They go way overboard with this. There is a difference between a person who knows right and wrong and can give consent versus someone who can't. A fifteen year old knows right from wrong and he didn't force her. Hell! In some countries they might have to marry each other.

I came back to the states from Germany when I was 22.I started working days as an assistant manager with a highschool friend who was the manager.

A girl working as the hostess during the day struck up a conversation with me. This girl was 5'8", pretty face and a playboy body. It was cold and she asked if I could give her a ride home at the end of the shift. When I dropped her off she looked disappointed and said "Your dropping me off?" I was thinking about getting back to the local college and getting my chemistry done as it was kicking my butt and I didn't want to fail. I meekly said yea to her question about dropping her off. I assumed since she was working during the day she was around 19 and was going to college like I was and she looked like she was about 19. As I drove away it started to sink in that maybe she wanted to go park or go somewhere and get intimate. I chalked it up to my hopeful imagination and went to work on my chemistry homework. Two weeks later I found out that she had a party and her parents came home and she was in the middle of being intimate with one of the other 21 year old assistant managers "Bobby." Turns out the girl was 15 and her parents pressed charges against him. I found out later this girl was quite promiscuous and had had sex with several different guys. I thank god for my chemistry class or I might have been "Bobby."

I know of a man who, when 18, had a nude picture of a 16 year old. He was arrested, then released. 5 years later, a week before the statute of limitations was up, they charged him (minor pornography with intent to distribute). It took a year for him to appear in court.

In waiting 5 years to charge him, and with it taking 1 year to appear, he was a 24 year old man when he stood before a judge accused of a "crime" against a 16 year old.

I keep waiting for some court to declare this cruel and unusual punishment. Lord knows they're quick enough about it when some gangbanger in Supermax isn't getting HBO in his cell.

Absolutely insane. He moves 74 feet away (where do they measure? from the property line?) and suddenly he's a legally safe sex offender.

It seems like almost every day I'm reading about another injustice brought on by the sex registry laws. I don't think I can take another of these stories unless I find out what I can do about it. As it is now, I'm much more worried that one of my kids will end up on the list as a teenager than I am of them ever getting molested.

This whole "sex offender registry" thing has to go.

Put the repeat offenders in jail for life without parole, and anyone that isn't actually guilty of child molestation or forcible rape can get on with their lives instead of living in fear that they might cross some magic invisible line that makes them a criminal all over again.

This whole thing came about because of high recividity among child predators, and because they had to make it broad enough to pass Constitutional muster, we get this situation.

It would have been simpler to just set a mandatory minimum Life without parole for child molestation (which is separate from "statutory rape" which also needs to be revisited).

Good lord, and to think that our taxes pay for this.

"As it is now, I'm much more worried that one of my kids will end up on the list as a teenager than I am of them ever getting molested."

We have a winner! This thread can go on for another 200 commnents, but Karen has already won the award for the most insightful.

Thank you Karen!

Geez, thanks Jim. I wish I could get more parents to understand.

This whole "sex offender registry" thing has to go.

Problem is, any politician who suggests backing down from this nonsense will be branded "soft on crime." You don't get elected making things easier for criminals -- or "criminals."

Problem is, any politician who suggests backing down from this nonsense will be branded "soft on crime." You don't get elected making things easier for criminals -- or "criminals."

In order to elicit change, we need to change the pay structure of the Congress, so that the motivation isn't entrenchment. Perhaps pay them a very large salary the first term, and a reduced salary with reduced benefits each term after. What good are they if they aren't executing the will of the people?

-Julie

As long as it concerns "public safety" and we need to "protect the children" (both convenient excuses to further erode life, liberty and TPOH), then just about any behavior can be classified as threatening or criminal.

This Megan´s Law hysteria fueled incarceration and accusation of any and everybody. Imagine the court costs and jail costs of this nonsense. And its totally a danger for your teenage/20 something sons, scarier than knocking up their girlfriends even because once you get on that list you have an ugly criminal record, your new neighborhood is notified, its awful. And consider how easy it is for enemies to get horrible revenge on families, like in the Spanish Inquisition, by ¨catching¨some kid with his underage GF. How can this be changed towards a more reasonable approach?

Texas put an end to this madness several years ago.

It is still a crime to have consensual sex with a minor. But it is an affirmative, statutory defense if one of the parties to the sex act is no more than three years older than the other party to the sex act.

Pass this law in other states and problem solved.

The problem goes beyond entrenched politicians. They ARE enacting the will of the people -- the people who are desperately try to protect their kids from every possible danger, both real and imagined.

They go way overboard with this. There is a difference between a person who knows right and wrong and can give consent versus someone who can't.

I agree, but:

A fifteen year old knows right from wrong and he didn't force her. Hell! In some countries they might have to marry each other.

If a fifteen year old were wise enough to decide for herself, she would decide not to have sex. (Many fifteen year olds are, in fact, this wise.) Even with "protection" she could still become pregnant and then be abandoned by her (in this case disreputable) boyfriend. The negative consequences of that (for her, for her child, and for society) are much greater than the negative consequences of waiting until she's able to support herself economically, or until her partner is able (and legally bound) to support her and her child.

Teenagers frequently don't think that far ahead, and that's why we have age of consent laws. When they get married and move out on their own, the economic and social consequences of an unplanned pregnancy are much less, and that's why it's OK to have sex with your underage spouse.

All of this isn't to say that treating teens who have sex with other teens as if they were pedophiles is a good idea.

"If a fifteen year old were wise enough to decide for herself, she would decide not to have sex."

Pseudonym, I agree with your points about unintended pregnancies. However, there ARE 15-year-olds who are smart enough to use protection and/or get an abortion if an accident happens. I'm not saying it's a great situation for a person that age to be in, but seriously, how often to unintended pregnancies actually happen if birth control is consistently used? I started having sex at age 17, and guess what - I've never gotten pregnant. A smart teenager will even be using back-up methods. Many of them are freaking smarter than the grown women Amy mentions above.

So my point is that while age may generally be a good guideline for responsible pregnancy prevention, it isn't always, and it's certainly no reason to list the boyfriend as a sex offender.

"The problem goes beyond entrenched politicians. They ARE enacting the will of the people -- the people who are desperately try to protect their kids from every possible danger, both real and imagined. "

Close runner up is Monica! Silver Medal!

The problem is our ignorant and vicious fellow citizens. This is why individual rights should never be up to a popular vote. The mob will lynch and innocent man (or even a woman if they are in a real foul mood) every time.

but seriously, how often to unintended pregnancies actually happen if birth control is consistently used?

In our circle of friends we have had a condom pregnancy, a NuvaRing pregnancy and a pill pregnancy in the last few years. The effectiveness rate of the pill and condoms drops dramatically when they're used incorrectly, which is surprisingly easy to do. (I was surprised, anyway; I grew up hearing that the pill always worked, but if you so much as vary the time of day you take it, it doesn't.)

We've all agreed that making someone sleep under bridges for the rest of his life for going down on his 17 year old GF when he was 18 is unjust and ridiculous.

The real sex offenders still fall thru the cracks and the worst ones really are monsters. I hope they are few in number, but who really knows.

But how do you separate a 50-year-old who rapes an 8-year-old, from a 20-year-old who pinches a 15-year-old on her behind? Do we need essentially different laws for different shades of misconduct, and a different set of laws for each age group, and something to take into account big age gaps? That seems highly impractical.

It's a silly assumption that any female under the age of 18 cannot consent. We expect women and girls to "just say no", but that is meaningless unless they have the power to also say yes, or even initiate sex. And teaching them to say no is also meaningless unless they have the power of enforcement.

Pseudonym, I agree. I've never trusted the pill for that reason. Sure it's theoretically effective, but since I (and by extension my gfs, poor things) have an irregular life due to work, wildly varying meal times and sleep patterns etc, the risk is way too high. A friend used to argue with me that the pill was just as good as condoms, he's since dropped that line after an accidental pregnancy. But I've had condoms break on me too, I've just been lucky.

Both is best of course and increases the reliability. But teenagers having sex are definitely taking a risk, birth control or not. I took that risk (so I'm not being judgemental) and got away with it but not everyone will.

Okay sure, some 15 year olds are mature enough to know what they're doing and consent to sex. And I'm sure some 15 year olds are also mature enough to drive, drink, vote, and purchase firearms. But because it's pretty much impossible to evaluate each individual on a case-by-case basis, society has to set an age limit for these activities, including an age of consent. And people's brains aren't fully developed at age 15, so even a 15 year old who *knows what she's doing* probably doesn't really know what she's doing, especially in the power imbalance of sex with an adult.

Given the only 'education' schools give on sex is abstinence and occasionally diesease and the fact that most parents arent much better how in the hell are most teenagers to even know about age of consent laws?

I'm guessing there aren't a whole lot of IUD pregnancies in your circle.

Nope, none. For those who can tolerate them (and aren't squeamish about the extremely unlikely high severity complications), they seem to be the holy grail of pregnancy protection. I don't know why they're not more popular.

Okay sure, some 15 year olds are mature enough to know what they're doing and consent to sex.

Yeah, the married ones. Though I do concede that my economic argument only applies to women who are fertile.

Our legislators merely codified the zero tolerance nonsense the schools peddle as well.

Myself, I'd rather have elected judges and school officials who earn their big salaries for exercising good judgement, but I seem to be a minority.

Welcome to equality, citizens.

Most people are not mature about sex and its consequences, whatever the age. And there's some evidence that brain development isn't complete until 25, so the age of 16/17 as the age of consent is way too low if our goal is to protect people from their own immature wiring. In that case, we need to increase the age of drinking, voting, enlistment and consent to 25.

IUDs got a bad rep in the 70s when one particular brand had a lot of problems. I still hear some people claim that IUDs will make you infertile permanently.

Granted, catching the true pedophiles ought to have first call on law enforcement resources, but it seems to me that PSAs advertising the law on sex with underaged kids would be very effective.

I absolutely CANNOT blame the parent for protecting her daughter, whether her daughter was a willing participant or not. Good on that mother!

If these 2 teens refuse to obey a parent, especially in the matter of such a life-changing activity, then bringing the law into it is absolutely appropriate.

If these 2 teens refuse to obey a parent, especially in the matter of such a life-changing activity, then bringing the law into it is absolutely appropriate.

The problem with this "solution" is that the law is applied like an atomic weapon where a fly swatter is needed.

You end up destroying lives before they have a chance to begin in earnest by doing this. The 18 year old boy that this is done to really has no options left for his life but suicide.

I absolutely CANNOT blame the parent for protecting her daughter, whether her daughter was a willing participant or not. Good on that mother!

What, exactly, is the mother protecting her daughter from? This man/boy was a not a predator. He was having sex with someone he probably had lunch with every day after math class. All this mother has accomplished is ensure that when her daughter has sex in the future, she will be sneakier about it. Or maybe she turned something natural into something her daughter needs to feel like a victim about. And she ruined the life of an innocent teen. Good job there.

And if parents are going to start involving law enforcement over matters of parenting, be ready for the state to raise your children, because there's no end to this. Junior wants to be a mechanic when he gets out of school? But he should be a doctor! Somebody, call 911!

I'm disappointed that so many of the comments have turned to whether or not a 15 year old should be having sex. I'm fine with age of consent laws. Perhaps a 17 year old who has sex with a 15 year old should spend a few days in jail. But I see no justification for labeling him a violent sexual predator for the rest of his life. Hell, the fact that this guy was a thief makes him more of a threat to the public than his former sexual relationship. I'd rather not have a thief living next door to me. But nobody is going to put him on a registry and destroy his life over stealing video games. That type of crime is allowed to be looked past, but not the one where nobody was hurt. The whole thing is just sickeningly insane.

If these 2 teens refuse to obey a parent, especially in the matter of such a life-changing activity, then bringing the law into it is absolutely appropriate.

Yeah, funny that, 2 teens refuse to obey, 1 is punished...... for life. That's really the way to handle this.

KarenW,

Agreed. The overreaction to sex in this country is ludicrous (and I'm not talking the rapper/actor). There are waaaaay too many people in this country that really need to get laid.

The 40-ish brother of a friend of mine was outside a store when two teenage girls approached him and asked him to buy them liquor. He rejected them with something along the lines of "blow me."

Hell hath no fury like a (young) woman scorned.
For that comment, he was arrested and convicted of the "sexual" offense of "child annoyance." He went to jail for 6 months, and is now a registered "sex" offender.

Oh, by the way, while in jail, his fellow inmates, having been informed by a jailer that he was a sex offender, took turns beating him nearly to death, literally breaking up his face (jaw, nose, eye sockets, etc.)

Thank goodness our chivalrous society has a way of protecting those fine young women ... .

If these 2 teens refuse to obey a parent, especially in the matter of such a life-changing activity, then bringing the law into it is absolutely appropriate.

Posted by: ShyAsrai

So you think that because a boy wouldnt listen to his girlfreinds mother that for 30yrs he cannnot live withi 300yards of any public school, any public park, any privte daycare or pre school.

You belive its approprite to kept on a list where they put a current photo of you next to the words "rape of a minor" while with holding the fact that he was less than 2 yrs older then the "victim" at the time?

Tell me the truth ShyAsrai, if you see the picute of a 40yr old man next to those words are you going to bother to research the crime and find out he wasnt 40yrs old when he commited the "crime"

Or are you going to do wht the mysterious unknown caller did? Call the cops and claim theres a child preadator living next door?

People like you murdered Abigail Rae

"The 40-ish brother of a friend of mine was outside a store when two teenage girls approached him and asked him to buy them liquor. He rejected them with something along the lines of "blow me.""

Sorry, but this guy doesn't sound like a good candidate for much sympathy. "Something along the lines of 'blow me'" was probably more like "sure, if you'll blow me." Best case scenario is that he stupidly said it to get a cheap thrill for himself; when you're being solicited for criminal activity, is it really wise to respond with suggestions of even more serious crimes? (And yes, a 40 year old getting teenage girls to perform sexual favors for him in exchange for alcohol is pretty bad.)

That said, registry laws are a disaster, and criminalizing consensual conduct between people of reasonable sexual maturity is ridiculous. Just like so many of the rest of our laws, we are hurting ourselves and society at large when we make people into criminals even when they haven't hurt anyone.

"Sorry, but this guy doesn't sound like a good candidate for much sympathy. Something along the lines of 'blow me' was probably more like ;sure, if you'll blow me.'"

Gotta disagree on this one, CB. The phrase "blow me" is a very common general purpose brush-off phrase among the younger set, like "bite me".

"Gotta disagree on this one, CB. The phrase "blow me" is a very common general purpose brush-off phrase among the younger set, like "bite me"."

Yes, both of those phrases are indeed relatively common among the younger set, at least the trashier/less articulate members of it. The individual in question, however, was described as "40-ish." Even if all he'd said was "blow me" (which is unlikely, considering that even his champion described the response as "something along the lines of..."), that still comes across as "I refuse to consider your request without your performing sexual favors." When one 21 year old guy asks his frat brother for test answers and hears "blow me," that's a dismissal. When a teenage girl asks a 45 year old guy to buy her alcohol and hears "blow me," that's a counteroffer.