Ugh. Don’t even start - they’ve come to visit and it’s not pleasant. They don’t seem to know very much about their own problems, either.
The basic problem - and I’m in favor of age of consent laws in principle - is that adults don’t always make this decision rationally or intelligently either, and it’s problematic to put a number on it that says “you are mature enough to make this decision, while you are not.” Five- and ten-year-olds are and should be off limits, but even I’ll admit that as that age gets higher in the teens, it gets grayer. There are certainly some teens who can make those decisions better than some adults.
Sure, but the law needs to generalize to cover the majority of situations. For example, the BAC limit in Illinois is .08. Yet there are some people who can pass sobriety tests perfectly and are better drivers than sober people. Still the law has to set a standard that must be followed. The legal system doesn’t care that you are capable of parallel parking after you just drank a fifth of Jose Cuervo. You are still considered DUI by the law.
The same applies to kids. We’ve all seen the girls dressed in their Britney Spears-wannabe outfits tramping around the mall. The 12 year old girls who shop at Abercrombie and are thrilled to buy underwear that says “Juicy”. Or 13 year old boys with their tight pants hanging so low that it almost shows off their nascent pubic hairs. These kids are so excited with their burgeoning sexuality that they are ready to flaunt it anywhere and everywhere.
Are you saying that barely pubescent teases are fair game? Do I understand you correctly that you think it would be OK to have sex with an 8th grader because she dresses provocatively and was flirtatious? It’s alright for a woman considered legally an adult to have sexual contact with a high school freshman because he is starting to shave and he acts more mature than the average 14 year old?
I don’t care if the kid reads the Wall Street Journal, has an MBA and understands the Middle East. It doesn’t matter if they have started a company and are pulling down six figures. It doesn’t matter if they have read the Kama Sutra and can list their favorite tantric sex positions. If they are not of the age of consent in their state, than anyone sexually involved with them is a criminal. No ifs, ands or buts. Too bad. So sad.
Did I say it was OK? No. I don’t know if anybody did, actually, but you’ve asked that question repeatedly. I said I have a problem with the idea that we need to lock them all up forever. I don’t know if all of these people are dangerous to children, as they’re not pedophiles (when you use the word to mean what it actually means, which is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children).
You’re not helping yourself here. I know what the law is. I’m wondering why you’re suggesting not just keeping the law as it is, but making it more stern. Your answer is circular.
All “children” under 18 are NOT the same. Ron Jeremy should be in jail because he banged Traci Lords when she was 16 willingly doing porn and stripping with a fake ID? I think not.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Did I say it was OK? No. I don’t know if anybody did, actually, but you’ve asked that question repeatedly. I said I have a problem with the idea that we need to lock them all up forever. I don’t know if all of these people are dangerous to children, as they’re not pedophiles (when you use the word to mean what it actually means, which is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children).
Looking at what you wrote, it appeared to me that you are saying that teens can make the decisions about their sexual activity with adults. While that is true, it is still illegal because of age of consent.
The age of consent varies from state to state, ranging from 13 in New Mexico ( :eek: !) to 18 in most other states. Some states even have different ages for homosexual vs hetereosexual activity.
But the basic premise still holds true: the victim is under the age of conset for sexual congress.
As for the definition of pedophilia The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edition includes a Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia:
Ephebophilia, is the condition of adults who are attracted to postpubescent adolescents, however pedophilia is often used more broadly to describe both ephebophilia and attraction to younger children, i.e. any person younger than the legal age of consent. So calling Debra LeFavre a pedophile still applies.
I agree that the sentencing should be harsher and require longer terms. I think all pedophiles should be monitored for life upon sentencing: I don’t just mean the voluntary registration, I mean 24/7/365 electronic monitoring so you can see where they are. When a sexual assault occurs, the police look for the “usual suspects” including the registered offenders. If they are wearing a GPS tracker, they would providing the police with either a built in alibi or a confession.
Telling a pedophile that he can’t live within 500 feet of a school or park doesn’t mean squat. What’s to keep him from living near a Chuck E. Cheese? Or an arcade? Or an amusement park? Or a campground? I want the authorities to know where he is at all times.
I’ve heard too many people complain that it is not fair to the criminal and makes his life more difficult in where he can live. I’ve said it before: pedophiles are predatory animals. If a dog attacks a kid, it is usually taken away and frequently put to sleep. Pedophiles should be taken away from society for as long as possible. When they are released, they need to be kept on the shortest, tightest leash possible. And, in 5 states, child rape is a death penalty worthy crime.
Of course it was a crime. But my point, which you have failed to address, is that it’s a far different crime from nonconsensual contact. There’s a huge difference between flattering a 14 year old girl and convincing her to have sex with you, and physically holding her down and raping her. If you hand out the same sentence for both, you insult the real rape victims.
That’s not what I said at all. Get a grip.
You want to outlaw thoughts, huh? Good luck with that.
[QUOTE=erie774]
Looking at what you wrote, it appeared to me that you are saying that teens can make the decisions about their sexual activity with adults. While that is true, it is still illegal because of age of consent.
You’ve repeatedly missed the point here, erie. I know what’s legal and what isn’t. We’re talking about whether or not the law is right, because you’re saying that anyone who violates the law should be jailed for life. If you’re going to start jailing people for life for breaking the law, the law had better be right.
[quote[The age of consent varies from state to state, ranging from 13 in New Mexico ( :eek: !) to 18 in most other states.[/quote]
I think 17 and 18 is ridiculous, myself.
…which is so biased that it calls into question the judgment of everybody making these laws.
I don’t want to explain this to the father of a sex assault victim, but there’s such a thing as overkill. Is this really a good use of police resources? I think it’d be hard to justify.
Again, this comes across as overkill. Like it or not, these people have to be allowed to live somewhere. As I said in my first post, the system we have has become totally illogical: either keep these people in jail or don’t. Letting them out and then putting their names out to the public, keeping them in registries and restricting them where they can live does not make sense to me.
As that article notes, the laws are ceremonial and unconstitional. In this country, the death penalty is only allowed in cases of murder. Execution for rape was thrown out decades ago.
Out of curiosity, erie774, what would you say should be the rule if you were Tommy’s father? Remember, Tommy is just a child, with underdeveloped sexual judgment, as you yourself have argued. Yes, what he did was wrong and, moreover, he knew it was wrong. The question is what society should do with teenagers who do wrong. You say throw away the key. Would you say that were you Tommy’s father?
FWIW, I think I know what your answer will be - and it features as a crucial plot element of a great book of American fiction. But I’d like to hear it from you.
Wow I must say I am astonished. I just looked up my town out of curiosity and the surrounding towns. There were no sex offenders in my town thankfully. But I also looked up a town that my fiance’s family is hoping to move to. They have put their house on the market to move to this town. It’s a very small woodsy almost deserted town which seems pretty ideal to raising a family seeing as how there wouldn’t be a lot of violence and crime. Now this is a family of eight kids, six of them under the age of eleven. And also a newborn of the grown daughters. I counted around 15 sex offenders in this small town. I can’t belive it now we’re talking a small town and it seems they all live on this one stretch of road together as if it’s some sort of sex offender relocation spot. I’m shocked and disgusted, now is this something everyone in that town knows and the real estate agent didn’t mention so that she could get a sale?
Thank you so much for that link. I read your story and it’s terrible that this happened by a neighbor and friend of your child’s.
Erie, have you called the probation officer? I don’t know where you live, but in my state a probation officer would be able to do something about this situation. In the situation you describe we could put the kid on electronic monitoring, even if he hasn’t been convicted yet. And around here, the probation officer’s recommendation can carry a lot of weight when it comes to the sentence, so the PO should know that the parents and the kid can’t be trusted to do what the court says on their own, and therefore they need closer supervision.
An awful lot of imprisoning, killing and castrating being suggested here. Anybody interested in finding out what causes this aberration and how we can fix it?
Sure, but until the cause is diagnosed and the fix is in place, let’s keep these people away from children, mkay? My sympathy is with the victim in this case, not the perpetrator.
Sexual relations with a person who does not have the intellectual or emotional ability to make appropriate decisions is rape. If the person is underage it is called statutory rape. If the victim is mentally impaired or has psychological disorders that prevent them from making logical choices or foreseeing the consequences of their actions, then the perpetrator has taken advantage and is committing rape.
You referred to consensual sex with a minor. Since we cannot scan everyone’s brain to determine their chronological, intellectual and emotional age the law has to provide a default value of what is the chronological age of consent, not a maturity level. The law says you are too young to be held accountable for signing a contract, you cannot be held accountable. If the law says the 14 year old is too young to have sex whether they agree to it or not then you have broken the law. No questions asked. End of discussion Game over, You are now going to PMITA prison.
Isn’t that what “hate crime” legislation is about? Also, what about the person whose license is revoked for DUIs or has a Breathalyzer lock put on his car? He has served his sentence but he is still being “punished” for a crime he might or might not commit. Gee, let’s just let them off the hook. Give the drunk back his license and put him behind the wheel of his Buick. I’ll feel so much better knowing that he is free to drive again.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
You’ve repeatedly missed the point here, erie. I know what’s legal and what isn’t. We’re talking about whether or not the law is right, because you’re saying that anyone who violates the law should be jailed for life. If you’re going to start jailing people for life for breaking the law, the law had better be right.
I agree. 16 is marginal.
Totally agree. One age only.
This is currently done in Florida as part of the Jessica Lundsford law. It is a passive monitoring system, similar to the electronic ankle monitors parolees wear for house arrest. It would only go off if they get too close to a “hot zone” (school, park, etc.) for an extended time. So if they are just driving past the elementary school, it wouldn’t alarm. If they stop for 5 minutes, it would. The police can look at a history if they need to but don’t have to watch it at all times. It would provide a sense of security for the neighborhood and keep the parolee from slipping. It is not infallible, but it is better than trusting a felon to be honest.
We have halfway house for other parolees and restrictions on where they can live. We do the same for rehab people. Why does the idea of limiting where sexual offenders live cause such difficulty?
It was ruled unconstitutional in cases of adult rape. SCOTUS decline to hear the appeals and the LA supreme court ruled it constitutional.
Originally I had stated throw away the key. This was really anger talking. Realistically, I believe they should serve the maximum sentence allowable for the crime. And then continuous monitoring as I stated above. I would not let my son out of my sight and get him the best psychiatric help I could because there is obviously something wrong with him. I would not be letting him wander the neighborhood. And I would not be making the parents of his victim out to be bad guys. What Tommy did has forever changed the lives of himself, his parents, his brothers, my family and his neighbors. If my son had done this, I would move away. The police and school districts would know what he did, but he wouldn’t be facing the continuous stigma of the neighbors.
W told the PO. They said we need proof so we have told the friends and neighbors to keep an eye out for him. They are to write down dates and times. If they have digital cameras with date stamps they should take pictures. We will give that to the PO. The PO said that if they receive evidence that he is going around unsupervised, he can be removed from the home.
Additional information for the people concerned about being too tough on pedophiles. Here is a list of states that do not have mandatory minimum sentences for child predators:
Hawaii
Idaho
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts (no surprise there)
Montana
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Wyoming
In other words, if you live in one of these states and your kid is felt up, there is nothing preventing the judge from giving the pervert a slap on the wrist and sending him home. Nothing.
Look, you can call it whatever you want. The fact is, there’s still a huge difference between sex with a willing minor and sex with an unwilling minor, and it’s hard to take you seriously if you’re unwilling or unable to admit that.
I sure did, but apparently you stopped reading at that point and started making things up. I didn’t say it was “alright”, I just said it’s not the same thing as raping an unwilling victim and doesn’t deserve the same sentence.
Everyone in this thread already knows it’s illegal. I don’t know why you think you have to keep pointing that out, but it’s getting old.
No, not at all. Hate crime legislation is about handing out heavier sentences depending on the motivation for a crime. It’s still legal to have racist thoughts as long as they don’t translate into criminal actions.
Hate crime legislation is not about thoughts, no. I’d say it’s an acknowledgement that if a gay man is murdered for being gay, it affects other gay people.
This is currently done in Florida as part of the Jessica Lundsford law. It is a passive monitoring system, similar to the electronic ankle monitors parolees wear for house arrest. It would only go off if they get too close to a “hot zone” (school, park, etc.) for an extended time. So if they are just driving past the elementary school, it wouldn’t alarm. If they stop for 5 minutes, it would. The police can look at a history if they need to but don’t have to watch it at all times. It would provide a sense of security for the neighborhood and keep the parolee from slipping. It is not infallible, but it is better than trusting a felon to be honest.
Can I get a cite for that? I know that drug addicts are sometimes required to spend time in rehab as a condition of parole, but I’m not aware of a case in which bank robbers are permanently required to live far from banks or drug addicts away from parks or something.
Then it’s unconstitutional. If the court rules it’s constitutional, it’ll be constitutional. Declining to hear an appeal means they feel it is already covered by an existing ruling or law.
I’m sorry, but given your personal knowledge of the damaging effects of sexual assault, how can you be so blase about referring people to, “pound me in the ass,” prison?