Sex offenders

Interesting post on the Daily Dish today.  Are sex offenders who you think they are?  Does it defeat the purpose of the registry to dilute it with teenage experimenters?  Does it further the societal goal of keeping us safe from dangerous sexual predators?  Discuss!

I had no idea that the age with the most sex offenders was 14! I, too, would have guessed that middle aged men would be the highest rated sex offender, but wow...

I was a victim of sexual assault. My offenders were teenagers, ranging from 15 to 17 years old. Although they caused me a lot of trouble in my later years (now) I do not think that they should be thrown in prison after one assault, depending on the situation (if there was violence or murder, that is a different story). I think they should no doubt be punished, but to a lesser extent.

I think education would help prevent sexual assaults among teenagers. During your young teen years, you are curious, but the topic of 'sex' is taught by adults as 'dirty' and is not appropriate for discussion. I think kids should be taught at an early age (12 or 13) that sexual activity of any kind needs consent. It is considered sexual assault if two people have sex, and one did not say yes; they did not say no either. I am not in any way saying that girls are 'silly' for not saying no (I experienced the 'frozen' feeling of not being able to say no) but I don't believe it's right for a young boy to not be educated of the right way to 'go about' having sex, or the consequences he could suffer if he does not follow those rules.

It's a shockingly low age, isn't it?  And right about the time when young adults are first learning about boundaries and how to enforce them.  I think you're right on that education needs to be more up front about teaching young people the right way to have sex instead of just trying to discourage them from sex altogether.

Social skills are terribly lacking in some kids.  I honestly think that less time needs to be spent drilling math and reading, and just a bit more on how to get along with each other.

I have a problem with the sex offender registry.  I really think it is awful to throw in a teenager whose girlfriend's parents got mad that she got pregnant along with people who have kidnapped and raped kids, thrown in with men who got caught with illegal porn magazines (some towns have some really strict laws).  There should be SOME discrimination between those that are predatory and dangerous, and those that just need a few life lessons.

Two perspectives here:

1. When I was 16 I got pregnant by an 18 yo guy.  My parents could have filed charges. He could have been sent to jail. That would have been a tragedy for all of us - especially his beautiful daughter!   Consenting sex should not be labeled in the same category as sexual offense.
2. I drive a school bus of PK to 5th grade kids.  Several convicted sex offenders live in the area.  I am very cautious as I pick up and deliver the kids in their neighborhoods.  I would be very upset if one were living near me and I don't have kids.

The publicity of offender's names, addresses and photos is very helpful in my situation.    

In Ohio right now, they are prosecuting teenagers for texting nude pictures of themselves. They can be forced to register as a sex offender.

This is a ridiculous use of the registry.

Original Post by moonikins:

In Ohio right now, they are prosecuting teenagers for texting nude pictures of themselves. They can be forced to register as a sex offender.

This is a ridiculous use of the registry.

agreed. me and bf do that all the time but if you are a teen you get labelled for life.

aside: teens get no respect. PSSSST in my experience you have to teach them what respect feels like for them to catch on and give it back. alienating them even more is no solution. argh.

My first thought was that in Florida laws are structured so that kids within a certain age range of each other are protected as consenting. The 17 year old/18 year old scenario, for instance.

But I had not considered the sending or texting of photos, which does seem like overkill.

Dunno how else to approach this except on a case by case basis. On the one hand you could argue 14 year olds fooling around with each other is healthy growth, but then I am reminded of the boys here in Florida who were charged for sexual assault on another boy in the locker room.

Seems like we need to focus less on age and more on the act.

What's really bad with the texting thing among teens is that often a girl or guy will text a nude or partially nude pic of themselves to thier bf or gf. Then a breakup occurs and the ex will send the pic to other teens. That teen can get charged with child pornography and being a sexual offender.

There's a big campaign on to educate teens about the law, but there is nothing happening to help the kids who get caught up in it. Some districts are being hard core a-holes about it.

Original Post by moonikins:

What's really bad with the texting thing among teens is that often a girl or guy will text a nude or partially nude pic of themselves to thier bf or gf. Then a breakup occurs and the ex will send the pic to other teens. That teen can get charged with child pornography and being a sexual offender.

There's a big campaign on to educate teens about the law, but there is nothing happening to help the kids who get caught up in it. Some districts are being hard core a-holes about it.

As they should be.

I think this is a beautiful example of a law/regulation with the best intentions being reduced to a pain in the butt.  I'm sure that a very small percentage of the adolescents in the registry did commit a violent, non-consensual crime. That doesn't mean that all adolescents who acted normally (non-violently) in sexual situations should be treated the same as a 30-year-old man convicted of raping 12 year old children.

Not every crime is going to fit into this square box and sex crimes (especially those that fall in the gray area of regular adolescent/teen behavior) are evidence of that. IMO it's not criminal for 2 consenting 15 year olds to have consensual sex. It's unjust to label a teenager a "sex offender" for sending nude pictures of themselves. Is it in bad taste, probably...Is it criminal, no. It's not criminal for a 16 YO and an 18 YO to have consensual sex. It is criminal, IMO, for the parents of the 16 YO to file charges against the 18 YO when their child gave consent.

Editted for clarification.

I thought of another instance where someone has to register as a sex offender. It was on TV not too long ago, but I'm sure it's happened in real life. A man got very drunk. Somehow he ended up naked from the waste down on his front lawn. Several elementary school age children found him and the cops were called. He was wakened by the police. He had to register as a sex offender.

He may have been stupid. I can see with charging him for public indecency or public nuisance. Making him register as a sex offender was clearly an injustice.

Original Post by hotrebeccainmesa:

Problem is though a child CANNOT give consent. 16 years old is still a child (depending on the state that you are in).

There is a list here:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/12483-age-c onsensual-sex/

Except, if that "child" commits a serious crime, they can be charged as an adult with adult penalties. I hate the double standard applied to teens.

Original Post by hotrebeccainmesa:

Problem is though a child CANNOT give consent. 16 years old is still a child (depending on the state that you are in).

There is a list here:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/12483-age-c onsensual-sex/

As a legal matter, correct.  But the law, despite its best intentions, doesn't always reflect reality.  For example, is it a reality that every adult over 65 is vulnerable to abuse or exploitation?  In Washington, our law presumes they are.

The bigger question is whether applying the laws creates a just result.  That requires more than just applying the rules; it requires analysis of the underlying reality.  A 16-year-old maybe can't "legally" consent, but that does not mean it is just to convict another adolescent when the 16-year-old actually did consent.

Original Post by moonikins:

Original Post by hotrebeccainmesa:

Problem is though a child CANNOT give consent. 16 years old is still a child (depending on the state that you are in).

There is a list here:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/12483-age-c onsensual-sex/

Except, if that "child" commits a serious crime, they can be charged as an adult with adult penalties. I hate the double standard applied to teens.

This.

I could enlist in the US Army at 18 (was actually very strongly recruited), but couldn't buy beer. The double standards in the law concerning teens are across all spectrums of crime/regulation.

Teens are entrusted everywhere to drive vehicles that could endanger themselves and others (most states allow a learning permit at age 15), but they're not "adult" enough to decide what to do with their own bodies???

Florida law carries exemptions for 'close-in-age' relationships. While the legal age of consent is 18, a sixteen year old may legally 'date' a person up to 23 years of age.

edit: as long as the elder person is not in a position of authority over the younger.

Washington has laws like that as well ... basically, you can consent at 16 as long as the other participant is no more than 5 years older.  No limits at 18.

I wonder how many people (especially the people in the pertinent age groups) actually know what the rules of consent are in their particular state?  I wonder how many of them would take the rules of consent seriously if they did know?

Original Post by lysistrata:

Washington has laws like that as well ... basically, you can consent at 16 as long as the other participant is no more than 5 years older.  No limits at 18.

I wonder how many people (especially the people in the pertinent age groups) actually know what the rules of consent are in their particular state?  I wonder how many of them would take the rules of consent seriously if they did know?

Original Post by lbh:

It's unjust to label a teenager a "sex offender" for sending nude pictures of themselves. Is it in bad taste, probably...Is it criminal, no.

Um, distributing child pornography is definitely criminal.