There is someone I know that is a registered sex offender. The incident happened over 20 years ago, he did his time, and never saw the person again. My question is this. Is it fair that he still has to be registered and let police and other agencies know when he travels? He also has to renew his regestration each year. He has not had an offense in 20 years, it was just the one time. Should he still have this hanging over his head after all this time? ******************************************************* 01-27-06, 11:34 AM SeattleRon Let me ask you this. Does the person he did harm to have to live with this the rest of her life? He should as well.
01-27-06, 11:45 AM DorianGreyed Registration of sex offenders is a controversial issue, and, in my opinion, has no easy solutions. Every case is different, and should be judged on its own specific details. There is certainly a valid argument that such offenders have served their sentence, and should be allowed to attempt to lead a productive life, but there is also a valid argument that many offenders are never rehabilitated and society needs to be protected from them. Some will say that a lifetime of registering is part of the sentence, while others will point out that doing so only hampers what could be a succesful re-entry into civilized society. A boy of 19 who was convicted of statutory rape against his 15 year-old girlfriend is unlikely to continue to commit that crime again, and should be allowed to live a life free of having to register. A boy of 19 who has molested a 6 year-old is, according to current opinion, very likely to recommit similar crimes. Every case is a different situation. It may be possible for your friend to petition the court to expunge his record. Doing so, however, may also bring his crimes into the spotlight again.
01-27-06, 11:49 AM DorianGreyed Ron, in light of the fact that getting a girl drunk in order to have sex with her is very often considered rape, do you wish to re-consider your opinion?
01-27-06, 12:22 PM mommy to four cats I am not sure if she lives with this issue on a daily basis or not but I do know that they were only a few years apart in age but because he was the "adult" he was the one punished. She was also the instigator of the relationship and he wasn't the only one she was "involved" with. After my friend went to jail one of her own family members got her pregnant so it wasn't like he forced her. He suffers a tremendous amount of guilt over this and I think he punishes himself way more than society could.
01-27-06, 01:25 PM DvdGStwrt
quote: Originally posted by mommy to four cats: I am not sure if she lives with this issue on a daily basis or not but I do know that they were only a few years apart in age but because he was the "adult" he was the one punished. She was also the instigator of the relationship and he wasn't the only one she was "involved" with. After my friend went to jail one of her own family members got her pregnant so it wasn't like he forced her. He suffers a tremendous amount of guilt over this and I think he punishes himself way more than society could.
The legalities of when a person is an adult over the condition of the heart (love). I'm uncertain if 18 is a good cut off age for relationships. Even earlier than that it was common practice for a "budding" woman (13, 14, 15 years old) to be betrothed to an "older man" (barely an adult himself early 20's), it was even common enough for both parties to be less than 18 years old. The Victorians may not have talked about it, but there was about as much sex going on back then as there is now. Today we “talk” about it more and acknowledge it.
I think our laws are a little out of step with biology when it comes to some of these cases. We assume that 18 years of age a person will suddenly be mature enough to make the right choices; we also assume that the sex drive waits patiently for that age to become active. I know plenty of 20 and 30 somethings that behave like they are in their early teens, conversely I know a few early teens that act and behave with maturity reminiscent of a greater age.
That is the “love” angle – where both parties actually wanted it or felt emotions like love.
There is a distinct difference between the “loving act” and the abusive/coercive act. I think that are laws do not see the difference and apply the same strictures/punishments for both acts blindly. I seriously doubt that we know enough psychiatry/psychology to know when “love” is something else. After all our very language fails to describe love or even apply different names for all the different kinds of love there is.
Registered Sex offenses should apply to the abusive/coercive acts to protect others from similar assaults. Can a sex offender be reformed? That is another question that needs to be asked and I fear there is no solid answer. I will assume the law applies equally with severity along the whole line of possibilities to insure the least amount of harm.
Though from above you can see that I clearly believe that there are circumstances and possibilities to the extent of “punishment”. This is not a subject I take lightly, as a victim of sex abuse in my childhood I have had years and years to think about the nature of the “crime” and also a good amount of therapy, individual and group, also been to groups were offenders and victims face each other and tell their tales. I have an understanding (how about acknowledgement as a better word?) of both sides of the issue an can reason out on my own that circumstances and cases are individually different and should be treated accordingly.
I once knew a girl (mid teen) in groups who was madly, deeply in love with the “young man” (early 20’s) who “abused” her. The counselor kept telling her that until she accepts that she was not in love with him would she begin to recover from the abuse. She and I would talk after group and I got the impression that she actually was in love with him; she even had a necklace from him which was for her an engagement promise.
She wanted him out of prison because believed that it was love. The courts and the psychiatric community insisted that she was a victim and that her love was invalid. Which side was right?
01-27-06, 01:25 PM SeattleRon Dorian Greyed, I see where you're coming from, but whenever sex did take place yes the girls in question did have a few drinks, but they weren't slurring and falling down all over the place. I have never taken advantage of a woman who was completely been intoxicated to the point where consentual sex would even be questioned.
Therefore my coment stands, I believe that once you are a sex offender you should be tracked the rest of your life. You should have to check in with a P.O., Like I said earlier that person they wrongfully violated has to live with that horrible traumatic experience for the rest of their life, and so should the violator.
01-27-06, 01:54 PM DorianGreyed Even a few drinks can impair judgment, especially in people who rarely drink, who have a low body weight, haven't eaten in a while, etc. Impaired is impaired.
01-27-06, 02:07 PM SeattleRon you know what i mean right DG? there's a huge diffrence between lowered inhibitions and jumping on some passed out woman on the bed and completely having your way with her.
01-27-06, 08:48 PM Kelleygirl I agree with what DG has posted. Each case should be weighed accordingly. Many "crimes" can be placed under sexual offender. For example, remember when streaking was the "in" thing? Well, if you were arrested for this, you would have been labeled a sexual offender. Or if Ron and some of his guy friends were out for the night and were driving down a country road where there was no bathroom around, and he had "to go" -- so he went along side of the car and the police came by and caught him -- guess what -- he would be charged with public nudity and once again be known as a sexual offender. So I really do think that each case should be judged on its own merit -- oh, you know what I mean.
01-27-06, 09:57 PM honilov I think that making sex offenders register will not keep them from from molesting again. I really don't think it does much good at all. People would also like to know if a murderer lived in the neighborhood. I wonder why they don't have to register. A lot of them do their time and murder again, too.
Literally, I don't think your friend should have to register, but since it's mandatory, yes.
01-28-06, 02:04 AM RoverRoad I've heard of stupid cases like someone streaking in a crowded stadium and having to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life because of it. Harmless College pranks can get you on the list now, so they aren't doing a good job at singling out the worse cases and the potential repeat offenders.
I agree with Honilov, if they are going to make one type of criminal register for the rest of their lives they should make all criminals do it. Then there would be serious doubts in the constitutionality of it.
My personal opinion, the lifetime registration should only be for violent crimes and in cases where the victim was very young, and not just in sex cases.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
