Sex offender registry

[Ed62]

We all know the information is available online to allow us to know if there are sex offenders living in our vicinity. But I wonder if the information (or lack of) is cause for unnecessary concern, in some cases.

For some reason, I was checking out the registry a few days ago. I found there was a sex offender who moved in 2 houses away from one of my sons, who has 2 kids. I immediately called him to make him aware of it. He already knew about it, and he and his neighbors had done a little investigation on this guy. The guy is now in his 30s, and when he was 19, he had been arrested for having sex with a 17 year old girl. There is no reason to believe he is a threat to our grandkids. What 19 year old guy wouldn't be interested in a 17 year old girl? Maybe they need to define in a little more detail what the offender has been found guilty of. Few people would hold it against the guy, in this case.

Ed

[cgallery]

Agreed. I can't see how the legislators that write this crap couldn't have foreseen problems like this.

[Hellrazor]

They have tunnel vision and wanted to appease a certain group who could make him/her look good.

[RAFlorida]

A guy I worked with a few years back got busted

for having sex with a 17 year old female. He was 18. The parents of the girl filed charges and he was convicted of a sex crime and now must register, and the record does not show what the crime was. Some people think he's guilty of child sex. But no. The girl testified she was a welling participant. She was only 3 or 4 months shy of turning 18, but the law still convicted him and he did 2 years in state prison and must notify the local LEOs if and when he moves. Was that justice? The guy was one heck of a worker and apprentice electrician. Go figure....

[Uncle Cracker]

It would be a good idea if they had a "rating system" for this sort of thing, but then there would be a lawsuit any time a "low risk" offender did the deed again. I'm not sure how the system could be implemented fairly, and it already isn't, so nothing would be gained.

[BobSch]

Perhaps it's time for the courts to apply a little common sense instead of acting like a bunch of martinets. There has to be some room for judges to apply a sentence based on the circumstances. You shouldn't treat an 18 YO having consentual sex with his 17+ girlfriend the same as a 40 YO with a 10 YO.

[Gator95]

yeah, this kind of thing gets dicey.

Need to have some kind of 'age difference' clause in there. There is a huge difference IMHO between a 18 year old HS senior having sex with a 16 YO sophmore that he brought to his prom and a 45 year-old seducing a 16 year old girl... yet the law treats both of these situations exactly alike.

I'd say make an exception for sex below age of concent if the two parties are willing participants, over the age of 12, and within 3 years of each other.

[Daryl]

I think if you have served yoiur time and are released you should be free with no strings attached. If you can't be trusted and must register as anything as a continuing part of punishment I think you should still be in jail and have constant supervision.

[MilDoc]

Most states define it as an age difference. In Texas it is 2 years I believe (might have changed). So 16 male + 14 female = no no.

Also, age 18 is "adult," age 17 is not. Thus an 18yo "adult" has sex with a 17 yo "minor."

And it leads to such idiocy as this case.

Sentencing "guidelines" often allow judges NO leeway.

[Tom Slick]

When we start making Mandatory Sentencing, even when it is for a good cause, we remove the allowance of judgment.

[MilDoc]

Basically, I agree.

[jussi]

Most states define it as an age difference. In Texas it is 2 years I believe (might have changed). So 16 male + 14 female = no no.

Also, age 18 is "adult," age 17 is not. Thus an 18yo "adult" has sex with a 17 yo "minor."

And it leads to such idiocy as this case.

Sentencing "guidelines" often allow judges NO leeway.

On the flip side however I am also hesitant about giving judges too much leeway. Because often they start legislating from the bench. Happens too often in my state, CA. So as usual I have absolutely no answers

[MilDoc]

On the flip side however I am also hesitant about giving judges too much leeway. Because often they start legislating from the bench. Happens too often in my state, CA. So as usual I have absolutely no answers

That's why I said "Basically I agree" to Tom Slick's post. Having known many judges, and knowing the disparities in sentencing BEFORE guidelines were established, I do not favor absolute mandatory sentencing. But there does need to be some leeway, subject to judicial oversight and appeal.

And, "legislating from the bench" is not the same thing as handing down a sentence in a criminal case.

[Rand]

In California, if you stop on a long stretch of open highway in the middle of nowhere, go behind a bush to do your business and a CHP happens to roll by they can arrest you and charge you as a sex offender. You would have to register the same as a child rapist.

Reminds me of the kid getting suspended from school because she had some aspirin and the school had a zero tolerance drug policy.

Common sense is becoming increasingly rare.

[jackellis]

There was a case in Georgia about a high school kid who went to jail for having sex with a 15 year old girl. The boy was apparently an outstanding student and a pretty good kid who just let his hormones take control.

It was common for teenagers to marry not long after they reached puberty back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Still the case in many parts of the world.

The urge to pass on one's genes is pretty powerful. Without it, we'd die off.