Oh please. A couple of teenagers who can’t control their horomones is hardly the climax (pun intended) of stupidity nor should it be a criminal matter. “Out of the genepool”? If we’re going to be tossing out people for sexual missteps, why start with teenagers who don’t know any better? Go for the adults in the 30s, 40s, 50s, politicians, preachers, etc. who keep getting caught with their pants down and really do know better.
I’m opposed to registration for the same reasons others have mentioned above. Either the person is too dangerous to be let out or they are not. If they are, they should be kept in prison. If they are not, they should be allowed to have as normal a life as they can manage.
That’s a total cop-out argument. And I’m saying that as a guy that just advocated immediate execution for all sex-offenders.
Since we live in a world where sex-offenders WON’T be executed, and WON’T be kept in jail for life, then clearly something needs to be done to alert those around them to the danger they pose. If they didn’t want “their life ruined”, maybe they shouldn’t have been a Sex Offender in the first place.
Yes, killing these animals outright would be the preferable situation. But it’s not going to happen. So the only sane solution is to alert those around them to the danger they represent. Me, I hope their lives are “ruined” to the extent that they put a gun to their own heads, thus bringing about my dream of having them all just die.
I have zero sympathy for sex offenders. None. There is nothing worse than scumbags who sexually prey upon the innocent. I also have no respect for the Sex Crime Apologists in this thread. The guy that bragged about having sex with his underaged girlfriend should be rotting in jail at this very moment. Did it ever occur to him that the REASON these laws exist is that children aren’t ready for the consequences of underaged sex?
Yeah, yeah- everyone has a story about how they were a 15 year old pot-smoking, Metallica-listening Date-rapist, but THEY turned out okay, but that’s just not how it works in the real world. Kids having sex at 15 turn in to losers with six kids at 21, living off the welfare system. THAT’S why laws exist to prevent children from having sex until they’re (hopefully) old enough to understand the consequences and take responsibility for their actions.
Who is asking you to have any sympathy? Hate them all you want. But if you’re going to let them out of prison to be free, then by gosh let them be free.
Which apologists?
Actually, that’s why Eris made parents, but to be honest, you never can tell with Her.
First, I agree absolutely with what Erislover has said thus far.
Second, Major Tom, what is so henous about 15 year olds having sex that they ought to be put to death? Honestly, you’re really out in left field here.
As far as your ‘getting out of the gene pool’ comment; since when have genetics had anything to do with laws that may or may not be practical or easily compatible with natural human tendancies and behaviors?
When you get down to it, people do certain things. They do not ‘become Sex Offenders’ until we have a law in place that calls them that for doing a certain thing. It’s not an unreasonable question to ask if everything that currently earns a person that label actually warrants such an appelation. I get the feeling that your intense hatred and ire towards “Sex Offenders” is based on a blind or at least topical reading of what that means.
Let’s say the law had been written such that the age of consent was one year lower; would the 18 year old sleeping with the 17 year old still deserve to be shot? If not then you’re saying death is a just punishment for breaking the law and has nothing really to do with the actual heinousness of the ‘crime’. If so, then why have you adopted 18 as an absolute age for consent below which someone is always so brutally victimized that his or her ‘assailant’ shouold be put to death?
What if the age of consent was one year higher; what would your answers be then?
Well, then you’re speaking as a guy whose opinions radically disagree with mine. So?
If we aren’t willing to imprison such people for life, we, as a society, are saying that they aren’t that bad. We are saying that they aren’t a danger (or not an unreasonable one), and that they should go free.
The “danger” they pose? Well, if it weren’t for half-assed attempts to placate people with registries, there may have been a genuine movement to lengthen sentences. Why has this society decided that it’s better to have someone with no life outside of prison than to have them with no life inside of prison? (My first guess is the money we “save” by not paying their room and board. My second guess is that we don’t feel there is that big of a threat but we’re going to pay lip-service to the idea of “protecting our children” from monsters.)
Registration is the worst of both worlds. The offender has the crippling stigma of the registration without the limits on his or her behavior that prison would enforce. In other words, it hinders positive action while not preventing negative action. It hinders job searching while allowing playground cruising. It hinders relationship-building while allowing contact with potential victims. It is simply an additional marginalization of a group of people that society cannot afford to marginalize. Because marginalized people feel they have nothing to lose. And what happens when people have nothing to lose?
Why not add the death penalty for jaywalking also? How hard is it not to jaywalk? DON’T JAYWALK, AND YOU WON’T DIE! HOW SIMPLE IS THAT?
Regardless of the stupidity of someone committing a crime and the ease of not committing it, the punishment should fit the crime. It doesn’t matter how easy it is for an 18 year old male to find an 18 year old girlfriend (which isn’t neccesarily the case, it’s been my experience that females overwhelmingly go for guys a couple years older than them) THE PUNSIHMENT SHOULD FIT THE CRIME.
An 18 year old probably isn’t any more ready to have a baby than a 16 or 17 year old. 18 is a completely arbitrary line that legislatures draw, and in fact in 32 of our great states the age of consent is 16. A bunch of politicians got together and decided they needed to draw a line in the sand, but that doesn’t make their judgement the Divine Will Of God for those who dare to ignore to ignore the age limit by so much as a single day.
I have very little sympathy for adult men (over 18) who have sex with teenaged girls. The fact that girls with older partners are more likely to be impregnated and/or contract an STD convinces me that there is an inherent danger in these kinds of relationships.
Ideally, the system should be changed as per erislover’s suggestions, but as long as things remain the way they are, men should suck it up and stop seeking status by banging teenagers. If you don’t want to be on a sex offender registry, and having sex with a 15 year old would put you on that registry, then don’t have sex with a 15 year old. Period.
… as there is in any sexual relationship. What about adult women having sex with teenage boys? Adult men and teenage boys? Adult women and teenage girls?
While statistically different combinations may or may not be more likely to facilitate the spread of disease or get someone pregnant, I think (and I may be wrong) that ‘age’ of consent knows no sex or sexual preference.
I’m not sure if you’re saying that hetero man/girl (with men and girls being defined by an arbitrary line at age 18) relationships are the only ones that ought to be considered here, or why they ought to be singled out in this case.
a) Where do you get the idea that every 15 year old boy who has sex is a Date-rapist? I’ve got news for you, guy - teenaged girls are horny too. While I don’t have numbers (and wouldn’t trust them if I did, because girls will lie about this for a variety of reasons), I seriously doubt that majority of underaged girls having sex were forced into it. How is it that you hold girls to a different standard of capability than boys? Boys are able to exercise self-control but girls aren’t? Nice.
b) Uh, kids having sex at 15 are losers who end up on welfare with six kids at 21? Undoubtedly the vast majority of people on welfare with six kids at 21 were having sex at 15, because it would be extremely difficult to have six kids by the age of 21 otherwise. But I rather doubt that the majority of people who had or have sex at the age of 15 will be on welfare with six kids six years later!
Again, I don’t have numbers, but I’m betting that if you polled 30 year old professionals, you’d find that more of them than not had sex before they were legally old enough.
Your views on capital punishment for underage sex offenses are just silly, not to mention self-contradictory. If these kids aren’t old enough to decide if they can have sex, how can you then say that a decision they made should be lethal? Supposedly these kids are too innocent, naive, and foolish to make any serious decision, so you hold them to that degree of accountability? Yeah, that makes sense!
Hell, why stop with sex offenders? Don’t I deserve to be alerted to the danger represented by a murderer or arsonist moving in next door?
What about a car thief moving in next door? Don’t I deserve to know about that?
What about a tax evader? Who knows why he isn’t reporting all his income… maybe because he’s a drug dealer! Don’t I deserve to know about that?
And, in your magical world where killing all sex offenders is a sane thing to suggest, why are you so soft on murderers, arsonists, car thieves, and tax evaders? Why not shoot them five seconds after conviction too?
I can’t speak for other states…but in NC once it’s turned into the authorities, the state takes it regardless of what the parents say. IIRC the age difference counts too.
If you commit Arson you have to register as an Arson Offender 
I’m not.
The pregnancy and STD statistics are just an indicator of the tendency of these relationships to be a case of an older, more established person manipulating someone who doesn’t have the same financial independence and education that they do.
A person in their twenties who can’t find someone their own age to date, shouldn’t be dating anyone until they can muster up enough maturity to be sociable with their peers.
Does this tidbit of advice only apply to 20 year olds, or is it also bad for 60 year olds to date anyone younger than 60?
What about someone with a different hair color? If a blonde can’t find another blonde to date, should he refrain from dating at all until he musters up enough maturity to be sociable with other blondes?
I think you missed my point about people who are young adults tending towards having more financial independence and education than teenagers.
Well, we used to have a thing in this country … you’re gonna laugh out loud when you hear it, it’s so funny … where judges were actually people who made judgements about criminals – how much time they had to serve, whether or no they had to register as sex offenders. I know, it sounds INSANE but that’s the way we used to do things before the politicians decided that judges were all idiots and would have to subsume their decisions to their wiser brethren – i.e., politicians.
So would you say rich people shouldn’t date poor people? Someone who went to Harvard shouldn’t date someone who went to DeVry?
It’s not about that.
In our society, youth and beauty are “status traits” for women, and wealth is a “status” trait for men.
In May/December relationships, the likelihood of partners “using” each other for status is higher than it is when the partners are equals in age and social standing (and age and social status are linked to one another). This makes these relationships more likely to be exploitative and abusive.
I can’t think of anything wholesome and healthy that a 20 year old man would want from a 16 year old girl.
I agree that a 19 year old having sex with a 15 year old is not as inherently bad as a 60 year old. However, I don’t think we should have a Romeo-Juliet exception, and I still think statutory rape laws and the accompanying sex-offender list is a good idea.
The problem with rape is that it is extremely difficult in some cases to tell for sure that someone has been raped. So if that 19 year old actually rapes that 15 year old, and the prosecutor doesn’t make her case and the rapist isn’t convicted, she can still get him charged as a statutory rapist.
Kind of a fallback measure. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with the fact that you don’t just charge someone with assault, you charge them with assault and battery and emotional damage and property damage and whatever else you can think of. The reason for this is that if the other charges don’t stick, at least one will apply, and one’s better than nothing.
Assuming the party is actually guilty, that is.