at the same time treating them as hapless, helpless things in need of protection from themselves to ages much higher than the rest of the civilized world all the rest of the time, is very, very disturbing to me, and many other European-born people of my acquaintance.

[Morven]

Yes, and it would be interesting to see the statistics on how often "she told me she was 18!" proves to be true.

It would be, but that's like asking men in jail whether they're innocent.  You know what most of them will answer, and you know how accurate it is.  However, some of those men are innocent.

There's also the possibly more important question of whether the assertion of adulthood was believable, and that's impossible to ascertain.  Certainly, many under-age-of-consent individuals intent on having sex with someone they know to be over that age will lie; admitting it is likely to end the fun.  On the other hand, there have to be plenty of cases where the over-age partner suspects but thinks because they've heard the other assert otherwise, they're protected.

Technically, in many states at least, you're a criminal no matter how convincing the "proof" you were given is; a professionally forged driver's license or passport wouldn't let you off the hook (or the more common ruse; lookalike older sibling's ID).  In practice, it might help reduce charges.

Although it really tends to be a larger age difference; in my state, 16 is the age of consent last I checked.

I was looking into this for one of my earlier posts; it's eighteen in the majority of states, it appears, though as someone said above many (but not all!) states have an exemption if the two are within a certain number of years.

[Oniya]

I was looking into this for one of my earlier posts; it's eighteen in the majority of states, it appears, though as someone said above many (but not all!) states have an exemption if the two are within a certain number of years.

That would have been me.

Back on the original topic of the post, which I was admittedly sidetracked from by the whole 'let's get rid of the whole "sex offender" thing completely' suggestion:

Labeling 14-year-old kids for life for things like consensual heavy petting is ludicrous.  Given my druthers, I'd sit these kids down, give them a full course of actual sex ed, including the possible consequences and protective measures.  Non-con, I'd be less forgiving of - definitely include counseling, and probably require some form of monitoring for a period of time (still not necessarily life unless they screw up during that period of time.)

[Morven]

Labeling 14-year-old kids for life for things like consensual heavy petting is ludicrous.  Given my druthers, I'd sit these kids down, give them a full course of actual sex ed, including the possible consequences and protective measures.  Non-con, I'd be less forgiving of - definitely include counseling, and probably require some form of monitoring for a period of time (still not necessarily life unless they screw up during that period of time.)

Indeed, and I agree.  Though we don't KNOW what exactly these kids have done; the categories are so damn broad.  I just don't trust the system NOT to be locking up boys barely old enough to shave for heavy petting with their same-age girlfriends, and the law allows them to.

It's especially ludicrous to have that lifetime registration and reporting when it would not be imposed even if the kid shot and killed his girlfriend rather than whatever he did.  We have created a system which considers consensual sex worse than murder, in some ways.

[Merlyn]

Sex laws in the US are screwed up in general.  And many of them are overly sexist in favor of women.  They do need to change with the times, but that won't happen because sex is such a taboo topic in the states that it would essentially be political suicide for someone to try and make them better instead of simply making everything stricter. 

Heavy petting, and the like is utterly ridiculous to punish for in any legal matter, and would most likely only be if one set of the parents were so uptight and (insert any number of expletive phrases here) that they won't accept that kids will be kids, and they need to actually teach and talk to their kids about sex.

Now, I think I am going to bow out of this topic because mostly all that I said earlier I am going to stand by because of a bad situation that had happened with a very close friend of mine.  And all that will happen by me staying in this is that I will get emotional and upset because I have blamed myself for that situation, and wish very greatly that some things could have turned out differently.

[Doomsday]

Sometimes the law can really be a blind ballerina.

[All Powerful Nateboi]

That would have been me.

Back on the original topic of the post, which I was admittedly sidetracked from by the whole 'let's get rid of the whole "sex offender" thing completely' suggestion:

Labeling 14-year-old kids for life for things like consensual heavy petting is ludicrous.  Given my druthers, I'd sit these kids down, give them a full course of actual sex ed, including the possible consequences and protective measures.  Non-con, I'd be less forgiving of - definitely include counseling, and probably require some form of monitoring for a period of time (still not necessarily life unless they screw up during that period of time.)

TO be fair, I may have gone a bit (just a bit) overboard. But here's the problem. Any time something is instituted with the statement of "Oh, but we'll only be using it for the worst of the worst!", you can almost immediately read that as a lie. Or, at best, misguided. It happened with the patriot act, it's clearly happened with the sex offender tag, and it happens with so many other things as well.

Things like that can and *will8 be used for increasingly less and less 'bad" things, because politicians will use it to try to score points, or because it's easy and useful, or because some people are dicks and they feel like using it. The *intent* of the sex offender tag is solid, and I can approve of the basic idea (though, again, I point out that sex offenses are the only crime you can commit in which you continue being punished after you serve your punishment). But I can't approve of what's done with it. I can't approve of the fact that people are tagged with it because they got a blowjob from their sixteen year old girlfriend on their 18th birthday. I can't approve of the fact that there's a major city in FLorida (Orlando? I'll do some research) in which there is a two block stretch of sidewalk where anyone who gets tagged with "Sex Offender" can live, and no where else, because of the way they've zoned school districts and other "for children" areas. I can't approve of the fact that some cities actually make up establishments in order to keep sex offenders from living in certain areas.

That's my problem with the tag. People have their civil rights stripped away, are treated like slime and garbage, because of a mistake. And sometimes, that mistake is nothing more than having slept with your 17 year old girlfriend when you turned 18, or pissing on a tree while you were drunk, but that tree happened to be 200 yards from a school.

[Kotah]

I'm OK with the sex offender list. Honestly. Seriously. I do, however, think that the list should be limited to violent and non-con crimes.

I had a land lord one, that kept coming into our house and messing around with our stuff when we weren't home. When we complained he claimed he was allowed to come in to fix things. A friend of mine happened on the sex offender list, and found him there. Some research later he had violently raped 3 girls under 13.

Yeah, we moved. I am totally OK with the sex offender list.

No offense, I'm about to have 2 kids. If the guy halfway down the block went away for luring a kid into his home for a kiddie porn session... I wanna know.

[Callie Del Noire]

I fear, like the fallout from 9/11, that the issue of sexual assault and child molestation has created a massive amount of ill planned, worded, and considered laws.

Add in a mix of old laws and diverse issues thought the country and you get what can only be called a chronic major 'fuckup'. I find myself wondering at times how many kids get on the registry for 'normal behavior' or 'he said/she saids' that would have been better handled if the laws were worded well.

I seem to recall a kid that got something like 10 years for a blow job BUT he was 17 and she was younger and it got taped. Things snowballed and he got sent down for HARD time. (Georgia..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia)

A little rationality would slim things down and make the list more managable and easier to track the true offenders. Problem is, the situations are not always as cut and dried as they seemed. (For example the girl in the Wilson case claimed to have been raped after the fact..)

One book I read (Halting State by Charles Stross) had a character who was on the UK offenders list because he had been caught making out with a classmate. I sometimes wonder if there are laws on books that can be interpreted that harshly.

[Morven]

One book I read (Halting State by Charles Stross) had a character who was on the UK offenders list because he had been caught making out with a classmate. I sometimes wonder if there are laws on books that can be interpreted that harshly.

Callie, the Idaho law I posted above is indeed that harsh.  If you do anything physically with someone under 16 with the intention of arousing either them or you, you're a criminal and can get up to life in jail.  Even if you're the same age.  Two fifteen-year-olds french kissing are technically both criminals.

And like all such wide-open laws, I'm sure MOST of the time, sane prosecutors and police use their discretion, but a zealot prosecutor or one intent on revenge for a slight could indeed use it.  I'm heavily against the idea of strict laws where there's a promise of "Oh, we'll only use it against the really bad guys".  There's FAR too much corruption in the system for that to ever be worth the breath it's spoken with.

[Serephino]

I'm OK with the sex offender list. Honestly. Seriously. I do, however, think that the list should be limited to violent and non-con crimes.

I had a land lord one, that kept coming into our house and messing around with our stuff when we weren't home. When we complained he claimed he was allowed to come in to fix things. A friend of mine happened on the sex offender list, and found him there. Some research later he had violently raped 3 girls under 13.

Yeah, we moved. I am totally OK with the sex offender list.

No offense, I'm about to have 2 kids. If the guy halfway down the block woent away for luring a kid into his home for a kiddie porn session... I wanna know.

Finding out that your former landlord raped 3 underaged girls is what the system is designed for.  However, like Nateboi said, there are places sex offenders can't live because of schools, and places where they can, and they have to register, and sometimes have signs on Halloween, so on and so forth.

Yes, the law was made to protect children.  I get that.  But it's insane for someone to get tagged for something stupid like getting a blow job from a 15 year old girl, and being forbidden to live near an elementary school or a play ground.  Even more stupid would be if the guy in question exposed himself at a party to adult women.  Suddenly everyone is super paranoid he'll rape a little girl. 

Pedophilia is a fetish.  It's an illegal fetish, but still a fetish.  If you get caught with kiddie porn or were convicted of molesting a young child, ok then, you should be registered.  And yes, I know, they want to keep it from happening, but let's use a little common sense here.  There are people who think I'd molest a young child for being homosexual.  I'm a pervert, and pervert = child molester.  I guess you can't really call it common sense because it isn't very common anymore. 

[MercyfulFate]

Finding out that your former landlord raped 3 underaged girls is what the system is designed for.  However, like Nateboi said, there are places sex offenders can't live because of schools, and places where they can, and they have to register, and sometimes have signs on Halloween, so on and so forth.

Yes, the law was made to protect children.  I get that.  But it's insane for someone to get tagged for something stupid like getting a blow job from a 15 year old girl, and being forbidden to live near an elementary school or a play ground.  Even more stupid would be if the guy in question exposed himself at a party to adult women.  Suddenly everyone is super paranoid he'll rape a little girl. 

Pedophilia is a fetish.  It's an illegal fetish, but still a fetish.  If you get caught with kiddie porn or were convicted of molesting a young child, ok then, you should be registered.  And yes, I know, they want to keep it from happening, but let's use a little common sense here.  There are people who think I'd molest a young child for being homosexual.  I'm a pervert, and pervert = child molester.  I guess you can't really call it common sense because it isn't very common anymore. 

Agreed on all counts.

[Morven]

The other thing is: if we make life too impossible for convicted sex offenders who've served their time, then what's going to happen?  They'll skip town, live under assumed names, avoid registering, and nobody will even know their history.  I'm sure several of you have seen the newspaper articles about that one Florida town where the only place they are legally allowed to live is under a bridge just outside town, in self-made shacks, because everywhere else in town is defined as being close to "somewhere children go". 

In some cases, the system seems in fact to be designed so that technical violations of the reporting or living laws are in fact inevitable, as an excuse to send these people back to jail.  That's also, in my opinion, inhumane.

There also needs to be much more distinctions made between the likely dangerous people and the likely non-dangerous people, and furthermore between those interested in kids and those not.  And by kids, I don't mean sexually mature post-pubescent teenagers!  That's a whole different thing. 

Also, what's the point of making sex offenders who have shown absolutely no interest in children keep away from anywhere kids might be? 

Well, I know what the point is.  The point is inflating the count of those the public will think of as child molesters, to make the police and politicians look like they're doing more to "keep us safe" and get our support.  The point is inflating the prevalence of the problem because making people scared is in too many interests.  The point is making everyone worry about strangers who molest children when in fact most sexual abuse (and most adult rape) is from relatives, friends and acquaintances.

Put it this way: I've never met anyone in person who was molested as a child by a stranger.  I've known dozens who have been molested by people their parents trusted, or by the parents themselves.

[Serephino]

Exactly!  I know 3 people who were abused as children.  One was raped by an uncle, one by a friend of her father's, and one by her step father.  All of those people were friends or family.  Family has the most opportunity. 

[Morven]

I was molested by a man who was a work colleague and friend of my father's.  Fortunately to a much lesser degree than many, but there you go.

(sorry for bringing personal experiences into this; if this brings up too much for some people, I'll blank this)

[Trieste]

The point of the registry is to let people like your father know when he has a sex offender working with him. It's to inform him before he invites the guy to a family barbecue. If he didn't offend before, there's no chance for the system to work, but I will point out that cases like that are pretty much exactly how it's intended.

Also so that when a child goes missing, the cops can have a list of possibles in the area. Considering how many things tend to happen close to home, I'm guessing that recidivism is one of them.

I'm curious as to what reforms would be proposed if you people who are against the registry list were to rehash it. What would you do different? How would you write the laws? I think at this point, most of the past several posts have been preaching to each others' choirs.

[Morven]

True point.  I'm still not sure how much practical use it is, rather than to help people feel better that "something is being done".

I don't think putting the 20-year-old whose seventeen-year-old girlfriend's parents hated him and got him busted on any list for the rest of his life is doing anyone any good.  Whether or not it should be a crime, he's very unlikely to be doing it again, and I don't think he's any more likely to commit a serious crime than the average person on the street.

We've got to ask what the point of the registry, and the public part of it, really is.  Since we don't have freed-murderer registries and burglar registries and mugger registries.  The point of these registries, as they were originally sold to the public, was warning people about those with histories of molesting children, because sexual crimes against children are considered uniquely heinous in our society.

Thus, I think, crimes against non-children should not be on such a public list.  If we want to have a public rapist registry or a public indecent-exposure registry, I think those should be separate issues, and I would be against them.  We are, it is worth remembering, justifying an abnormal and unprecedented breach of fundamental principles of our justice system to have this at all; specifically, the one that says that extra terms cannot be added to a sentence at a later date, as well as the general principle that criminals, once they've served their time and done their punishment, should be allowed and encouraged to rebuild crime-free lives.  We are justifying this in the very narrow area of child molestation because we believe it to be uniquely heinous. 

Keeping it narrow keeps the focus on those who are actually the danger we're trying to protect against, and minimizes the harm on others.

I'd also specify that the definition of "sex crimes against children" is defined as being those against those younger than sixteen, and that an age-range exemption be in place so that we're not busting teenagers for having consensual sex with other teenagers within a couple of years of age.  That is NOT child molestation and should not be classified as such even if it remains a crime.

So there's my version of what should be done.  If we're supposed to be protecting kids, let's protect kids against those who actually have a known history of doing things against kids.

[Serephino]

Here's a question....  What if a child goes missing and the cops waste time by investigating everyone on the registry, let's say most of whom aren't on the list for anything to do with a child, and the true purp is someone who's never been caught before?

If I were to change things, first of all, the only ones on the registry restricted from schools and 'child areas' would be those that actually did something to a child.  And by child I mean pre-pubescent.  I would not punish teenagers for consensual sex.  It's up to the parents to keep track of their kids and make sure they're educated.  I don't think consensual sex should ever be classified as rape in any way.  That starts a slippery slope. 

Adult rapists would be a whole other classification.  And even that would be tricky.  I guess to be put on the list there would have to be strong evidence that you raped someone to protect those where the woman lies.  And of course, if later the woman confesses to lying, the guy should be taken off the list.  Right now it doesn't matter.  Once you're on it, you're on it, even if it's later found that you were actually innocent.

And of course, I'd let stupid mistakes remain just that.  If you're walking down the street and decide to take a piss on a tree and some kids happen to see, well, I guess they just got an anatomy lesson.  I really don't see that as anything serious unless it's a behavior you repeat. 

So basically, I'd use what used to be called common sense to weed out the potentially dangerous from the young and stupid, and the unlucky. 

[OldSchoolGamer]

You have to keep in mind the purpose of the criminal "justice" system in America isn't to protect society, but rather to make criminals.

Don't get me wrong, there are some people who deserve to have the "sex offender" sign hung on them.  And some old guy who rapes a 12 year-old girl in a public restroom ought to just be hung, period, without bothering about a sign. 

But for the kids caught "sexting" and whatnot...hey, if it were any kid of mine, I'd smuggle them out of the country, help them get set up in some non-aligned country that doesn't kiss America's ass.  The system has run amok.

[Morven]

You have to keep in mind the purpose of the criminal "justice" system in America isn't to protect society, but rather to make criminals.

It's not even that, really; the purpose of the system is to perpetuate the system.  Everything else is subordinate to that.  It's pretty much inevitable, and it's the same with pretty much every part of government, really.

And other organizations; they have purposes, sure, but sooner or later the prime directive becomes "perpetuate and grow the organization".

[Kotah]

I do, however, think that the list should be limited to violent and non-con crimes.

o.o

I don't think a 17 year old that diddled his girlfriend should be on the list. Honestly, however, I want to know if someone is going to be around my 2 year old.

The system is made to perpetuate itself to keep people on the bottom, that goes throughout our entire system. I don't think people should be punished forever, but I am also not responsible for what from over reactive ding bat does. We move explicitly because a man that had rape three little girls was coming into our home, and messing around in my things. My girl things.

I also don't think everyone should be forgiven for everything just cause.

the law's obviously need to be rewritten, but having the list I think is pretty important. By law the land lord should have informed us before we even moved into the house, and he didn't.

I mostly agree with chaotic angel.

[Morven]

I pretty much agree with you too, Kotah. 

[Valerian]

I'm no expert in this, but I believe (and hope!) that law enforcement agencies would have all the details of a particular crime at their fingertips, unlike the very brief summaries available to the public.  So, to use the missing child example, the police would probably first narrow down all the local registered sex offenders by specific crime, and wouldn't bother investigating anyone who's on that list from an indiscretion committed at seventeen with a significant other.  Hopefully.

I personally don't have a better idea than the list.  I wish I did.  But, I was looking around (because for some reason I love doing net searches) and found some interesting statistics from the FBI Crime Victimization Survey*.  About 23% of (reported) sex crimes are against children under eighteen.  Of those crimes, about 40% are committed by someone also under the age of eighteen.  In other words, that's about nine percent of the total of all reported sex crimes.  Most of that 9% is consensual sex between teens; the rest is primarily older children abusing or otherwise attacking younger relatives or friends.

I'm not arguing that 8-9% is an acceptable amount of collateral damage -- far from it.  But I'm not sure how much improvement is really possible, given the current framework.

Rewriting the existing laws to allow for "Romeo and Juliet" clauses in all states, adding more specifics as to the behaviours covered by the laws, and perhaps getting a little more general agreement among the different states, would certainly help.  But the current application of the laws, however poorly written some of them are, doesn't seem to be hopelessly bad.  We hear a lot about these unfair cases precisely because they're unusual.

*http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_22/2_1_myths_and_facts.htm
The above is a summary article; the actual (very large and complex) survey is here.

[Morven]

We hear a lot about these unfair cases precisely because they're unusual.

I certainly hope that's the case.

One observation I have is that we're frequently in the situation where many of the laws on the books are, frankly, ancient, and as much concerned with teenagers-as-property and ensuring a girl is saved for marriage than with modern ideas of right and wrong.  Politicians generally don't want to touch it for fear that something nasty will stick to them, that their enemies would find some nice little inaccurate thing to hang on them out of context.

[Satnslillgrl]

I would like to point out that the whole justice system is completely fucked. I've been screwed over by it enough times to know.

But, pertaining to this topic, I do NOT believe the sex offender list should be public to everyone. Why should they continue to pay for their crimes after the justice system releases them if no other criminals have to? Because it's more likely they'll repeat? Maybe if they weren't continually reminded of it, they'd be less likely to "get the urge" to repeat. As has been stated, murderers don't have to be publicly known, arsonists don't have to be publicly known. I do not consider raping someone worse then murder. If there is going to be a list for one, there should be one for all of them. And before I get jumped on about that, I was raped by two men when I was 4. And yes, I remember most of it, not that I think that matters. But, I grew up, I got over it, and, while I may have a couple subtle lingering side effects still, I am a healthy, physically and mentally, adult who carries on with my life like any other normal person. And you know what happened to those two men? Nothing. The same system that will label other children as offenders because they do what is natural did nothing to two men who raped a four year old child. Shows how effective the system is. Granted, that was years ago, but all the same.

I believe people who harm children should be executed. Child abusers, child rapists, all of them. I cannot think of a SINGLE case where a child has deserved being abused. They aren't mature enough to be able to do anything to warrant it. But, I believe that only applies if the child is being harmed.

Two teenagers having sex doesn't hurt anyone. If the girl gets knocked up, things would be more complicated, but it isn't impossible to still have a successful and normal life after having a teenage pregnancy. I have a cousin who is 16 (she'll be 17 soon) who has three children. She's still finishing high school. A baby does not mean your life has to end.

The problem with the whole statutory rape system, in my opinion, is that they draw a definite line instead of taking things case by case. Is a physically and mentally mature 13 year old having sex with a 19 year old worse then a, let's say, mentally challenged 19 year old being tricked into doing something they didn't fully understand?

I don't think so. I think these laws are strictly to appease the population of this backwards ass country who are convinced that anything sexual is evil. That article had me shaking, I was so angry.


Oh, and as a side-note, how many people have actually specifically asked every single person they've ever done anything sexual with how old they were? I know I've gotten drunk and not been that picky about details before.

[All Powerful Nateboi]

To be fair on the statutory rape thing, they kind of *have* to. The *idea* is that when a case goes to trial, the judge can look at the situation and then decide if it's *really* a problem. Or, before that, the cops can decide.

But because we have a culture were people are fucking crazy with things that involve sex, that doesn't happen, and then we have prosecutors who want to try to punish little shit to the fullest extent of the law because it helps them score points.

That's my real problem with the sex offenders list. The *concept* is fine. But it has become a way to create second class citizens. It has become a way to abuse human beings to score political points. And it's really hard to undo, because no politician in their right mind is going to argue for better civil rights for kiddie diddlers (even if they're *actually* arguing for no longer putting people on the list for things that aren't harmful. But no one hears "Let's stop putting people on the sex offender's list for things like pissing in public while drunk", and instead hears "HE WANTS TO PROTECT CHILD MOLESTORS!")

How would I change it? I would argue for more judicious use. For starters, doing something sexual within X-Hundred yards of a place where kids might be needs to stop being listable (just because you fucked in public and a school happened to be three blocks away, you shouldn't be on the list). We need to make sure the only things that are listable are things that are done with active intent.

It also needs to stop being a way to punish after punishment is through. There should be laws for how long you stay on the list, just like for how long you're in prison (or on probation, or whatever). You go X number of years without re-commiting, you get your name taken off (or taken off the "Rights being restricted" part, and left only on a list available to police for quick checking in the event of a similar crime).

It also needs to stop being available to the public. Why? Because the public, as a whole, is stupid (I'm reminded of an article I don't have the desire to look up at the moment of a situation in the UK where a paediatrician got her house attacked by an angry mob who'd mistaken paediatrician for paedophile. I'm sure if you're interested, you can find it in the BBC archives). And while it might be helpful in some cases for someone to know that their landlord raped three underage girls (There's an age of majority for rape, and waiting until that age makes rape better? :P) but if the justice system has decided that someone is fit to live amongst society, then they're fit to live amongst society. They don't need to then be social pariahs, because that probably won't make anything better. I'm willing to hear arguments on the "being available to the public" part, but it seems to me that that part causes as much harm and it fixes.

[Morven]

It also needs to stop being available to the public. Why? Because the public, as a whole, is stupid (I'm reminded of an article I don't have the desire to look up at the moment of a situation in the UK where a paediatrician got her house attacked by an angry mob who'd mistaken paediatrician for paedophile. I'm sure if you're interested, you can find it in the BBC archives).

Yes, that happened.  It sounds like a stupid made-up story, but it really happened.

(There's an age of majority for rape, and waiting until that age makes rape better? :P)

I think that's rather insensitive of you, Nate.  And yes, in my opinion raping a child is worse than raping an adult, if we have to classify horrible crimes in order.  An adult is emotionally stronger, more experienced with life, and is in general much better equipped to deal with a horrific assault than a child is.

[All Powerful Nateboi]

Yes, that happened.  It sounds like a stupid made-up story, but it really happened.

I think that's rather insensitive of you, Nate.  And yes, in my opinion raping a child is worse than raping an adult, if we have to classify horrible crimes in order.  An adult is emotionally stronger, more experienced with life, and is in general much better equipped to deal with a horrific assault than a child is.

Apologies. Sometimes an attempt at dark humor just winds up making one look like an ass, and apparently I didn't manage to pull off that subtle line. My intent was not to offend.

And I pretty much do agree with you. I mean, not to play misery poker or anything, because rape is bad, mmkay?, but yeah. I think your'e probably right on this (barring any sources from people who have much more education on psychology than I do, of course.)

[Kotah]

I mentioned the story as an example that not everyone that uses the sex offender list is a wacko loon trying to beat up on the poor pedophile.

o.o

I'm just going to step out.

[All Powerful Nateboi]

I mentioned the story as an example that not everyone that uses the sex offender list is a wacko loon trying to beat up on the poor pedophile.

o.o

I'm just going to step out.

Oh, I understand. That's why if someone came to me and said "Nateboi, you get to write the federal law for the Sex Offender's list, and whatever you write will get implemented", I'd hear arguments on the "making it available to the public" thing. Because one of the original intents of the law was to let people know if they have a sex offender living nearby, and in some cases that can be a very useful thing to know. I'm just not sure it's helpfulness in that area outweighs the harm it causes, is all.

I wasn't trying to down on you, so much as your story was there to base points off of :P

[Morven]

Nate, your apologies here come across as more "I'm sorry you were offended", rather than "I shouldn't have been so flippant; I was wrong".   The non-apology apology, beloved of corporations.

I'm not necessarily meaning that you intended that, but you come across like that.  You appear as if you scarcely even noticed that Kotah felt she needed to leave after your saying that.  Or that you are dismissing it as a debating tactic.

Perhaps you have trouble picking up on cues like that, but others don't, and I hope you look back at what you wrote and see the problems with it.

[All Powerful Nateboi]

Nate, your apologies here come across as more "I'm sorry you were offended", rather than "I shouldn't have been so flippant; I was wrong".   The non-apology apology, beloved of corporations.

I'm not necessarily meaning that you intended that, but you come across like that.  You appear as if you scarcely even noticed that Kotah felt she needed to leave after your saying that.  Or that you are dismissing it as a debating tactic.

Perhaps you have trouble picking up on cues like that, but others don't, and I hope you look back at what you wrote and see the problems with it.

THings don't come across too well online.

I was attempting to say tha tyes, I'm sorry my flippancy was there. As I said, dark humor and being an asshole is a fine line, and I didn't notice that line as I gleefully jumped over it in an attempt to find a little levity. It wasn't an attempt at a non-apology, it was specifically saying "My attempt to break some tension within my post mis-fired, and I should have found a better way to do it".

[Oniya]

THings don't come across too well online.

It's one of the problems inherent in the medium.  Even with emoticons, it's impossible to tell tone of voice, facial expression, and other such cues, so dry/dark humor and sarcasm tend to get misinterpreted.

It's something we should all keep in mind, especially in the Politics and Religion threads, due to the volatility of these topics.

[Cythieus]

The sex offender list should differentiate between the types of offenses and the types of punishments. For kids put on there for peddling pictures of themselves online, it should be temporary, until they are of age at most. So that they can be monitored and not get someone else in jail.

The issue I have here is that children, people under the age of 16 shouldn't really be exploring sexuality past a certain point, and by doing so they put others of us at risk. If I go to a site, find an image of a girl and save it and she turns out to be under age, I can go to jail. Do I think people who take pictures like this and the people who put them up should be held accountable? Yes. Mostly because they put others at risk. I actually left another site because of an issue with someone offering pictures of their young sister up and I actually had to go to another site and get a number to report the person because they were 19 and asking people to do sexual things to nude pictures of their sister they would send out.

The blog has since been removed, but the person who did that should surely be in trouble and the little girl who they had pictures of should at least be checked into too.

I think the law needs to be shifted to hold the minor and their parents more accountable though, if I go to a college party or a night club and someone's kid's sneaked in with a fake ID they should hold them or the parents accountable (depending on how the state law goes). Calling the 14 year old a sex offender in the same vain as someone who does something more heinous is stupid, but there should be note made of kids who have posted explicit pictures of themselves and the like online kept to keep others from being in trouble.

As for the kids exploring their sexuality, much of the issue is that the age differences cause problems. I actually dated a 17 year old when I was 19, its legal here in Texas and she turned 18 before I was 20. But we have a two year law here. I think part of the problem is there has to be a line drawn somewhere, because of adulthood, contracts and the chance of pregnancy and other issues that can arise from sex. I do think the line should be 16 across the board, that law seems to work well enough in Canada and England.

[Moonhare]

This is a difficult situation. On one hand you have those that need to be locked up, and kept track of. Anyone that is old enough to know the laws, should have their names on that list for any sexual act without the consent of a partner, or where consent can't be given. This should be for any, regardless of age.

But there lies the problem. We educate our children young that killing each other is wrong, that stealing is wrong, but we shut up about what is right and wrong about sex, other than rape. The government places laws in place, but neither the schools, nor the parents are willing or able to teach young teens, due to many different religious, ethical, or what have you hangups about talking about sex with children that are physically able to break those laws.

The registry is there for a reason, and the reason is a valid one. There are loop holes, and it can and has been abused. But it would be better to force education at the proper age, then to change the laws that are in place at this time. It would be easier to teach not only anatomy, but the laws, local and federal, that are in place and the reasons behind it, than to change the laws that are there regardless of how ancient and out of date to current society.

I mean, you take a course in driving before you can get a license to drive due to the dangers of, why not sex education and corresponding laws? It shouldn't just be about anatomy, but the laws that are in place for protection. It would stop some of the problems of teens into adulthood with things that to them seem to have no consequences, by giving them the education they need. There would still be some that would do those things anyway, and then there should be punishment. But for those that don't know the laws, can you really say that they know the consequences of their actions? That they are knowingly doing something wrong?

My children are still young, but I plan on educating them on what I can as they begin to reach that age. My oldest is extremely shy, but even her doctor said that it is better to educate her about her body (ie. her body changes as she reaches puberty) before she reaches that time. I figure the same applies to sex, education, and laws. Teach them early. It doesn't make them promiscuous. I learned about sex early, way too early, but I didn't become active until I was 18, even with the opportunity. Once of age, I used protection until I was willing to deal with the consequences. I didn't because I knew the consequences. I wasn't willing to lose my freedom by getting knocked up, getting some disease, or making someone go to jail because I was jailbait. My mother made sure that I knew from her experiences, what were the consequences of being active early could mean. I didn't want to go through all that. I believe most would say the same.

[Rhapsody]

There are some who are certainly not sex offenders... and then there are sick fucks like this:

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_13644237?nclick_check=1

Richmond police have arrested a second suspect in connection with the two-hour gang rape of a semiconscious 15-year-old outside her homecoming dance at Richmond High, authorities said Monday night.

Police arrested and booked a 15-year-old student from Richmond High for felony sexual assault and are continuing to actively search for other suspects - both juveniles and adults - through the night, Detective Ken Greco said. The boy's name and grade level were not released.

The suspect was one of two students in custody for questioning early Monday evening, Greco said. Authorities have already arrested 19-year-old Manuel Ortega as he ran from the crime scene, police say.

Authorities said people took photos,
laughed and some joined in as the girl was repeatedly assaulted. The victim, a student, remained hospitalized Monday with injuries that were not life-threatening.

"She was raped, beaten, robbed and dehumanized by several suspects who were obviously OK enough with it to behave that way in each other's presence," said Lt. Mark Gagan, a patrol supervisor in the city's Northern Policing District. "What makes it even more disturbing is the presence of others. People came by, saw what was happening, and failed to report it."

In cases like the above, I believe that they should be tried as adults and introduced to the tender loving mercies of their fellow prisoners, then labelled as sex offenders for the rest of their natural lives.

[Malina]

I don't consider myself as informed enough to give my opinion about this list and its consequences, all I can say is that under more than one aspect, it leaves me with a feeling of deep unease.

Seeing as in my country (and, as far as I know, everywhere else) the number of such crimes never reported to the police is fearfully higher than the known one and considering that the vast majority of these crimes happen within families/relationships, are committed by a person (closely) connected to or (at least loosely) acquainted with the victim, I wonder just how effective such a list can be.

Hence, I have a question that steps a bit out of the context of this discussion, I hope it is alright asking it here: Are there any statistics that show how successful this list has been? Has the crime rate sunk in regard to rape and child abuse since the list was introduced? Has the number of offenders repeating the same or a similar crime sunk when their names have been on that list?

In other words, did it make a difference in the actual crime statistics, did it effectively protect possible victims and prevent similar crimes from happening, be it through reducing the number of offenders repeating such a crime or by 'scaring off' possible offenders who might want to avoid to find this label attached to their names for the rest of their lives?

To me, that would be the starting and key point. Before I ponder how such a list might be improved, whether the public should have access to it and how much so, the question burns under my nails - did it work? Does it, all other difficulties aside, serve its designated purpose?

[Morven]

To me, that would be the starting and key point. Before I ponder how such a list might be improved, whether the public should have access to it and how much so, the question burns under my nails - did it work? Does it, all other difficulties aside, serve its designated purpose?

That's the question I wish we had an answer to as well. 

Unfortunately the last thing politicians ever want is for the impact of their legislation to actually be analyzed ...

And in this case, I wonder how it would even be possible to tell.  Crimes like murder, we can really tell if the rate is going up or down, because we find out about most cases.  Crimes like this, however, are likely so under-reported that most incidents are not known; thus, changes in the reported incidence of such crimes are just as likely (if not more so) to be changes in the reporting rate as changes in the underlying crime rate.

Increasing public awareness of a crime is likely to increase the reporting of it.

[Satnslillgrl]

There are some who are certainly not sex offenders... and then there are sick fucks like this:

http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_13644237?nclick_check=1

In cases like the above, I believe that they should be tried as adults and introduced to the tender loving mercies of their fellow prisoners, then labelled as sex offenders for the rest of their natural lives.

I agree with you Dirge. Anyone who commits a non-consensual act with anyone, regardless of the age, should face the maximum penalty. I do not, however, believe that it's fair to have them on a public list. If they are released from prison they should have just as much of a chance to live a normal life as any other murderer and thief and criminal. Once you have repaid your court appointed debt to society, you should be finished.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I personally would rather know if I was moving next door to someone who went temporarily insane, killed three people, and then got out of prison early for good behavior then a kid who's hormones got the best of him one night. I'm not saying either are right or excusable, but the priorities seem a little skewed.

But there lies the problem. We educate our children young that killing each other is wrong, that stealing is wrong, but we shut up about what is right and wrong about sex, other than rape. The government places laws in place, but neither the schools, nor the parents are willing or able to teach young teens, due to many different religious, ethical, or what have you hangups about talking about sex with children that are physically able to break those laws.



I mean, you take a course in driving before you can get a license to drive due to the dangers of, why not sex education and corresponding laws? It shouldn't just be about anatomy, but the laws that are in place for protection. It would stop some of the problems of teens into adulthood with things that to them seem to have no consequences, by giving them the education they need. There would still be some that would do those things anyway, and then there should be punishment. But for those that don't know the laws, can you really say that they know the consequences of their actions? That they are knowingly doing something wrong?

I did some snipping from your post Moon, because I'd like to say just how much I agree with this.

I was raised by just my father my whole life. Sex was not a topic discussed. Ever. And because of this, being the person that I am, I wanted to figure it out. It was something I knew existed, but I didn't have any information about it. So first I started looking thing up about it, but then I wanted to know what the big deal is. I mean, it's gotta be something huge if it's a forbidden topic in the household, right? And I started being pretty active at a young age. The first time I cybered with someone was before I even hit my teens. And virginity? Gone at 15. And i am damn near positive that if it wasn't such a forbidden subject, more could have been discussed instead of tried. If I could have talked to my dad about sex I wouldn't have been as curious to find out for myself.

That's when most teens (or hell, younger then teens, now-a-days) get themselves into trouble. They want to know what it's all about. They can't talk to parents about it, because it's been made quite clear that it's an uncomfortable topic. But, human beings as a species are curious about things. That's why we're not the same as all the other creatures on this earth. We aren't content to just not know things. It's an almost physical need sometimes.

Simply talking to kids about sex and the physical and emotional aspects of it and the consequences that can happen if you aren't careful with it will make it something that isn't so unknown. It's not this mysterious thing that they have to secretly discover for themselves. They'll know they can ask the parent about aspects of it, instead of taking risks and trying it themselves without knowing a damn thing about what they're doing. I mean, how can you expect a 14 or 15 year old kid who knows nothing about sex except it feels good to understand the psychological damage that rape can do if no one has ever talked to them about it? Why wouldn't they think it feels just as good to the other person involved? How can you expect a kid to know how life-changing getting pregnant is unless you tell them? Some of them still won't give a damn, but I think, that most of the problem is them just not knowing. Never having it explained to them.

I hope that when I have children I can make them comfortable enough to come up to me and say "Hey mom. My girlfriend/boyfriend and I have been getting kind of serious lately, and we might end up wanting to try sex one of these days. Would you be willing to maybe get me some condoms so we can be safe, or maybe give me some advice on whether I should wait longer or how to go about things?" I think I'd probably consider that one of my biggest parenting successes.

[Moonhare]

Thank you. I also hope that my children are comfortable enough with me for them to come to me and ask questions. But I think it should go passed just me telling them to use condoms; it should be explained about the consequences of baiting someone older, about taking pictures and passing them around at school, and any other activities that could not only get them into trouble, but also others that might not have been influenced had they not gotten involved.

It is a two way street. Not only should an older adult not go after those under age, but those under age should not bait adults in order to get them into trouble. Teens can look for attention in the wrong way, not realizing what they are getting themselves and others into, and that those consequences can be devastating.

Education should come from both fronts, home and school. Maybe different aspects of it, but both still the same. How many of us could honestly say we knew the laws regarding age for consensual sex as a teen? I knew, but only because my mom told me so, repeatedly. But there were other laws that I didn't learn until I was much much older.

[Cythieus]

I watch a lot of Tyra Banks show, at first it was for Banks herself, but then I started listening to it and there are so many shows about teens being sex crazed at 13, getting pregnant, getting STDs and there was one girl who talked about how she would be friends with guys or fall for them and they would sleep with her and use her friendship to get in her pants.

I swear to God if I could cut the video feed and parts of the audio out you'd think she was a 25 year old woman telling these stories about guys doing this. Kids shouldn't be into that and its a lack of education on the schools part and the parents part BUT its on the fault of us as a culture. We've sexually everything so much and made it seem like all that's worth having out there is money, or that falling in love will mean all your problems are just fixed.

Teens are meant to be into whatever sex they like, but somewhere down the line (like right after I got out of Junior High it seems) things changed drastically, my freshman year of high school (2000) I remember talking to a girl from my old school and her telling me about girls being pregnant, about girls making nude pictures for guys and the big fuss all over the school it caused. When I was in Junior High it was huge news if someone got a handjob (like that person was pretty much known by everyone) all of a sudden people were pregnant.

It's odd that some latest studies show teen sex is down, but it still worries me that people 12 and 13 are sleeping around at a rate that most 17 year olds I knew couldn't back in high school. What changed really? How did it happen so quickly?

[Serephino]

I agree that education is important.  Parents don't want to think about it, and schools can't because parents would have a fit.  Sex is dirty and not suitable for children.  But all kids watch TV and lets face it, sex sells.  TV add, billboards, and magazine adds are all made to be sexy.  And don't get me started on romance novels.  My slut ex-friend used to read them all the time, and she'd give them to me to read.  There is nothing realistic in those books.  A virgin does not have multiple orgasms the first time.  There are no consequences to sex on TV and romance novels. 


As for if the list is working, I'd say it just gives offenders more incentive to not get caught.  I don't know that for sure, it's just what I suspect. 

[Rhapsody]

It's odd that some latest studies show teen sex is down, but it still worries me that people 12 and 13 are sleeping around at a rate that most 17 year olds I knew couldn't back in high school. What changed really? How did it happen so quickly?

Part of the reason is because of the sexualization of our culture.  Now, I believe that sex isn't some dirty little secret hidden away behind closed doors, but I also don't believe that it should be the widespread focus it's become.  And that focus is not just spreading in prevalence; it's also crossing age boundaries it really shouldn't.

Let me give you an example.  My husband and I saw Push awhile back.  Once the character of Cassie Holmes was introduced into the story, my husband and myself remained rather disturbed by our reactions to her for the rest of the film.  Because she's dressed like this, or worse, the entire friggin' time she's on screen.  The character was supposed to be 13-14.  The actress just turned 15 this year.

If it was a film that had a child prostitute as a character in it, or anything even remotely pertaining to the sexualization of minors... but when it's an action/adventure flick, and they're trying to make everyone look sexy and cool...

It's wrong to be attracted to minors.  But when they do their damnedest to sexualize them, when they dress them up like 20-year-old ravers and put them in situations where what skimpy clothing they're wearing threatens to ride even higher up, how can you not?   We're wired to be attracted to certain things, and sometimes, a lot of the time, the media, the entertainment business, go out of their way to push the limits of those boundaries to practically unacceptable levels. 

It wasn't just my husband who felt like a pervert during that movie, let me tell you.

[Oniya]

That movie still-shot wasn't as bad as what I found here.

[Rhapsody]

That movie still-shot wasn't as bad as what I found here.

Maybe not.  It still made me feel like a dirty old man, which is an achievement since I am neither old nor a man.

Yeah.  Kids costumes are pretty bad nowadays too, as any parent who's been shopping for their kids over the last couple of weeks can tell you.  >.<

[Oniya]

This is why I've cobbled together costumes for the last several years.  This is this year's offering.  (Her choice, as always.)

[Morven]

I think the sexualization was deliberate in Push, though.  That character was supposed to be acting creepily old for her years, and there was supposed to be a dissonance between age and behavior/looks.  I think it was supposed to make us feel uncomfortable, and supposed to hint at how damaged she was, how not like a normal childhood she'd had.

That's how it read to me, anyway.  It's one thing where a young teenager dressing and acting "sexy" is supposed to feel wrong, as I think it was meant to there.  It's quite another thing when it's just presented as normal, the way normal thirteen year olds are supposed to dress and behave.

[Braioch]

Good lord, I was a sex offender at 14?!

Well this just goes to show that the government once again prefers to slap labels on people, so as to inhibit them socially. Seriously? Most people begin exploring around that age, it's a natural part of growing up. One does begin to become curious when they're about that age, and it shouldn't become unlawful in any sense to want to give a try.

Mind you I didn't lose my full virginity until I was about 17 by choice, but still I had fooled around before that, and definitely before I was 16. It shows little in the way of the government once again.

Shame, what else will they take?

[kckolbe]

I think any line drawn on "who goes into the registry" would be arbitrary and disagreed with by many, so I propose everyone convicted of any sexual crime goes on it, regardless of how insignificant said crime is.  Now, because there are significant differences between type of crime, I would further propose that the actual crime be on the list, that way those convicted of serious crimes couldn't "play it off" and those convicted of marginal, consensual crimes wouldn't be villainized.  One could argue that this would violate privacy, but so does the current system.  Thoughts?

[Morven]

That's also setting a line. Just at the 'include all' level.

[Satnslillgrl]

I still think the list should be removed completely. It is discriminating against a particular type of criminal. Anyone else that commits a crime is free of it after they get out of prison. They might still be looked down upon, but they aren't on a public list that anyone can look up. Sex offenders are simply criminals. They should be treated the same. Yes, I know, they have a higher likelihood to repeat their crimes than most other types of criminals. That should simply mean they get a longer jail sentence, though. If they are still a threat to society, they shouldn't be released in the first place.