Dumb And Dahmer
We have too many dumb laws, and too many pandering dummies making them without a thought as to how they might play out (just as long as they're sparkly on the surface to the voters!).
In that vein, meet your sex offender neighbor, writes Stephen Benedict Mason at Psychology Today. It's a letter from a woman who wrote him:
My husband is on the sex offender registry in Illinois, for 15 years for having a consensual relationship with me, his wife, when I was 16. He is lumped in with pedophiles, rapists and the worst kind of perverts.We have three children and my husband cant keep a job (he has a P.H.D), he cant pick up our kids from school, we've been thrown out of our home twice because we live by a school and police monitor our home.
Why in Gods name isn't any common sense prevailing around this issue and when do we start letting people off the registry who are not a public threat? This is destroying our family, our children's well-being and my father in law (a decorated war veteran) has depleted his pension supporting us.
We have testified before Illinois congress, had several favorable articles on us from the Chicago Tribune, yet they wont let my husband - Mark - off the registry. He only has a misdemeanor for being with me, his devoted wife of 5 years now. We were married by the same judge,(Thomas E. Nowinski,) who gave Mark the misdemeanor.
Please, please someone help us. Neighbors stare at our home; people think a rapist lives in the home. Mark's oldest son (from a previous marriage) was assaulted in Hyde Park, defending Mark from fellow classmates calling Mark a rapist!! This is ruining my children's welfare and I, the "victim" am begging some one to take his name off the sex offender registry!!
To verify what I've said, look Mark Perk up on Google...we live in Crestwood IL, zip code 60445. Please, someone help my family from this horror. We have been pulled over by police and Mark detained (while our children scream in the car) so many times I can't count.
This is profoundly unfair. We need your help immediately, please help us!!!!! This law (Megan's laws) was designed to protect children, not ransack and destroy families and put a Scarlet Letter around someone's neck who does not deserve to be labeled as a sex offender. Someone please, please help us. The ACLU completely ignores cases like this. You are our last hope!!!!
I've long been a critic of the failure to distinguish between someone having consensual sex at 18 with a 16 year old and someone raping a toddler.
Laws like this have clear victims and clear beneficiaries. The victims are people like this that do not belong on the registry and are wrongly tormented and victimized. The beneficiaries are the ones who do belong on the registry, and since they are lumped in with people like Mr. Perk, the seriousness of what they did gets lost in the mix. Clearly, neither scenario is good for society.
Trust at June 16, 2010 4:38 AM
(polite golf applause) Another well played headline.
BlogDog at June 16, 2010 5:19 AM
While I am staunchly against misuse of the sex-offender database to ruin the lives of people who shouldn't be on it...if my Google searches are on target, the Perks started their relationship when she was 15 and he was 35. And her (married) guitar teacher. I think the registry should be removed for genuine child molesters and rapists et al. But I don't think this is a case of two kids giving into their hormones and one getting screwed because he's six months older and has a Y chromosome, either. Most 35-year-olds who have sex with 15-year-olds do face societal consequences.
Again, should he be on the sex offender registry? NO. But would I want him teaching my 15-year-old daughter guitar (or anything else)? NO.
(One link I found): http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c7_1245056884
marion at June 16, 2010 5:40 AM
When people lobby to have everything they dislike made illegal, it's inevitable that things like this will happen. I'm sorry for LW, but I doubt any politician is going to take this up, for fear of being labeled soft on crime.
This is the society we've allowed to happen, sorry. You'd have been OK in my day, but we decided freedom was too much to handle and let our legislatures take it from us.
MarkD at June 16, 2010 5:50 AM
A sex offender should be someone who assaulted someone against their will, or took advantage of someone who doesn't know right from wrong, or who physically intimidates someone into doing something they don't want to do.
This 15 year old knows right from wrong. if she would have had sex with a fifteen year old boy this wouldn't even be an issue.
The guy used extremely bad judgement that doesn't mean he is a sex offender.
David M. at June 16, 2010 7:23 AM
I'm shocked that someone in this crowd hasn't already pointed out that perhaps, knowing he was on the registry and unable to hold a job, they shouldn't have had THREE kids they clearly can't afford. Good judgment clearly isn't this guy's forte.
elementary at June 16, 2010 7:38 AM
David M:
The idea is that a 15 year old isn't as mentally developed as a 35 year old. A 15 year old knows right from wrong to a point but I remember being 15. I was insecure. Nervous. Liked external validation. If I thought a guy was really attractive and he was much, much older and used that against me I would say that's unethical.
It's not the same all rape. Or an adult hurting a young child. It's manipulation and coercing someone to do something that they probably aren't ready for. Most 35 years olds who go after a 15 year old just want a piece of young ass. Intention is a huge part of the law and we need to use it here.
No the laws are not reasonable. But 15 and 35? The guy is probably a little bit off and I wouldn't put him near my 15 year old.
Gretchen at June 16, 2010 7:48 AM
I'm shocked that someone in this crowd hasn't already pointed out that perhaps, knowing he was on the registry and unable to hold a job, they shouldn't have had THREE kids they clearly can't afford.
That's only because I just got here! MUST stupid people ALWAYS breed?
And a 35-year-old man with a 15-year-old girl? Ick, ick, ick. What a fucking loser. Does he belong on a registry? No, but why didn't her dad kick this guy's ass? Where were the people who were supposed to be looking out for her?
Anyway, she's being deceptive when she says he's on the registry " ...for having a consensual relationship with me, his wife, when I was 16." In Illinois, if it's anything like it's next-door neighbor Iowa, the age of consent is 16. So if this clueless douchebag had just waited until she was 16 (not 15) to have sex with her, he would not have been breaking the law. As it is, I'm surprised the creep waited until she reached puberty. I would have a lot more sympathy for the guy if he'd been 18 at the time and not old enough to be her father.
Pirate Jo at June 16, 2010 8:04 AM
35 yo guy 15 yo girl huh? So if this asshole dose not belong on the registry who should be there. 35 yo guy 12 yo girl, 10? No I'd say this asshole is just where he should be. If he were a teen and not in a position of authority I'd feel different.
vlad at June 16, 2010 8:19 AM
He is a sex offender. Period. End of story. A 35 year old man who preys on even a willing 15 or 16 year old is preditory. I want this guy on the registry so I don't end up sending my daughter to take guitar lessons with him and end up with him looking at my daughter as his next potential wife.
David Knights at June 16, 2010 8:20 AM
No kidding, vlad. Horny 15-year-olds should have sex with other 15-year-olds, if they're going to have sex at all.
No, a 35-year-old man getting nookie from someone that young IS a predator. What do you think he is looking for? Mature conversation? No, he is interested in her barely-mature body, her lack of experience, her low self-esteem, and her insecurities. It's such a huge imbalance, there is no other reason for his interest - just that he wants to exploit someone who is too young to know any better. He's probably struck out with women his own age and hooking up with a child is the best he can do.
And what's with this? We have been pulled over by police and Mark detained (while our children scream in the car) so many times I can't count. Um, do your children also scream their fool heads off when you get a speeding ticket? Or did the cops pull out their billy clubs and beat the guy up? Fishy.
I'll go as far as to say I don't think these people should be harassed, but on my list of people to feel sorry for, they are at the bottom of the list. I reserve my sympathy for people whose problems are not so self-inflicted.
Pirate Jo at June 16, 2010 8:34 AM
If Mr. Perk had not been placed on this registry and socially ostracized, what are the odds he'd have dumped Mrs. Perk when she was no longer a teenager and taken up with his next 15-year-old guitar student?
What are the odds that if Mrs. Perk hadn't been fifteen when they hooked up, she'd have developed the mental and emotional maturity to have moved on to someone else?
Maybe he does belong on this list.
That said, the registry needs a tier system to better distinguish between people who simply made a bad decision, but bear watching anyway, and people who need serious supervision.
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2010 8:40 AM
I don't know how all this sex offender stuff works, but wouldn't someone have had to press some kind of charges or something against him, to get him in court on this issue to give him the misdemeanor?
Her parent(s) maybe? This seems like it's a bit more complicated and proabably a lot more screwed up than she lets on in her letter.
Angie at June 16, 2010 8:42 AM
Now I can see some point of pity if and only if he had no idea she was 15, which as a teacher is basically impossible. I was at my nephews graduation from middle school last night. There were a few girls there that had I seen at any other event I might have guessed them to be 17-18 or older. When a guy ends up here after having sex with a girl he met at a bar who had a fake ID then yes he is actually blameless and should not be on the registry. There should be some level of common sense about sentencing and required registration but in his case, nope guilty as hell.
vlad at June 16, 2010 8:43 AM
A sex offender should be someone who assaulted someone against their will, or took advantage of someone who doesn't know right from wrong, or who physically intimidates someone into doing something they don't want to do.
This 15 year old knows right from wrong. if she would have had sex with a fifteen year old boy this wouldn't even be an issue.
The guy used extremely bad judgement that doesn't mean he is a sex offender.
Posted by: David M
Just to point out, a 15yr old boy having sex with a 15yr old girl will wind up on the registry as well.
Hell there was a case a few yrs ago in utah, a toddler was molested by his female teenage babysitter. DA charged the child with sexualy assulting the babysitter
lujlp at June 16, 2010 8:51 AM
Just to add to the guilty as fuck factor.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/photogallery/caught-in-costume.html?curPhoto=18
No you can't really b e more guilty than this. And his wife is a ... Having trouble calling and abuse victim a fucking idiot.
vlad at June 16, 2010 8:55 AM
Actually, (just to nitpick) I read the articles and the girl was "just shy" of her fifteenth birthday, in other words she was fourteen.
I remember my fourteenth summer quite well, as it included my first kiss and several other firsts. Among them was having a man in his forties ask me specifically to be his mistress. (That was how he put it.)
It kills me that I actually had to think about it and worry about making him feel bad before one of my functioning brain cells kicked in and I said no!
I do feel sorry for this girl, but damn! She's only around twenty-seven now. She's dealing with all this crap, plus three kids and a middle-aged husband, because (as one article says), she basically came on to him. God forbid he have the moral fiber to fend off her advances.
Sigh....the sex offender laws are ridiculous, but this just wasn't the best example to showcase.
Pricklypear at June 16, 2010 9:11 AM
Or maybe I'm just misjudging her based on all those damned exclamation points. I really hate that.
Pricklypear at June 16, 2010 9:13 AM
sad to say, this case is way too far in the grey area to be a good one for dissmiss for innocence... The guy isn't innocent. Regardless of consensual, this was statutory. He SHOULD be on the offender list, because he did offend.
That being said, how this effects his family now, is incredibly sad. Assuming for the sake of argument that he would never do such things again, this is really wrecking his family... The question is, is this guy just stupid, or not?
There ARE ways to fix this. There are jobs that could be done, places that could be lived. Right there is certainly not one of them. They will have to move to a place where the neighbors are far away, like the country, and live with the rest, especially that he just isn't going to be avble to pick up the kids and such. But this guy, will have to take the bull by the horns. It isn't a question of what his wife was thinking at the time, and it is not her problem to fix. He has to deal with the consequence and make it right. Right now, the guy sounds like a real flake.
SwissArmyD at June 16, 2010 10:12 AM
> He is a sex offender. Period. End of story.
Too curt. Did you ever get a parking ticket?
I don't want you driving in California! You park badly! If you come to California, you might park badly in front of MY house! I want your name ON THE REGISTRY!
You're a MALFEASANT PARKER!
When you come to California, you have to take taxis. No rental car for you.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 10:16 AM
To hell with sex offender registries ... I want a public list of known bike thieves!
Pirate Jo at June 16, 2010 10:20 AM
Too curt. Did you ever get a parking ticket?
Um really? You actually want to compare my blocking you drive way to 35 yo teachers boneing 15 yo students? Crid I know you like to be colorful when making a point but that's a bit of a stretch even for your normally terse musings.
vlad at June 16, 2010 10:28 AM
sorry, this guy is exactly what the sex offender list is for. He knows absolutely no boundaries and the young lady is an idiot if she doesn't know he has or will cross those boundaries again.
ron at June 16, 2010 10:53 AM
I notice that you couldn't help making it plural, "students", as opposed to singular, "student". (I also noticed that you misspelled "boning", but we'll let that go for now. Also—
> Um really?
If you MUST begin a comment with sarcasm, try to reach for a deeper pitch than that of 7th grader.
I thought DK's comment was just intolerably snippy and arm-crossed and brainless. "End of story!" Wanna know something about love? It doesn't always go the way other people want it to.
This guy may be no prince, and I'm not sure his bride is a princess. I'm certain, CERTAIN, there's ugly stuff about these people that we don't know.
But love laughs at locksmiths, and (apparently) there's zero evidence that this man went after any other young women... DK's darling teenage daughter is no more at risk from this guy than from any other 35 year old. A few years ago, my nieces reported several pregnancies in their good-neighborhood high school classes. It's not like 15-year-old girls aren't old enough to make mistakes.
When Janet Reno set Waco on fire, the abuse of children was her excuse. The clipped mentality evidenced in comments like DK's is how she got away with it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 10:53 AM
sorry, this guy is exactly what the sex offender list is for. He knows absolutely no boundaries and the young lady is an idiot if she doesn't know he has or will cross those boundaries again.
ron at June 16, 2010 10:53 AM
Is this an "icky" case? Definately. Does keeping this guy on the offender list serve the oft vaunted greater good? Not in my view. The law is a blunt instrument. Heaven forfend society uses good ol shaming and exclusion without relying on the cops and the so called law.
If frigging Entertainment Tonight can pay oodles of cash to film the wedding of Mary K. Leternou and her former 12 year old (then 20 something) lover, why is this guy still a sex offender? Hell, is Leternou still on an offender list?
Sio at June 16, 2010 10:53 AM
> The law is a blunt instrument.
Yes... That's why I think the "Period. End of Story" stuff is over the top.
> Heaven forfend society uses good ol shaming and
> exclusion without relying on the cops and the
> so called law.
I'm pretty sure we agree.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 11:07 AM
Wanna know something about love? It doesn't always go the way other people want it to.
What does this have to do with a grown man having sex with a 15 year old girl? Yes, girl. I don't care if she looks like a woman. She lacks the experience and maturity to relate in a sexually intimate way with a 35 year old man.
From the tone of her letter, I get the impression that she is still far from being a mature woman, whatever her age now. I may be wrong, but I think that she was a victim of some kind of abuse long before he entered the picture.
Having three children was perhaps the most tragic choice in a series of bad judgment calls. I also wonder why the father in law is enabling these two.
Marina at June 16, 2010 11:21 AM
"This law (Megan's laws) was designed to protect children, not ransack and destroy families and put a Scarlet Letter around someone's neck"
I have to disagree, I believe many of the laws that feminists try to push through are exactly designed to destroy families and put a Scarlett letter around Mens necks. They then give a highly edited and perfumed up description of what the law will do to the press.
Joe at June 16, 2010 11:24 AM
Here it is, nutshell-style
> with a 15 year old girl? Yes, girl
... but then...
> From the tone of her letter, I get the impression that
> she is still far from being a mature woman, whatever
> her age now
Everybuddy got that? That's the degree to which Marina wants her imperious, arms-crossed, chin-to-the-heavens judgment to apply. Is this about age, or something else?
The woman's in her twenties now, a mother (of more than one?), apparently with no regrets about her choices or her partner. But Marina is still horny to condemn, as if she were mocking Aniston for a badly-cut blouse.
Again –and apparently these things need to be said over and over– For all I know, the whole family's full of crackpots. But in a culture where so many teenage girls are impregnated, consigning mother and daughter (and often grandparents) to lives of hardship, it's inexplicable that so much self-righteous bitterness should target this particular couple, unusual and imperfect as they may be.
Some people marry early.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 11:32 AM
Unlike many of these cases, I am having some trouble finding sympathy for this man.
I have to wonder if he married her solely to give some legitimacy to his protestations that he's not a "real" sex offender.
Of course there's a world of difference between a pedophile (which, despite how the word is misused, refers only to those sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children) and a man who commits statutory rape. However, a 35-year-old teacher who begins a sexual relationship with his 14-year-old student is a predator. PERIOD. (Sorry, Crid.)
Beth at June 16, 2010 11:33 AM
Hey, Crid. According to her letter, he has been on the sex offender list for 15 years, had sex with her when she was 16, and they have been married for 5 years. Does this add up to "people marrying early"? If my math is right, he boned her when she was a teen and waited another 10 years before marrying her.
I call bullshit on this whole scenario. It just smells fishy to me.
And now that I am done typing, I can cross my arms again and lift my chin to the heavens.
Marina at June 16, 2010 11:41 AM
Marina,
The lady's grammar was not clear, but I think she meant he is going to be on the sex offender list for 15 years. At least, that is how I read it. Not sure how often people are removed from these lists but maybe for a case like this, they can be.
This case strikes me as a clear indicator of how things have changed. A 35 year old man and a 15 year old woman would not have been a match to blink at in times past. I think they guy is probably sketchy but I do not like sex offender lists to be so broadly applied.
Astra at June 16, 2010 11:54 AM
I still don't care enough to read it all. Are you saying he was on the list before he pulled it together with this girl? Beyond this woman, to whom he's apparently shown perfect fidelity, did he ever bone another much younger person?
And let's be clear, that's our only standard nowadays. You don't care about the infinitely higher number of teen girls who start families with a "father" who doesn't show 15 minutes of fidelity, let alone 15 years' worth.
> a predator. PERIOD.
Great. Good luck out there. You're twisting the language in the service of nothing but your own witless impulses, no matter how righteous you believe them to be.
Here's a "predator" who's been faithfully tending to his second wife & family for fifteen years. What words will be left for the truly monstrous and incompetent?
Enjoy this moment, and let us know how it works out for you.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 11:59 AM
I don't know how far back you mean by "in times past". The marriage may have been nothing to blink at, but I suspect that the sex would have been scandalous.
Marina at June 16, 2010 11:59 AM
I agree with Astra. It's like Paglia said (paraphrase)— 'Things that used to be the dearest expressions of love are now called rape'.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 12:02 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/16/dumb_and_dahmer_1.html#comment-1724268">comment from marionI think the registry should be removed for genuine child molesters and rapists et al. But I don't think this is a case of two kids giving into their hormones and one getting screwed because he's six months older and has a Y chromosome, either. Most 35-year-olds who have sex with 15-year-olds do face societal consequences. Again, should he be on the sex offender registry? NO. But would I want him teaching my 15-year-old daughter guitar (or anything else)? NO.
I agree with marion.
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2010 12:06 PM
Great... So as a matter of policy, this is over, right? Nothing left but the clucking of the hens...
Have at it. Go sick, knock yourselves out.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 12:11 PM
I don't know how you extrapolate the "faithfully tending to his family" part. She clearly says that he can't provide for the family and that her father in law has drained his pension to help support them.
She and her husband knew that they were in a very difficult position, yet chose to bring 3 children into the drama that is their daily life. Putting aside her role in this whole thing, does this sound like a man who cares about the needs of others?
I stand by my earlier statement. I smell fish.
Marina at June 16, 2010 12:12 PM
Well, aren't the one who'd forbid any economic participation by this "fishy" guy, and then condemn his poverty?
This is it exactly! Aniston-blouse-judgment perverted into loathsome injustice....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 12:15 PM
Yes, I judge people by their actions. It's all I have to go on. Someone who, for whatever reason, is unable to provide for children should not bring them into this world, where they will become my problem. How hard is this to understand?
And just for the record, if his previous job was teaching guitar to teenage girls, I'd wager that he was already on shaky ground, income-wise.
Call me judgmental, it doesn't change the fact that he now has children who have to deal with his bad choices.
Marina at June 16, 2010 12:21 PM
"Everybuddy got that? That's the degree to which Marina wants her imperious, arms-crossed, chin-to-the-heavens judgment to apply. Is this about age, or something else?"
Oh Cridditch stop picking on the new kid. (I don't believe I've seen Marina until now?) Maybe some of her blog items are bit self-important/self-indulgent but that's her point. My blog is the same way so I understand: it's a place to vent more than spread one's unholy word. Otherwise we'd surly be homicidal maniacs by the time we're 35.
It seems Marina was just being generally sarcastic and making a few judgmental observations. The woman types like she's still 15. And, so what? She probably listens to Justin Beiber, too. Marina doesn't say let's regulate based on that. She just thinks they all sound a tad tapped in the head. Bad decisions all around.
The point is: Just because they're married does not offset the fact Mr. 35 y/o is a creepfest. It doesn't right past wrongs. A marriage certificate is not holy water. Case in point: religious sects who marry off younger kids. People think certain conditions - like it's in the bible, or Jesus told me so, or "gee wiz, now we fuck legally" makes it all better. It does not.
The wife doesn't get this. And maybe she can't - b/c someone who carries on with a man 20 years older than she, when she's a sophomore in high school, probably has some daddy issues (or somethin'). Of course she's gonna defend this guy. She has to. Otherwise it means she bad or fucked up. It means the kids were a bad choice. People don't like to admit these things.
Gretchen at June 16, 2010 12:30 PM
Thanks, Gretchen. You summed up my main points more eloquently than I expressed them. You really get me. Or somethin'.
Marina at June 16, 2010 12:44 PM
PS: If a 35 year old man fucked my daughter, I'd want him on some kind of sex offender registry. If he made babies with her I'd wonder if he's really a safe person to have around.
I don't care if 40 year olds married their granddaughters or some sick shit back in 1305 BC. It's fucking irrelevant. They also hung black people for things without an actual, factually concluded conviction. Like a hundred years ago - but we've all moved on, you see? We all agree that 15 year olds are kids and need protection from adults (this is tricky, and we need to really look at this harder from a policy standpoint. A 12 year old and a 15 year old seems a little sick, but 15 and 18 is a little less so, right?).
This guy got to know her and preyed on her. The marriage doesn't legitimize his actions; his intent was pervy back then.
Gretchen at June 16, 2010 1:14 PM
> stop picking on the new kid
Kids who comment are no longer new. It's just a big happy family here.
> Marina doesn't say let's regulate based on that.
Yew sher?
> it doesn't change the fact that he now has children
> who have to deal with his bad choices.
It's not enough for her that the choice be obviously bad... She's going to forbid him from having it work out, with these wretched little lists and blogsnark and all the rest of it. She'll allow no law greater than her creep-itude to apply. She'll make him impoverished and then mock him for it.
I don't understand why you guys don't see this. You're doing precisely what you inaccurately accuse me of doing in the gay marriage debate. Similarly, you're so eager to rule the world with your seventh-grade psychology ("daddy issues") that you won't let a good outcome happen if you didn't expect it.
I still haven't read the details, and probably won't... But apparently, this family worked out about as well as we can hope for. You'd rather have a car crash than a near miss... 'Cause that'll teach 'em!.
Lunacy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 1:18 PM
In a day and age when 12 yr old wannder around dressed up like contestants for 'America Next Top Pornstar' a girls apperance should be admisable as a defence.
That being said a 35yr old with a 16yyr old is pushing the bounds, with a 14ryr old if that is true is pushing it. As someone else said above his being put on the list might be what ensured their relationship continued.
$20 says the girl lived with a mother who drove daddy out of her life. And real dad is supporting sex dad bcause they have kids and he'll do anything to be in her life
lujlp at June 16, 2010 1:19 PM
Well, since you haven't read the details and probably won't, don't you feel just a little silly for defending this guy?
Marina at June 16, 2010 1:21 PM
Bunny, I'm not defending him, I'm challenging you. You give creepy feelings a bad name!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 1:23 PM
folks, look at that dude's picture, he LOOKS like one sick bastard also
ron at June 16, 2010 1:23 PM
> If a 35 year old man fucked my daughter, I'd want
> him on some kind of sex offender registry.
And if you let your daughter get fucked by a 35 year old, however grandiloquent the seduction, we'd wonder what kind of mother you were. BUT THIS ISN'T THAT HOUR, is it, ladies? This is fifteen years later. And whaddya know, but it's worked out... Or at least it might, if the guy could get a job.
I wish every girl were raised to date and marry age-appropriate partners.
But when they're not, I hope it works out.
This one worked out.
Creepy! Creepy!
I remember when "that goes on your permanent record" was a joke in Hollywood teen comedies. Here we are in adult life, and people really are that vindictive and manipulative.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 1:28 PM
Crid, why are you so sure that it worked out?
Also, creepy already had a bad name before I came along. By definition.
Just so you know, I love men and they seem to love me right back. I think sex is fun between consenting people. I'm not a "womyn" who defines all sex as rape. But there are times that sex is creepy. In a bad way.
Marina at June 16, 2010 1:31 PM
> folks, look at that dude's picture, he LOOKS like
> one sick bastard also
Oh... You don't like his photo?
When they captured Kaczynski... I was dating this woman who said "You can just TELL from that face that he did it!"
And I thought "Well fuck, darlin', if you knew how to spot him all along, why didn't you say so?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 1:33 PM
Crid buddy, wish I had your free time to sit back and spit at each post you see. Obviously you have two traits that lead to your superiority over us meager pogues. One is your incredible intellect, the other is firm grasp on right and wrong. You must be one party happening dude.
ron at June 16, 2010 1:50 PM
I don't care if it "worked out". Grown ups who prey on, and play a round of genital roulette with, KIDS should be punished.
I should probably mention that it does appear to be "time served" by now. I do understand the distinction between a 15 y/o who says yes to sex and someone who says no, but has it forced upon them anyway.
Can they seal his record somehow? At this point I agree he should be allowed to continue with his life; however at the time the crime was committed he needed to be put on there.
"And if you let your daughter get fucked by a 35 year old, however grandiloquent the seduction, we'd wonder what kind of mother you were."
I'd wonder how I raised her - but who "lets" their daughter have sex? I had sex when I was 15 and I sure as shit didn't ask for permission. And if my parents found out and forbid it, I'd find a way. Kids always do. Even with CREEPS.
I like that word in all its forms. Creepshow. Creepfest. Creepster. My fiance cringes every time I say it, which is a lot. Apparently I think everything is creepy.
Gretchen at June 16, 2010 1:55 PM
Did it really?
Are they still together because he's a dedicated and loyal husband...to his second wife? Or is he still with her because, thanks to being on the list, he's got no place else to go? And is she still with him because, messed up and taken advantage of at fifteen, she has no place else to go?
Why did this guy's first marriage end? How old was his wife?
Does it really matter why they're together if they're happy?
All of which may be immaterial as the two of them help each other get through the ups and downs of life and tell themselves they love each other. Sometimes, if that's the best you can get, that's enough.
On the other hand, in the letter, she writes they've been married five years. Assuming she's illiterate and meant to write that he has been on the list for 15 years (not is on it for 15 years), that means there was a ten-year gap between the offense and their marriage (including him being married to another woman and fathering a child).
She's had enough time to get herself sorted out pyschologically. Or at least start the process.
And the judge who presided at his conviction is the one who married them. That means someone with legal authority and at least a smidgen of knowledge of the back story validated the marriage.
So, who knows, maybe it did work out. It still makes for a pretty creepy "how did you two meet?" story, though.
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2010 2:10 PM
This guy is gross and a pig. He is exactly where he belongs in life. More to the point, did you all catch that he has child by whatever unfortunate woman he was married to previously? So, he knowly committed a crime while being a source of support for at least one child. That's great. As a teacher, he had to know where there whole deal was going to end. I hope she was worth it, but I doubt it.
As for the girl, well I knew a person like this. She was seriously proud of herself for busting up her science teacher's marriage when she was 17. She may have been a great roll in the hay, but she spent the next 10 years making his life hell. He lost family, his job, and she would routinely destroy all of his stuff when he pissed her off. They were from a small town in OK, and even though he wasn't on a list EVERYONE knew all the details.
Crid, I agree with you about a lot of things, but this is why Libritarians end up losing at the polls. There are some uses of the law which are appropriate and this is one. If he had touched my dd, there wouldn't be enough left of him for the Sex Offender Registry.
sheepmommy at June 16, 2010 2:33 PM
"It still makes for a pretty creepy "how did you two meet?" story, though."
Makes for an interesting bunch of posts, at least!
I almost wish we didn't know how old the guy is. This topic would have gone in a whole different direction. Than someone could have written how old he is, and we could all gasp and go "That's completely different! Never mind..."
Anyway, as I said earlier, the sex offender laws are ridiculous, but these two aren't the most compelling example of that.
Pricklypear at June 16, 2010 2:52 PM
"Yes, I judge people by their actions."~Marina
Do you?
So, what is your judgement about years of fidelity?
"15 year olds are kids"~Gretchen
Are they? Childhood is not only an age, it is also a mindset. Certain tribes in Africa have ten year old boys killing lions even today. It wasn't unheard of for teenagers to rule kingdoms or tribes, and even your own great grand parents were probably married in their early teens.
Do you consider your great grandparents to be "creepy"?
Probably not.
The FACT we can all agree on is that the human female reaches sexual maturity early. Nature prepared the human body for the creation of children at an early age relative to our "potential" lifespan, amongst other reasons it is related to the inherent hazards of birth, which relative to many other species are fairly high. There was a film some years ago entitled "The Red Violin" I think, it traced the history of a single masterpiece of a violin back to its maker. The creator, a master of his craft in the 16th century I think, was a man in his 40s married to a girl of 17. The young lady, pregnant at the time, talks about her fear that "I am old to have a child". (If they'd made the film today, I doubt they'd have that degree of historical accuracy. The point is that this kind of thing not only has precedent, it was NORMAL not so long ago. These present restrictions and the vast extension of childhood haven't lasted even an eyeblink in history yet)
The advent of the modern day concept of "childhood" is an anomoly in history, which has no comparable period anywhere or any when. Children could and did grow up EARLY in times past. I'll concede that we're better off now, and that is fine, but to assert that children can't, don't, or won't, mature early ever, is the plainest kind of foolishness. I don't know what this woman's teen years were like. And I'm not going to call the guy a prince. But it is suggested that he remained with her for a very long period of time with absolute fidelity to this one person.
Now say what you will of her age relative to his at the time the relationship began. It is relevant to point out nonetheless that a great many lawful adult couples under no hardship at all, cheat, lie, and wreck one another, without ever violating any law. Yet this one, despite the illegality of the start of their relationship, and in spite of the myriad of hardships, cruelty, harassment, and torment heaped on them from the law, from its enforcers, from the general public, has remained faithful to one another for a significant period of time. That is no small accomplishment in the best of circumstances. We could dicker for days and gain no new knowledge of just why they worked out. That is idle speculation without concrete facts, but we do know the present end state, a functional and stable relationship.
That has to count for something.
Robert at June 16, 2010 3:02 PM
I would prefer that the sex offender registry be extremely limited, probably only to convicted pedophiles. This man was not a pedophile: the girl was sexually mature. How does it help to have sex offender registries that cover rape perps or those guilty of statutory rape? We don't have murderer registries.
Indeed, what have sex offender registries done positively at all? They create a situation where criminals who have served their time continue to be hounded, which I am sure cannot support their efforts to make good their lives. They certainly seem to be driving this insane paranoia that our nation's parents have about pedophiles lurking in every bush. I am willing to be converted here, so tell me what the goals of sex offender registries are and whether they have met those goals?
Astra at June 16, 2010 3:28 PM
Gee. If this girl hadn't known who the father was, she'd be getting tons of support as a single mother. She can divorce him with no repercussions; as soon as she walks in the door the judge will bang the gavel: Granted!
And she doesn't. But some people know better, don't they?
Trutv, huh? They oughta call it schadenfreude.com. Seriously. Somebody objected to this?
Nice job, Crid. You can tell you've won when they start attacking you rather than the idea.
And for any of you nodding at the "he looks creepy" statement, congratulations. You've just endorsed every single case of police profiling.
Radwaste at June 16, 2010 3:33 PM
No conversion attempt here, Astra. I agree with you.
Here's what the registries accomplish, as far as I can see:
They make victim's families, victim's rights advocates and politicians feel as if they are Doing Something About The Problem. So they feel better.
That's about it.
Pricklypear at June 16, 2010 3:40 PM
> You must be one party happening dude.
Chicks dig me.
> I don't care if it "worked out".
See?
> At this point I agree he should be allowed to continue
> with his life; however at the time the crime was
> committed he needed to be put on there.
So we agree...
...Except that, y'know, this might not have been predation. He apparently was in love with a very young woman, one person and no other would do, including her neighbor 15-year-olds, or your 15-year-old.... Who would not have been responsive to his appeal (we trust).
You guys are so SPOOKED about this. It's comical. It's beyond a boogieman– 'We must never in any context let on that a young woman might make the right decision about how her life should go, ever, even accidentally! It might give my daughter ideas!'
> Or is he still with her because, thanks to being
> on the list, he's got no place else to go?
Oh for fuck's sake, you think the list has THAT much power? It's a magic amulet even holds shitty marriages together? There's just NO POSSIBILITY that they saw something in each other that they wanted? Hell, then let's drop a few more borderline marriages in there and see if it can jump-start the healing.
This is—
> All of which may be immaterial as the two of them
> help each other get through the ups and downs of
> life and tell themselves they love each other.
> Sometimes, if that's the best you can get, that's
> enough
—Perhaps the most cynical passage of text I've ever seen here, and competition is fierce. A truly happy marriage, in your estimation, must be bliss indeed. I wonder how many you encounter.
> There are some uses of the law which are
> appropriate and this is one.
No tears. Go back and read the link at Marion's 540am comment, and remember, no tears. Don't come cryin' to me if happens to someone good in your life.
> the sex offender laws are ridiculous, but these
> two aren't the most compelling example
True, true.
Every few months I go to the Megan's Law website or whatever it's called... well, here:
http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
And have a look around the neighborhood. (It's clear for about a five-block radius, and thanks for asking.) There are pictures and crime records.
Unlike commenter Ron, I'd not have known that these people are "sick bastards" just from their appearance if they'd been standing in front of me at the supermarket. They're not happy people, and a lot of them seem plainly troubled, but I wouldn't have seen the evil.
And the text records that go with the faces are grotesque: Forced encounters and repeated forced etc etc and I don't even want to think about it too much. Go find a few and you'll see what I mean.
Well, call me rat bastard, but I kinda like having that website around. It's probably out of date, and something easy to evade, and probably riddled with thousands of errant entries. Yet if I had kids, I'd be checking it every Sunday morning just before coffee to see what's going on in the area.
But this guy doesn't seem to have been like that. (The ones on my side of Los Angeles don't seem like the types to have four kids, at least three of who were directly cared for, and the fourth of whom would pick a fight to defend their honor.)
Again, I don't want to ruin the logic of my argument with pesky details... You can go ahead and bring those details to the fore if they apply.
Weird unions work sometimes. Again, I don't think we should insist that this be a car crash just because it would be more persuasive than a close call.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 3:45 PM
> If this girl hadn't known who the father was, she'd be
> getting tons of support as a single mother. She can
> divorce him with no repercussions; as soon as she
> walks in the door the judge will bang the gavel: Granted!
> And she doesn't. But some people know
> better, don't they?
Exactly.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 3:49 PM
A little out of it (the discussion and consciousness itself) -- had to fly to Eugene, Oregon for an ev psych conference. Anyway, awake enough now to post this Eric Zorn blog bit:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/03/the_witchhunt_c.html
I also read the woman saying, earlier in that piece, that she came on to him.
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2010 3:54 PM
Crid, I just want to be clear:
You are fine with 35-year-old men having sex with their 14-year-old students as long as they marry those students and have families they can't afford with them. Then it's all dandy, no harm, no foul?
Is 13 cool with you, too? Twelve, as long as there's a wedding even if the pre-teen bride can't technically wear white?
That's some funky logic from you the self-proclaimed protector of all children whose lives are ruined by divorce in general and single moms in particular.
elementary at June 16, 2010 3:57 PM
> You are fine with...
Why must you translate?
Why do people do this?
How small are their minds, how dim is their eyesight? Many web browsers include a 'zoom' feature, often keyed by ctrl and +/-, to allow you to make the text as big as necessary. Amy uses an ultra-convenient BLACK and WHITE scheme, to make it easy to read. And the words just hang there, on the monitor, so you can read them over and over until you fucking well understand what was fucking well said.
But no, we get "You are fine with..."
> the self-proclaimed protector of all children
How old are you, elementary?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 4:04 PM
My daughter, now in her 40's, did not have sex when she was 15, probably because I was there all the time. It makes a difference.
However, if she had sex when she was 15, I'd much rather she have sex with a 35 year old man, though preferably unmarried, who would be able and willing to support her and the kids. Rather than another snot-nosed 15 year old kid who can't buy gum without holding his hand out, and we and the taxpayers would have had to support her and her little convicts forever, directly and in the corrections system.
We are products of our cultures. Our culture decided not that long ago, as someone has pointed out, that it is sick for girls to be with older men, EVEN IF THEY WANT TO BE. And, if they want to be, sick *'ks demand the man be destroyed. Nothing happens to her; she can do whatever she wants. He is supposed to stop the stupid, confused twit who can't possibly know her own mind.
The more sexual liberty women have, the more laws we have specifically designed to destroy the men who have consensual sex with them.
The US culture is sick; sick; sick.
The very idea that people actually call men in statutory cases, pedophiles, shows just how sick it is.
Those of you who claim you were, oh, so helpless and confused at age 15, you are not saying much for womanhood, whether you realize it or not.
One totally stupid thing that has been said here a number of times is: Girls cannot consent to sex at age 14 or 15.
B.S. They give consent all the time. AND EXACTLY NOTHING LEGAL HAPPENS TO THEM. Ergo, they can and do give consent to sex all the time.
The real truth is: MEN CANNOT ACCEPT THAT CONSENT. Nothing happens to her for giving consent which means she can give it as often as she wants. The man who accepts that consent is destroyed.
What a sick *'ing society.
I wait with bated breath for wotsername to twist this into something I didn't say.
irlandes at June 16, 2010 4:48 PM
Hey, not to miss an opportunity...
If you excuse or endorse Islam, you tacitly approve of child abuse as a basic tenet of a religion.
-----
Back closer to the topic, some are very sure that sex is such a horrible thing that not only may some people never recover from it, but they must be branded forever, either directly or by association, for having had it - unless it occurred under "approved" conditions.
Radwaste at June 16, 2010 4:57 PM
I think that someone experiencing a high degree of ostracization might cling to someone who says she loves him and is willing to stick with him.
Since he can't hold a job and needs to eat....
Even so, I didn't say there was NO POSSIBILITY they saw something in each other and aren't a loving couple. If they're happy with each other and the relationship is healthy, no matter how creepy their first relationship, good for them.
I tend toward cynicism sometimes.
I'm pretty happy with my own.
Conan the Grammarian at June 16, 2010 5:09 PM
I wonder how many of are on sex offender registries?
Dave from Hawaii at June 16, 2010 5:49 PM
Hey...my link didn't post! I meant: I wonder how many of the ladies found here...
SEXTRA CREDIT
The big list: Female teachers with students
Most comprehensive account on Internet of women predators on campus.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39783
...are on sex offender registries.
Dave from Hawaii at June 16, 2010 5:52 PM
Raddy — I'm really grateful for that comment, it's an angle that I hadn't see so clearly yet.
People are much less troubled by a teenage girl who reproduces recklessly, tragically and anonymously with someone her own age than with someone like this woman, who followed her young heart without regret. People don't want young women to use judgment... More than they dislike bad outcomes, they dislike women applying their own judgment.
Y'know, I believe in age-appropriate sex. It's the only kind I ever had, and no friends or loves have spoken well of any other kind of encounter. I'm not making a case for other arrangements.
...But then again, I don't have to make that case, any more than I need to sign off on gay sex or any other kind of pairing. People often bull-headedly do things I don't think of as being best for them.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 7:35 PM
Old enough to know that you must love to hear yourself type, Crid. and that you appear to have endless hours of time alone on your hands.
Old enough to be well beyond your schoolyard taunts.
Sure, every once in awhile some actual idea sneaks through that endless stream of yours. But mostly your posts make me think of Chomsky's "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" -- pretty words strung together correctly but still utterly without meaning.
elementary at June 16, 2010 9:03 PM
> you appear to have endless hours
I have big days here and little days here. Picking fights here and elsewhere has been a chance to write it down and get it straight. But, like, are you saying this is all personal, and you never for a minute thought anyone wanted 13-year-olds dating 40's?
I shoulda known that. I shoulda had faith.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 9:31 PM
Crid - I always welcome discussion, and I love to wrestle with contrary opinions. It makes me think, and sometimes hones my argument, sometimes changes my mind. But, seriously, I HAVE NO CLUE what you are saying half the time. Last post, another case in point.
elementary at June 16, 2010 9:35 PM
Reread. Take your time, consider what you'd said that was was being replied to, and all that. Let me know if you still need help.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2010 10:10 PM
so tell me what the goals of sex offender registries are and whether they have met those goals?
Posted by: Astra
Go back and read irlandes' post.
Registries are nothing more then a means to punish men for sex.
Did you know that in some jurisdictions lying to a woman about your job or the amount of money you make qualifies you for a rape charge?
The theory being that if the woman had known the truth about you she might not have consented to have sex.
But at the same time should a woman lie about her age the guy is still legally responisble.
lujlp at June 17, 2010 5:34 AM
One totally stupid thing that has been said here a number of times is: Girls cannot consent to sex at age 14 or 15.
B.S. They give consent all the time. AND EXACTLY NOTHING LEGAL HAPPENS TO THEM. Ergo, they can and do give consent to sex all the time.
Lets look up what the word consent means. She can ask for it, yes. However the age of consent means that she can not legally consent to X. A child is not legally responsible for their actions, not arguing if this is good or bad just that's the way it is.
Bottom line he knew she was 14 and what he was doing was illegal. Just like those female teachers who got fired and ended up on the registry. The main point of the registry is to protect children from predatory adults. The statistics bear that out as (contrary to popular paranoia) child sex abuse is at an all time low. However the number of poor dupes and unlucky drunks that end up on the registry while posing NO threat may be too high of a price to pay. That is really a personal viewpoint.
vlad at June 17, 2010 9:19 AM
Anyone else find it ammusing that depending on your jurisdiction 15, 16, & 17yr old GIRLS cant consent to having sex(even when the boy is younger than them)
But 7 8 & 9 yr old can be tried for murder and11, 12 & 13yr olds can be tried as legal adults?
lujlp at June 17, 2010 10:47 AM
Boys and girls aren't the same.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2010 11:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/06/16/dumb_and_dahmer_1.html#comment-1724495">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Can't say that or show that enough, it seems. So many people (especially women) are so determined to believe otherwise.
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2010 12:01 PM
I never thought I'd say it, but I agree with irlandes. I'd like to know how it was decided females can't consent and don't know their own minds. Sure stupid choices will be made, but that doesn't mean they were incapable of making that decision on their own. I think a lot of this has to do with a lack of personal responsibility these days. Everything is always someone else's fault!
When I was 17 my 20-year-old boyfriend was charged with statutory rape (neither my parents nor his filed a complaint so to this do not know who did). At the hearing I ended up being "rude" and interrupted things to state how ridiculous the charges were and that I completely resented the implication that I was too stupid and weak-minded to make my own decisions and think for myself! The judge apparently agreed because he dismissed the charge and only gave my boyfriend a fine for contributing to the delinquincy of a minor. I, however, was fined $500 for being in contempt of court. I felt it was a small price to pay in the end. If this were to have happened now and not 13 years ago I'm sure things would not have worked out so well!
Am I the only one that sees the contradiction in "women's liberation" and self-empowerment when in the next breath we are deemed incompetent in decision making? I feel like I go through life surrounded by morons.
BunnyGirl at June 17, 2010 12:54 PM
>>When I was 17 my 20-year-old boyfriend was charged with statutory rape
BunnyGirl.
I have to admit that gave me pause: Europeans, in the main, generally agree on 16 as the age of consent. I still have to remind myself of state by state variations here.
(wiki: "Most [European]countries have an age of consent ranging from 14 to 17, the exceptions being Vatican State (age 12); Spain (age 13); and Malta and Turkey (both age 18)".)
Jody Tresidder at June 17, 2010 1:30 PM
> the exceptions being Vatican State (age 12);
Um... How often does this come up, so to speak? And, given the headlines in recent decades from different continents, aren't there some wonderful jokes to be made?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2010 4:55 PM
My son is considered a sex offender for teenage consensual sex. He was 19 when they arrested him for having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend (this was a year into their relationship). His girlfriend's father got mad at "her" and called the cops on my son. He used to take my son camping (overnight) with his family and even got him a job with his construction company. His daughter does something that makes him angry and he takes it out on my son - how is this right? Two years later, and yes they were still together, he is forced into taking a so-called deal to stay out of prison. The laws are WRONG and they are NOT protecting anyone. People always say, "We have to protect our children." Well, it's our children who are ending up on the registry.
Tonia at June 17, 2010 6:44 PM
Our age-of-consent laws may be arbitrary, but without them, it's perfectly OK to diddle any 9-year-old who strikes your fancy. Having a set age of consent keeps us from getting into impossible situations, like trying to figure out whether this 15-year-old is mentally mature enough to consent when that one isn't. This says nothing about the mental abilities of women, since this case is about a child, not a woman. The law doesn't care whether her breasts looked fully developed under that tight-fitting shirt.
This isn't a story about a teenage boy who had sex with his teenage girlfriend and was punished unfairly. This is a story about a 35-year-old man who fucked a girl he knew was underage and suffered the consequences he knew would be there if he got caught. Boo hoo.
It should not have been that difficult for him to keep it in his pants until she was old enough, so I'll save my sympathy for guys who really do get railroaded. And for this couple's children.
MonicaP at June 18, 2010 7:05 AM
MonicaP I agree with you aboutr this particular guy, but not your assesment of the law. The laws are designed to punish male sexuailty in any way possible and to atempt to obsolve women of any responsibility
lujlp at June 18, 2010 8:42 AM
lujlp, I'd like to do away with the sex-offender registry entirely. It adds a punishment above and beyond the original sentence that we don't even apply to murderers. I do think we need age-of-consent laws, though (ones that I would like to see apply to boys equally). 15-year-old girls are not women and 15-year-old boys are not men.
MonicaP at June 18, 2010 8:46 AM
> 15-year-old girls are not women
OK by me.... Except that no one seems equipped to dispute that this 15-year-old girl WAS a woman, a person who was ready to follow through on a long-term choice. Why is everyone afraid to say that? Why is everyone afraid to say we just got lucky with *this* outcome?
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 11:53 AM
Why is everyone afraid to say we just got lucky with *this* outcome?
That's debatable. Seems that these people brought three innocent kids into the world that they can't support because both of them made foolish choices (and shafted another innocent kid from another marriage).
MonicaP at June 18, 2010 12:40 PM
Oh FER CHRISSAKE... *You're* the one keeping the boot on his throat and then telling him it's a choice. Lunacy.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 2:08 PM
Last summer, The Economist had a cover story on the gross overreach of America's sexual predator laws. I recall a case where a woman who's now in her late 20s, I think, is classified as a sexual predator because she was caught giving oral sex to a guy during a high school class at 16.
What happens during the law-making process in legislatures is that groups of the sort favoring draconian laws on such matters raise a big public stir about these things, and then legislators are frightened into going along with draconian legislation lest they be accused of protecting dangerous sorts. Voices of more moderate approaches are few or are drowned out. The proponents of these laws won't admit that the laws are too drastic. The only way to combat this sort of thing is to organize and raise public awareness. Privately, I'm sure there are many police and judges who favor making the laws more sensible, because they tie up courts, jails, and manpower so badly at the expense of more important matters.
In this day of technological wonders, purported offenders can also wear electronic bracelets that allow their geographical location to be known. Using technologies like that makes a lot more sense than the insane restrictions in place in so many states. I've heard these horror stories about convicted sex offenders in Miami forced to live under bridges because that's the only place they can live w/o being too close to a school, etc. (Shame on Florida!)
American voters can be a stupid lot. I could site examples unrelated to sexual offenses from my state that bear this out, but ya'll get the picture.
Iconoclast at June 18, 2010 7:27 PM
> legislators are frightened into going along with
> draconian legislation lest they be accused of
> protecting dangerous sorts.
WELLLLLL IMAGINE THAAAAT.....
Imagine that if you point out that things are out of control and that ninnies are turning into fascists, some dim bulb might chirp up and say something like "You are fine with 35-year-old men having sex with their 14-year-old students...."
Golly! Who knew?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 18, 2010 8:20 PM
Some months ago, at Glenn Sacks' site, there was an argument for punishing girls who commit statutory rape as harshly as boys get punished. This was, as you might guess, driven by the fact that many a boy victimized by a woman ends up having to pay to support her child. As if any judge would order a girl victim to pay child support to a man.....
Trouble is, the commenters were in quite a muddle as to how to apply the laws. It became clear they didn't really want the laws to be as harsh as they are in the first place - such as when the two parties are only weeks apart in age.
At one point, I said: "Why SHOULDN'T it automatically be statutory rape when the younger party is under 17 and there's a 4-year difference or more?" No one answered. I suspect many of them were thinking: "Fine - so long as the predator is female."
lenona at June 18, 2010 8:41 PM
Some months ago, at Glenn Sacks' site, there was an argument for punishing girls who commit statutory rape as harshly as boys get punished.
___________________________
Whoops - I should have said "women" and "men." After all, they weren't really talking about jailing 17-year-olds.
lenona at June 18, 2010 8:44 PM
I personally believe the law does have points of weakness, and this IS an example. Also, it's obvious this guy has poor judgment, but there's also someone else responsible here in the picture.
Like someone said above, the system should make a distinction between real pedophiles who forcefully abuse children, and those with a low IQ who embark on relationships with adolescents. Because they are not the same... A children will not choose to have sex because their mind is in play. Adolescents think and choose to have sex, so they're not that great of a victim as with children. The same law can't be applied n same manner.
Here we see that those children are paying the consequences of a poor system and of bad fathers. Maybe they shouldn't have had children, but the fact is they're here! They should be living a childlike life worrying about only their education and play, not suffering their parent's self-inducted misfortune.
The guy acted incorrectly/immoral or how ever you want to put it. A 15 yr old doesn't have the capacity to make the decisions of an older person because the brain, especially the areas governing judgment, are not fully developed until age 25. However, there's a reason why not every girl jumps into an older male who proposes, that is having values. What w/ this lady's mother? As the guardian of a 15 yr old, she ( or the father)was responsible for her physical and psychological well-being. She should had taught her adolescent daughter that having sex with an older male is wrong and counterproductive. Therefore, I believe, the mother should have been held responsible, legally speaking.
If they both, for different reasons, screw up their existence well... but here the concern and sorry is for the kids. Like someone suggested, maybe their best move is move really far away in hopes they can live a normal life and make the best of those kids.
Esme at June 20, 2010 8:17 AM
I was sympathetic, thinking this was a story about some 17 year-old kid who got caught having sex with his younger girlfriend. That was until I read "Mark's oldest son (from a previous marriage)" and looked this guy up in Google.
He was a married 35 year-old teacher (a position of power and trust) who had sex with his 15 year-old student?
I'm sorry, I don't care if he did marry the girl later, he is a sex offender. Would you want your child being taught music by this man? I wouldn't.
S.A. at June 21, 2010 9:27 AM
; my name is Mark Perk( I am in your viewer comments somewhere for our story) i saw your show on march 17, 2010 about the horrendous case of a small child raped by someone who was on the sex offender registry and the extensive damage he inflicted on the family and the whole tragic issue of sexual predators.
I am on the sex offender registry for having a consensual relationship with my now wife, in 1998.We now have two beautiful children.There is an answer to the question ",why cant the police watch these guys and prevent future horrors."?
The answer is not what people want to hear as this subject is driven by hysteria and knee jerk legislation to appease a roman colliseum, mob type mentality.
There are thousands and thousands of consensual,statutory cases on the sex offender registry in each state,Plus juvenille cases(19 year olds with 15 year olds) ,public nudity,exposure,prostitution,indecent behavior,public peeing etc.
There simply are not enough police to monitor all these cases. Because the states wont interject rick assessment hearings, all sex offender registrants are lumped together and there simply isnt enough police power to monitor all registrants,nor should they.!!!!!!!!
I have been on television numerous times on this subject. I know what i did is socially taboo and illegal, yet i am not a threat to children or women.To put me next to a child rapist on this list, is like putting a casual marijuanna smoker ,caught with a bag, in the same arena s a meth lab gangster!!!!!!!.
List of police time waisted on my case:
:ive been on this list for 11 plus years,ive had 100 plus probation appointments,40 plus home checks,done over 17 police station check ins,police monitoring our home frequently,pulled over (with my wife,both of us in cuffs)11 plus times etc.Stickers on our home on Halloween,lost 6 jobs,various acts of vigilantism etc.
We have had DCFS called on us 3 times by an anonynous neighbor because im on the list and have had numerous threatening calls to our home. Addittionally we have had to call the Crestwood Police and bother them numerous times because of suspicious cars in front of our home, snapping pictures,gawking etc.All this police time for one consensual case ,AND WE ARE MARRIED .!!!!
( We were married by the same judge who gave me the original misdimeanor,who did not consider me a threat!!! He later helped seal our case to "protect this family and the children" )
If the public is wondering why law enforcement cant even stop violent registered offenders from re-offending,the answer is that these predators are like a pin hiding in a haystack.The haystack is thousands of non violent cases like mine, that would be removed immediately if risk assessment was employed.
No media figure has the courage to tell it straight: time to weed out the predators from the registrants who simply broke the law. Then the police can triple their time up on monitoring violent offenders.( Its not the police who make these laws its the congressional and Governor wannabes,who want to appear to look "tough on crime.",yet have no clue of the ramifications of their legilation on families nor care.)
Its always the same pattern, the media likes to cry wolf,get the public excited (for sensationalism)and then the lawmakers legislate an already blotted system ,while the real predators know this and use it in their hunting techniques as camoflague.
my name is Mark Perk, l Google in" Lets seperate the Misguided from the monsters" Eric Zorn ,Chicago tribune. This is our story.
our daughter is 4 years old,ironically I am as scared as anyone of true sexual predators. The story of any young child raped is heart breaking ,frightening yet tragically will happen time and time again. No one has the courage to seperate the wheat from the chaff.or the "misguided from the monsters". Mark and Krissy Perk
kris perk at July 13, 2010 12:46 PM
If a 15 year old holds up a liqour store and shoots someone,everyone says"try him/her as an adult" ,they know what they are doing!!!including the states attorneys. yet if that same 15 year old has an adult sex partner,suddenly they are an innocent child,manipulated and has no brain capacity. Bull crap
jeff at July 13, 2010 12:50 PM
OUR STORY FEATURED IN AN ARTICLE;
Let's separate the misguided from monsters
column published. Feb. 24, 2005 Chicago Tribune
A concerned mother from Lake Zurich recently contacted me with a cautionary tale about teenagers, child pornography and the Internet.
In late 2002, she said, her son, then 15, went online with his new laptop computer and began searching for and downloading pictures of naked girls his own age.
Understandable, perhaps, but not good. Just how not good he learned after the laptop began malfunctioning and he sent it off for repairs.
Computer technicians found the images--law enforcement allows and in some places even encourages them to look for forbidden material and report it to authorities; the courts have admitted their findings into evidence--and police came to the family home to arrest him for soliciting and possessing child pornography.
The boy pleaded guilty and now must register as a child sex offender until he's 21.
There were some complicating wrinkles to this tale, the general outlines of which were confirmed by the family's attorney but could not be otherwise verified because the boy was charged as a juvenile. The main wrinkle is that in the course of downloading batches of pictures of teenage girls, the boy also mistakenly downloaded some "very, very bad" images of younger children, according to his mother.
The point here is not to excuse this kid, but to warn other kids and their parents: Trolling the Web for erotica can land you in real and long-lasting trouble.
The Illinois attorney general's office confirmed that tough state laws on child pornography do not make any exceptions when the offender is the same age as or even younger than the minors depicted, and they do not distinguish between forbidden images of 17-year-olds and forbidden images of 5-year-olds.
In other words, a teen may see himself as just a curious and hormone-addled adolescent, but the law sees him as a dangerous pervert.
The above story was one of many I received in response to last week's column (posted below) about a married 29-year-old Oak Park man whose wife and three kids are suffering because when he was 18 he had a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old girl, and the law still considers him a child sex offender.
I heard a somewhat similar tale from Kristin Perk of Crestwood, who said she was just shy of her 15th birthday in 1998 when she began a sexual relationship with her adult male guitar teacher.
"I pretty much came on to him," she said. "Then it turned into a real romance."
A real illegal romance, of course. Her parents found out and called police, who arrested the teacher, then 35. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sex-abuse charges and began a 10-year period in which he has had to register as a child sex offender and stay away from places where children congregate.
The teen's parents sent her to school in California, but she and the teacher kept in touch.
"Older people and younger people do fall in love," said the man, recalling that Elvis Presley's infatuation with his wife Priscilla began when she was 14 and that Jerry Lee Lewis' third wife was only 13.
The girl returned here when she turned 18, and, in March of 2003, she and the man, Mark Perk, were married by the same Cook County circuit judge who had handled his criminal case.
The Perks now have a toddler. They lived in the city until last fall, when police found him living within 500 feet of an elementary school and ordered him to move.
Perk found extra legal trouble--and ended up in an unflattering WLS-Ch. 7 investigative story--when he protested his ongoing status as a child sex offender by wearing a disguise for a photograph that police posted to an Internet database.
He said he has lost five jobs and been repeatedly threatened by vigilantes who learn he's a child sex offender and lump him in with the molesters who haunt playgrounds.
To say that he doesn't belong there is not to say that he was right to have had sex with a girl who was so young, no matter who came on to whom.
It's to say that these stories show that we need to work harder to sort drooling pedophiles from the horndogs who break the law. There's already enough bad judgment out there without us adding to it.
kris perk at July 13, 2010 12:52 PM
Howdy! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was wondering if you knew where I could get a captcha plugin for my comment form? I'm using the same blog platform as yours and I'm having trouble finding one? Thanks a lot!
credit card information at July 5, 2011 12:16 AM
Leave a comment