Sex Offender Laws Are Bullshit!

[joreth]

Now, please don't get me wrong, child molesters and rapists deserve harsh punishments. But we live in a society that fears sex and creates criminals where no crime was committed.

I have argued against the current Sex Offender laws that required all sex offenders to have their personal information made public. I am against this because of what types of people are officially labeled "sex offender" in the legal books. A mother of children has every reason to be concerned if a repeated child molester lives next door to her, particularly if he appears friendly and offers to babysit her kids. But when she gets this shocking list on the internet of 30 sex offenders in her neighborhood, she's getting a list of guys who were drunk and disorderly and disrobed in public at a bachelor party one night, and guys who had consensual sex with girls only a year or two younger than they were at the time. This is not cause for concern, nor is it even any of her business.

And the real shame of this is that these men are now branded FOR LIFE for something they may have done 20 years ago (or will be 20 years by the time they get out). They are now prevented from fair housing and job placement. Sure, we can put laws into place that says we cannot discriminate on the basis of criminal record for things like housing, but it's done nevertheless.

And to put to rest any criticisms that I'm exaggerating about the extent to which non-deserving people get punished by our society's hysterical fear of sex, check out this article:

http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews\Top%20Headlines\20071027\Teen_Sex_Case_20071027.xml&cat=topheadlines&subcat=&pageid=1

Georgia Court Frees Man in Teen Sex Case
Friday, October 26, 2007 8:39:33 PM
By DANIEL YEE

A former high school football star given 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with another teenager was freed Friday by Georgia's highest court, which ruled that his sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. 

Genarlow Wilson spent two years behind bars in the case that led to widespread protests of racism and heavy handed justice. 

"I was in total disbelief," Wilson told reporters outside the prison. "I'm finally happy to see we've got justice now." 

Wilson, 21, also said he wants to help other teens and offered some advice: "They should be very hesitant before they join certain crowds and make certain decisions." 

In its 4-3 decision, the Georgia Supreme Court noted that state lawmakers had scrapped the law that required a minimum 10-year prison term. 

That change, the court said, represented "a seismic shift in the legislature's view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants." 

The justices also said Wilson's sentence made "no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment," and his crime did not rise to the "level of adults who prey on children." 

After he was imprisoned, Wilson became the subject of prominent editorials and national news broadcasts. His sentence was denounced even by members of the jury that convicted him and the author of the 1995 law that put him in prison.   **(Well, then the author should have thought about that when he made a mandatory minimum sentence on a blanket law like "no sex with 16 year-olds" - the number of 40-year olds having sex with teenagers is few, the number of other teens having sex with teens is much higher.)**

Supporters including former President Jimmy Carter said the case raised troubling questions about race and the justice system. Wilson and the girl are both black.  **(I have no idea what this has to do with the case, I'm assuming someone suggested that if it had been two white kids, they wouldn't have been prosecuted, but I see no reason from this article alone to suggest that race is any kind of issue here)**

Wilson, a former honor student and homecoming king, was convicted of aggravated child molestation after he was videotaped having oral sex with a 15-year-old girl at a 2003 New Year's Eve party in a hotel room. He was 17 at the time. 

Wilson was acquitted of raping another 17-year-old girl at the party. 

State Attorney General Thurbert Baker said he hopes Friday's ruling puts "an end to this issue as a matter of contention in the hearts and minds of concerned Georgians and others across the country who have taken such a strong interest in this case." 

The man who prosecuted Wilson, Douglas County District Attorney David McDade, said he disagreed with the decision, but he respects the court "as the final arbiter." 

Wilson's supporters were jubilant.

"I never gave up hope in our judicial system, and I never gave up hope in all the prayers people sent out for us," said Wilson's mother, Juannessa Bennett.

Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat, said: "Each day that this young man spent in prison was a day too long."

The 1995 law Wilson violated was changed in 2006 to make oral sex between teens close in age a misdemeanor, similar to the law regarding teen sexual intercourse. But the state Supreme Court later upheld a lower-court ruling that said the 2006 law could not be applied retroactively. 

The high court had turned down Wilson's appeal of his conviction and sentence, but the justices agreed to hear the state's appeal of a judge's decision to reduce Wilson's sentence to 12 months and free him. That judge had called the 10-year sentence a "grave miscarriage of justice." 

Wilson said he plans to return to school and sports and possibly study sociology. For now, he was looking forward to spending time with relatives.

"I feel I've been away from them long enough," he said. "At times, we've dealt with adversity. Now my family, we finally get to deal with happiness. 

**The comments in italics, asterisks and parentheses are my own comments, not the article

---

So, in 1995, a law is passed that makes a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison for "child molestation".  In 2003, a 17 year old boy has oral sex with a 15 year old girl at a party (caught on video) who still maintains that she was never coerced. Maybe that was poor judgment (that's debatable), but it's hardly an offense worthy of 10 years in prison!  In 2006, the state came to its senses and repealed the 1995 law, but the courts say "oh, so sorry, it was illegal back then.  Just because it's not illegal anymore, we can't go and release offenders now".

What is WRONG with our society? We are so afraid, pathologically afraid, of sex that we would take away the future of a boy, an honor roll student, a homecoming king, an athlete, a boy with POTENTIAL, all because a girl WILLINGLY gave him a blowjob?!? Speaking as an adult, I can totally respect wanting to protect children from abusers, rapists and molesters. Speaking as someone who was once a 15 year old girl, this was NOT a case of rape, abuse, or molestation!  I willingly engaged in acts of sex from age 12 through 18 because I WANTED TO. When I was 15, I lost my virginity to a 19 year old BECAUSE I WANTED TO. I'm not saying these were smart decisions, I'm saying these were choices I made and no one else should be held responsible for any consequences I could have suffered.

It is abso-fucking-lutely ridiculous that this boy's entire life has been stolen from him because our society refuses to acknowledge that we are sexual beings. We don't want to think of our parents that way, we certainly don't want to think of our children that way. We are TERRIFIED of sex! It is a good sign that the lawmakers finally came to their senses and released him, but that doesn't change the fact that he is now permanently branded as a sex offender, with all the discrimination and societal abuse that comes with it, nor does it change the fact that our society in general views sexual acts as evil and wrong, especially when they have anything at all to do with minors and unmarried people.

People have sex.  Get the fuck over it.  Know the consequences, be safe, make better decisions, take responsibility for your actions.  But sweeping this fact under the rug, refusing to see that a teenager is sexual, will not make it go away.  We are biologically designed to start having sex in our teenage years.  Of COURSE there are problems with that ... kids' brains are not yet fully developed and they are notorious for making poor choices because they do not have the knowledge or experience to understand what they're getting into.  But getting your dick sucked at a party by a girl who wants to do it is not a good enough reason to brand a teenager as a criminal, a sex offender, a CHILD MOLESTER for life. 

Comments

[omnifarious.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. I think those laws are rather broken.

But getting your dick sucked at a party by a girl who wants to do it is not a good enough reason to brand a teenager as a criminal, a sex offender, a CHILD MOLESTER for life.

Is there a scenario in which you think that would be justified?

[joreth]

Yeah, a violent rapist and a repeated child molester come to mind first. Kids are less innocent than our society wants to believe. Teenagers like sex and teenagers are capable of violence.

It pisses me off, too....

[mosthings1z.livejournal.com]

I think a start to "fix" to this system would be to completely list the actual offense in the registry. Part of the problems parents face when reviewing it, is it is vague and unclear as to the actual threat a person may pose to their children.

The "idea" of a registry was not to brand willing partners as offenders. That is where it got out of hand. This was designed for pedophiles and rapists. Not boyfriends and girlfriends with overzealous, self righteous parents. No parent wants to think of their children having sex. But, face it, they do and they probably will.

This also goes hand in hand with the dumb asses fighting the HPV vaccine for their daughters. WTF? Why take a chance? You don't have to tell them what they are being given. It is not a license to have sex if you give them a vaccine. If they are gonna do it, they will do it, with or without the protection. These are the same parents that blame the boy as the sole participant in consensual sex and not make their whore of a daughter take some responsibility. She had the sex, too. (It makes me mad, too. I know, she doesn't have to be a whore, per se. But still...) But I digress....

Some of the offenses listed on the offenders registry are clear. If it says sexual battery under 12. It is a threat. If it says 1st degree rape or sexual assault or battery, it is a threat. So why does it not say the dude peed in public? Why is this considered a sex offense? I am not offended.

Basically, rather than sitting down and taking the time to analyze offenses and assign a prudent threat level, they just lumped anything having to do with a sex organ a sex offense, therefore, you belong on the registry. Ok, so if they do not want to take the time to make those changes, it would be much easier to put a link to the freaking public record of the charges and convictions. Eliminate details that would identify the victim and let the public make the determination if that person is a actual threat to the community. It seems like an easy temporary fix. At least until they can fix it permanently.

As far as repealing a law, if people are jailed under that law for consensual sex, they should be released. Is it possible they jailed other types of offenders under that law and cannot arbitrarily release people? I think it all boils down to the fact that people are lazy and want to make everything as easy as possible and rather than review each case, it is easier to lump everyone into the same pot and make it someone else's problem.

I have an under 12 predator down the street. 5 houses. He needed to be on the registry. He recently had another offender move in with him. His charges are not as clear. Now I have to assume he is also a threat. He may not be, but I can only assume and have to post both of their pictures in my house so my son is fully aware to stay away from them. It is sad, but at the same time, I am thankful.

I do agree the system is severely broken. There are probably so many people in there that really do not need to be in there. Personally, I would rather the consensual sex people, not be in there at all. Or the people that simply peed outside. WTF? Yeah, that is gross, but really, give them a fine and move the hell on.

Whiny, self-righteous, over zealous, freaking (did I say whiners?) people should just mind their own business.

Re: It pisses me off, too....

[joreth]

A detailed list of the type of offense would be a start, yes, I'd agree to that. I'd much rather see a total overhaul of what constitutes a "sex offense", but listing what the offense was at least gives us the power to come to our own (stupid) conclusions.

A link to the public record would be OK, if the public record was better written. Remember that furor we had on the Freaks list not to long ago, where one person got pissed at another person and posted his "public record" on the mailing list to warn everyone away? He claimed that the other guy (names removed for privacy) had this long list of felony charges and I had to step in and explain that there was one felony charge and all the rest were probation violations on the original felony charge that were all *dismissed* and the only way to understand that was to follow the link for the 2-character code at the far right of the chart and then to understand the legal jargon they used to explain it. So his record made him look like a repeat offender of felony theft. When, really, he did it once (and there were extenuating circumstances) and was merely accused of violating his probation several times and proved his innocence and the charges dismissed.

People's fear of sex makes the whole thing get out of hand. As, you mentioned, the HPV vaccine issue. There is evidence (which is not yet public) that 9 year old girls have HPV. This, to me, does not make it an "STD", it makes it an epidemic as easily transmittable as the common cold, or the flu. We give our children the flu vaccine, we should be giving our children the HPV vaccine. The original mandatory minimum sentence (which I have issues with in general, not just this case) was designed to be a severe punishment of child molestors. I'm totally for severe punishments for child molestors. But in his haste and fear, he overreacted and completely ignored all possible circumstances. The guy who wrote the law made some vague law about having sex with kids under a certain age. He didn't intend to send children to prison just because a couple of near-adults decided to get a little freaky at a party. The lawmaker disagreed with the outcome of that case (sending the teenager to prison). He let his fear overrule his sense of objectivity and rationalism and he wrote a shitty law. And it took this kid (and how many others?) losing their lives and their future to bring it home that we let our fear rule us.

Re: It pisses me off, too....

[leora.livejournal.com]

Peeing in public is a sex offense?

That strikes me as vastly unfair given that we do not generally provide public bathrooms. Where is someone who doesn't have a home or is simply desperate supposed to pee? Biological need sometimes doesn't provide time.

There are very few public restrooms, and pretty much all of them are locked at certain hours. Plus, you can be thrown out of libraries for being too stinky. Or for regularly using their bathrooms to wash yourself more thoroughly.

Re: It pisses me off, too....

[joreth]

Yeah, peeing in public can be considered a sex offense because it is "indecent exposure", which always has to do with the sex organs. It is incredibly unfair. I don't mind the idea that you get in trouble for leaving human waste on private property, or even public property, sort of akin to littering, cuz, eww. But to brand someone a sex offender because he exposed his dick to perform a necessary human function (and possibly even tried to hide it by going around a corner or hiding behind a tree) is completely absurd. And yet, it happens. It all depends on the mood of the officer when he catches you and how the law is written.

But then we have things like "mandatory minimum sentences" which takes the judges ability to "judge" out of his hands. If we have a chart that says "exposing the genitals = sex offense" and "sex offense = mandatory jail time and addition to list of sex offenders", then when you ask a jury to decide if peeing in public includes exposing the genitals, they have to say yes. Then, by default, he gets slapped with "sex offender".

That's what happened to this kid. The jury had to admit that this kid had oral sex with a minor - it was on video tape. The law states (at the time) that sex with a minor (with no exceptions or possibility for extenuating circumstances) = 10 years in prison. Because of the mandatory minimum sentence, the judge had no power to judge this case as being an exception to the rule or having extenuating circumstances (such as the perpetrator *also* being a minor, thereby making his partner's age not unreasonable, and her "consent", thereby making it not "child molestation"). A = B, B = C, therefore kid gets 10 years in jail for getting a blowjob at a party by a willing participant.

Re: It pisses me off, too....

[leora.livejournal.com]

One of the many reasons I support jury nullification. I believe the entire purpose of having a jury of your peers is that if the law is bad, the jury should vote innocent even if the action did break the law. Note, I believe jury nullification should only be allowed to cause an innocent vote, not guilty despite no illegalities, and judges should be able to overturn guilty verdicts when no law was broken. That is a proper set of checks and balances because you must err on the side of judging people innocent. Yes, jury nullification can be abused, but all checks and balances can be, and a lack of them certainly is abused.

Really what other purpose could a jury of your peers possibly serve? They aren't experts at judging the law, so if you wanted them to judge the law then a jury of lawyers would be better. They aren't experts at judging the validity of the case, where a jury of relevant experts (a psych person who understands the validity and lack thereof of eyewitness testimony, a scientist in a relevant field, a doctor, etc. depending on the specifics of the case would be better choices). But we actually often specifically exclude lawyers and people with relevant expertise from juries. So, what purpose does a jury serve? And thus we get travesties of justice like this, with nobody checking the law for sanity. Nobody has the right anymore, not the judge nor the jury, to say: this isn't what makes sense. We shouldn't do this.

Re: It pisses me off, too....

[joreth]

Exactly!