June18;962739 wrote:I am in no way condoning any sex crime, however, I do think that the sex offender "idea" (for lack of a better term) is way overblown. I find it disturbing that one can murder someone, do time, and then move on with their life. While someone who is labled a sex offender is ruined for life. It seems like as soon as a sex crime is alleged (involving a minor or otherwise) the accused is guilty. I don't know that I've ever seen anyone be found not guilty in a sex crime. Maybe they just don't get the press but it seems like thats the case. Unfortunately, no one wants to stand up and change the system or they are accused of condoning the actions.
I have a good friend that has been in prison for 5 years and has 2 more left because he got drunk and made a mistake with a minor. Once again, what he did was wrong, he misused his power as an adult, etc, etc. However, he will continue to do his time the rest of his life, registering and notifying neighbors of his crime.
I'm sure many will disagree. I also agree that if I had kids and they were a victim I'm sure my stance would change 180 degrees. I'm just not sure how the punishment is not excessive.
I understand the angle you're coming from. But, I think the reason 'sex offender' is such a taboo is that it's not a willful act. It's a perversion. You don't 'overcome' being a pedophile. It's like if we were to try and 'change' a man who lusts after big-boobed blondes into liking fat, bald women. It just can't happen. It's in their nature. As sick and twisted as it may be.
Now, as for your friend. A hard-line of 18 is wrong. That's a child-by-law not a child-by-reality. Nobody could dispute a 10-year-old is a child. I've seen many 16 or 17 year olds (both sexes) that appear to be well older than 18. And I've seen many 20-21-22 year olds who I would ID for a rated R movie. For some reason, our country (and really, the world at large) has set 18, or somewhere near 18, as the threshold for adulthood. But, that doesn't make someone under 18 a child. The problem is our legal system really makes no distinction from child to adult except the magical 18-year-old mark. Really, there should be an adolescent range of, I would consider, 14-18 that is somewhat between the two. Still not an adult, but certainly not a kid.
Nothing scientific can be proven that possessing a photo of a girl 17 year, 364 days is so grievous compared to a photo of the same girl the next day. None. It's simply a construct by law, not reality. To say the one is 'child pornography' is, on its face, a joke and many of these 'sex offenders' are labeled because variances in that fine line. Same way public urination nowawadays can get you slapped with indecent exposure and in some situations forced to register as a sex offender.
Which propagates the notion there's all these horrible people out there, but it's because of the letter of the law has no conditions. There are some Romeo & Juliet laws out there now, but there's still issues.
For example: An 18-year-old girl sends a naked photo of herself to her 17-year-old boyfriend. In a lot of places, perfectly legal. If a 17-year-old girl sends a naked photo of herself to her 18-year-old boyfriend who she is engaging in sexual acts with, can still be constituted as child pornography. And not just the boy, but the girl can get in trouble for possessing naked photos of an underage person (herself).
It's ridiculous. But, it's the one part of the law that legislators don't want to touch because it's not image-friendly to be seen as loosening the rules of child pornography, child molestation, etc.
