Finally, a publicized challenge to sex offender registry laws! [Archive]

CalBoy

Nov 25, 2008, 01:22 AM

Maybe if Georgia actually focused on real sexual predators instead of horny teenagers the law would actually work. :rolleyes:

And Lee, I had the exact same thought about sodomy. I'm pretty sure it was declared unconstitutional to ban it long before the Lawrence case for straight couples.

kavika411

Nov 25, 2008, 08:49 AM

(1) I am likewise against sex offender registry laws.
(2) I can't currently think of any sexual act - sodomy or otherwise - that should be outlawed when engaged in consensually.
(3) I am in favor of strongly increasing punishment for non-consensual sexual crimes.
(4) I struggle with where to draw the line for a person to be too young to have been able to give consent.

iBlue

Nov 25, 2008, 08:59 AM

Whoa, whoa, whoa. So this woman is on a sex offender registry for life for blowing her boyfriend when they were both in high school and having anal sex? That's ridiculous.

Sex Offender registries are great when the people on them have actually committed sex offenses.

squeeks

Nov 25, 2008, 08:59 AM

gilkisson

Nov 25, 2008, 09:18 AM

Whoa, whoa, whoa. So this woman is on a sex offender registry for life for blowing her boyfriend when they were both in high school and having anal sex? That's ridiculous.

It's worse than you think. If I recall correctly, the law in Georgia defined "sodomy" as any "non-standard" sexual act. Basically, if it ain't boy-on-girl missionary, it's sodomy. For decades, even things made of latex, take batteries, or inflate, were illegal. I beach ball was legal, unless it looked like Chasey Lane. Then it was bad.

I thought that law was repealed, like 10 years ago...?

CalBoy

Nov 25, 2008, 10:45 AM

(1) I am likewise against sex offender registry laws.

They work well for parents though. It's helpful to know where the nearest one is so you can make sure your child isn't walking towards them unaware.

(4) I struggle with where to draw the line for a person to be too young to have been able to give consent.

I think the best way is to use what California does now. If you're both under 18 and within a certain number of months of each other (I think it's 6 months), then it's underage sex (I don't think there is any penalty for this, but if there is it's likely just a sex ed class or something). If one is over 18 and the other isn't (and the age difference is more than 6 months) then it's statutory rape.

It isn't perfect, but it works pretty well so that teenagers can actually form relationships without the thread of Johnny Law coming to put them on a list.

I thought that law was repealed, like 10 years ago...?

I'm pretty sure the US Supreme Court barred all such laws in the 1970s or early '80s, but that may have only been for adults. Since they were underage, it could be an entirely different legal world (which I think is wrong).

Iscariot

Nov 25, 2008, 10:59 AM

Peace

Nov 25, 2008, 11:00 AM

If she got busted for having oral sex why did she get convicted of sodomy ?

kavika411

Nov 25, 2008, 11:16 AM

They work well for parents though. It's helpful to know where the nearest one is so you can make sure your child isn't walking towards them unaware.

I agree with you, especially as a parent myself. My concern is balancing the policy of helping parents/preventing preventable harms with the policy of avoiding the vigilante justice that follows these notifications. (I may be wrong on the latter, but I think it is pretty well-established that it occurs frequently to the point of inevitability, and I'll go digging for a link if we need to go down that path.) As someone who feels s-t-r-o-n-g-l-y about the courts increasing punishment for non-consensual sex offenders (and I do mean strongly), I currently side against the notification system because of the vigilante aspect. I say that but admit I'd be the first crying foul if I weren't put on notice of a sex offender moving in next door. Tricky.

iJohnHenry

Nov 25, 2008, 11:20 AM

Maybe she bite him and he turned her in:eek:

Now that children is sphincter control. :eek:

ZachsMacDaddy

Nov 25, 2008, 11:23 AM

If she got busted for having oral sex why did she get convicted of sodomy ?

Many states bundle oral and anal sex as "sodomy." It seems to make no sense and can lead to confusion. I think they need to be separated since the stigma for one is far greater than the other.

EricNau

Nov 25, 2008, 11:32 AM

I think the best way is to use what California does now. If you're both under 18 and within a certain number of months of each other (I think it's 6 months), then it's underage sex (I don't think there is any penalty for this, but if there is it's likely just a sex ed class or something). If one is over 18 and the other isn't (and the age difference is more than 6 months) then it's statutory rape.
Not quite. In California, the age of consent is 18, with a misdemeanor if the minor is 3 or fewer years younger than the major. Penalties drastically increase if the minor is under 16 and the major is above 21, with the major guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child if the minor is 14 or younger.

It's not perfect, but it's pretty good.

If she got busted for having oral sex why did she get convicted of sodomy ?
Sodomy is "sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation."

CalBoy

Nov 26, 2008, 12:29 AM

18 is a statistically unsupported age of consent; there are many states with a "better" way simply by maintaining a lower age of consent.
That's true enough. I honestly don't know the age of consent in most other nations. Is the prevailing age 16?
My concern is balancing the policy of helping parents/preventing preventable harms with the policy of avoiding the vigilante justice that follows these notifications.

Honestly, I don't think there is a way to fix the problem short of assigning all sexual predators (real ones mind, not faux ones like the woman in this case) to a certain special urban area where they can get jobs, rebuild their lives, and continue to get help. The area could be away from children and let reformed individuals slowly transition back into society, but it wreaks of quarantine.
Not quite. In California, the age of consent is 18, with a misdemeanor if the minor is 3 or fewer years younger than the major. Penalties drastically increase if the minor is under 16 and the major is above 21, with the major guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child if the minor is 14 or younger.

So there's no provision for underage teenagers? What if one is born in July and the other December? Can they not have sex until the younger one turns 18? That seems ludicrous. I honestly hope no one is convicted if they have sex with their girlfriend/boyfriend who is only some months younger than them.

Iscariot

Nov 26, 2008, 09:27 AM

That's true enough. I honestly don't know the age of consent in most other nations. Is the prevailing age 16?

The prevailing age is actually 16 in the US, only 10ish states have it at 18. Worldwide it's 14 to 16.

mkrishnan

Nov 26, 2008, 09:32 AM

It'll be interesting to see where this goes... AFAIK several states also put people on these registries if they engaged in other acts that don't involve sex assault, like public indecency (nudity, peeing in public, etc), that aren't always (or in some cases even often) really consistent with the idea of a sex offender registry.

CalBoy

Nov 26, 2008, 11:39 AM

The prevailing age is actually 16 in the US, only 10ish states have it at 18. Worldwide it's 14 to 16.

An interesting point about that: those states with an age of consent at 16 have that only in the case of marriage AFAIK.

I don't think any US state lets teenagers just have sex without any strings attached (so to speak).

XnavxeMiyyep

Nov 26, 2008, 11:41 AM

An interesting point about that: those states with an age of consent at 16 have that only in the case of marriage AFAIK.

I don't think any US state lets teenagers just have sex without any strings attached (so to speak).

MA has an age of consent of 16, assuming both parties are under 18. And then there's an 18+ age of consent. So no marriage requirements, but still pretty silly.

CalBoy

Nov 26, 2008, 11:47 AM

MA has an age of consent of 16, assuming both parties are under 18. And then there's an 18+ age of consent. So no marriage requirements, but still pretty silly.

Huh, go figure for MA to be ahead of the curve.

I think 16 is fine for underage consensual sex. I'm personally shocked that California doesn't have such a provision.

Iscariot

Nov 26, 2008, 02:52 PM

An interesting point about that: those states with an age of consent at 16 have that only in the case of marriage AFAIK.

Huh. Alabama and Arkansas doesn't seem to have a marriage clause that I can decipher, but I'm certainly no aficionado of American law.

I quite like the Canadian system. I typically have a bone (or several) to pick with Canadian law, but this is one instance where I think they've got it fairly close to right (with the exception of section 159 of the Criminal Code).

Queso

Nov 26, 2008, 03:19 PM

Many states bundle oral and anal sex as "sodomy." It seems to make no sense and can lead to confusion. I think they need to be separated since the stigma for one is far greater than the other.
I disagree. For those who actually deeply care about what other consenting adults are up to they are as bad as each other.

Age of consent here in the UK is 16 BTW. Apparently we can all do what we like from that point, but from January we won't be able to keep pictures of it. Still wondering whether b3ta.com will get shut down for all the ****** ripoffs its members produce ;)

EDIT: LOL. Since when was ****** a swear word!! :D

CalBoy

Nov 26, 2008, 03:46 PM

Huh. Alabama and Arkansas doesn't seem to have a marriage clause that I can decipher, but I'm certainly no aficionado of American law.

Both of those states are in the Bible Belt, so it's unlikely that they wouldn't have a marriage clause tied to sex for 16 year olds.

I quite like the Canadian system. I typically have a bone (or several) to pick with Canadian law, but this is one instance where I think they've got it fairly close to right (with the exception of section 159 of the Criminal Code).

What does section 159 say?

CorvusCamenarum

Nov 26, 2008, 04:03 PM

Rather ironic that this woman is being treated infinitely more harshly for being his girlfriend than if she had instead been his teacher.

Huh. Alabama and Arkansas doesn't seem to have a marriage clause that I can decipher, but I'm certainly no aficionado of American law.
While I can't speak for Arkansas, 16 is the default age of consent here. It used to be law that with both parents showing up when applying for the license and giving written consent, you can marry at 14 (obviously a throwback to ye olden times when getting married young wasn't uncommon), but I think they've since upped the minimum age of marriage to 16 as well.

abijnk

Nov 26, 2008, 04:16 PM

Sex offender registry laws do need a major overhaul.

That said, when I was growing up (from 7- 18) my mom found out that a guy who lived on the adjacent property had raped his 10 year old step daughter. I was then promptly banned from the back of our property (we lived on 5 acres). During the time we lived there the guy molested another young neighborhood girl. I had never been so thankful for the sex offender registry. It's this experience that tells me it doesn't need done away with, but rather overhauled.

Iscariot

Nov 26, 2008, 04:20 PM

What does section 159 say?

It sets the age for consensual anal sex at 18.

CalBoy

Nov 26, 2008, 04:24 PM

It sets the age for consensual anal sex at 18.

Really? Canada? I'm disappointed.

Macky-Mac

Nov 26, 2008, 05:50 PM

...
So there's no provision for underage teenagers? What if one is born in July and the other December? Can they not have sex until the younger one turns 18? That seems ludicrous. I honestly hope no one is convicted if they have sex with their girlfriend/boyfriend who is only some months younger than them.

from what I remember, you've misunderstood! The california law doesn't prevent teenagers from having sex with each other, it's written to prevent adults from having sex with minors......my understanding is that a couple of 17 year olds can have at it all they want as far as the law about the age of consent is concerned because neither of them are adults and so the law doesn't cover them

CalBoy

Nov 26, 2008, 05:51 PM

You've misunderstood! The california law doesn't prevent teenagers from having sex with each other, it's written to prevent adults from having sex with minors......a couple of 17 year olds can have at it all they want as far as the law about the age of consent is concerned

So then the 17 year old with the 18 year old boyfriend is still in trouble then?

Macky-Mac

Nov 26, 2008, 06:04 PM

So then the 17 year old with the 18 year old boyfriend is still in trouble then?

opps, you responded while I was editing!

yes, potentially, since the 18 year old is classified as an adult, he could be charged with a misdemeanor as I understand it

shu82

Nov 26, 2008, 11:19 PM

That is so ridiculous! I thought sodomy laws were abolished by the Supreme Court! She should be able to argue on those grounds too.

Lee, my state just made interracial marriage legal 4 years ago (they haven't enforced it in years). There is still a long way to go. Our age of consent is still 16. We had a youth pastor go nuts with some "confused" highschool boys around here. They were all 16 or older so nothing came of that, but he ran out of town anyway. So wrong is wrong, but the law is kinda relative. Tons of gray to deal with.

ZiggyPastorius

Nov 27, 2008, 04:05 PM

Really? We are just now coming the realisation that these laws need to be revised/eliminated? I've been ranting to people for years about the ridiciulousness of these laws. Why is it that a 16 year old getting blown by a 15 year old gets the same punishment as a man who kidnaps and mollests small children? Whatever.

Sodomy is "sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation."

It's unfortunate that they're bundled together, as one is fun and the other isn't. (I'll give you a hint, the not-fun one is last :p)

CalBoy

Nov 27, 2008, 05:42 PM

(I'll give you a hint, the not-fun one is last :p)

I think that can depend on who you're talking to. ;)

Different strokes for different folks as the saying goes (oh man, too many puns possible with that :p).

Iscariot

Nov 27, 2008, 09:48 PM

Really? Canada? I'm disappointed.

You might be surprised just how full of holes Canadian law can be. I'm pleasantly surprised our age of consent laws are as good as they are, actually.

mactastic

Nov 30, 2008, 03:28 PM

Rather ironic that this woman is being treated infinitely more harshly for being his girlfriend than if she had instead been his teacher.
Which of those teachers got off without having to register as a sex offender?

You might be surprised just how full of holes Canadian law can be.
Perhaps, as a Canadian, you could enlighten us as to which of those holes are legal, and which are illegal, for purposes of intercourse?

MacNut

Nov 30, 2008, 04:20 PM

In CT I think there is a 2 year over lap, so say 16-18, 17-19.

The one thing about the law that I don't understand is that say you are 25 and she is 17 you can't touch her, but wait a month for her to turn 18 and it if fine. Has a person grown up that much in a month to make a difference?

How do you determine when a person is grown up, I don't think you can use age alone.

CorvusCamenarum

Dec 1, 2008, 01:12 AM

Which of those teachers got off without having to register as a sex offender?

Do you remember Debra "Too Pretty for Jail" Lafave?
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/22/Tampabay/No_jail_time_for_Lafa.shtml

Here's a more recent one from California:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27703101/

I love this one - 3 years of probation and a paltry fine:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52044

I actually remember hearing about this one on the news here, St. Clair is only 2 counties over:
http://legacy.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/051206/sex.shtml