Teen Sexting, Grounds For Expulsion?
- Thread starter MA-Caver
- Start date
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I disagree with it in many cases when it involves adults. it is easier than you might think, to get branded a "sex offender" and spend the rest of your life listed on a registry. In many of those cases I'd say it's not just.
Sensei Payne
Black Belt
Some people that are on that list, SHOULD be on it for life. The real Sex offenders should be on there...the pedofiles and rapists.
The 18 year old that gets busted for getting lucky with his 17 year old Girlfriend...I don't think so...there is harder crimes to bust.
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
no argument there. The true pervs need to be busted and kept track of!
But sadly there are no shades of gray in how the laws are worded.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
yeah, it would suck to spend the rest of your life on a sex-offender registry because you were seen taking a pee behind the bush in a public park, because the restrooms were locked.
OP
OP
I'd be pissed if that happened to me (pun intended). I do it all the time because we only have 1 bathroom in this house where I live now and my elderly parents tend to *ahem* nap on the throne (yeah giggle away). So I have to find ... alternatives, outside. It'd suck if a cop drove by and saw me tucked away behind the garage or large shrub and then busts me for indecent exposure and I got that stigma stuck on me.
I think I'd probably be able to explain it in court but still, how stupid is that?
TMI? :idunno:
Laws do need revamping in a major way in this country. They're supposed to protect us not hinder us.
An 18 yr. old with a 17 year old girlfriend... c'mon... a year apart and separated by a wording of law. Law makers need to remember how old they were when they lost their virginity... (sure some lost at 18+... but not many).
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
yeah it would suck big time. I'm paraphrasing the facts a bit, but essentially it's happened and your life is over at that point.
Take a look at this:
http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-73812.html
The comments on the "Real Police" discussion forum are typical of what I saw everywhere when this story broke. He was a sex offender, he was probably re-offending and was killed by his victim. He deserved it, all sex offenders deserve it. And so on.
Turns out he was a 'sex offender' in the sense you are talking about. He was from Illinois - he had sex with his underage girlfriend when he was over 18 and she was under 18 - just barely. Her parents pressed charges. He pleaded guilty and got a suspended sentence, but had to register on the sex offender's registry for life. When he was in his 30's, his life was still in tatters. He could not even rent a place to live - he lived in his truck and worked construction jobs for cash.
Yeah. He deserved a life of misery and then to have his head cut off (turns out it was done as a thrill-kill by a couple of teenagers, and nothing to do with his past). He deserved that for the awful crime of having sex with his underage girlfriend when he was just a few months older than her. He was such a bad man.
But read the comments - as far as the police are concerned (and most citizens), he had it coming.
http://www.teenkillers.org/index.php/memorials/michigan-victims/daniel-gene-vincent-sorensen/
I don't understand people. Kids sexting each other? Leave those kids alone! One kid over 18 and his girlfriend under 18? Put him on the sex offender's registry for life, destroy his life (even murderers eventually get off parole, but not sex offenders - of any kind) and when he is killed and his head cut off by thrill-kill murderers, cheer for the murderers, because sex offenders have it coming to them! What kind of f'd up stuff is that? What's the matter with people?
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
yup. I've said this before in some other threads, and I'll say it again. here in California, we have a 2000 foot minimum, on how far a registered sex offender must live from any schools, parks, child care, places where children congregate, etc. Their home must be at least that far from all locations. The wierd thing is, it's just the home. They can actually hold employment right next door, and be there all day, every day. They just cannot have a mailing address and sleep overnight there.
Now in a City like San Francisco, where everything is closely packed together, this mythical 2000 feet doesn't exist anywhere at all, except for one corner of one block in the entire city. Some units in that particular apartment building fit the bill, but other units on the other end of the building do not. That is the only place in the entire city where a registered offender can live.
It gets better: San Francisco is both city and county. Once you are on the registry, you are not allowed to move out of the county. So there is no option to move to another city to find a place to live. You are forced to live within San Francisco, where there are no options to live.
So the registered offenders end up literally homeless, living on the street, and they are no longer trackable by the system.
the system exists for the purpose of tracking offenders. When they are forced to live on the street, they are untrackable, and the whole purpose of the system is undermined. Nobody is safer for it, nobody's life is better for it, and for a whole lot of people, their lives are needlessly destroyed.
There are some people who have demonstrated that they will repeatedly commit some terrible crimes against others, and they need to be dealt with. But there are a lot of people on those registries who should not be, because the nature of their offense was simply not that terrible, or they are on for a technicality. It's really stupid, but that's what "Tough On Crime" politics will get for you.
I have always said that if society prefers that sex offenders be put to death, fine with me. Convict them, put them to death. But if they don't wish to do that, then at some point, their punishment has to be over. What you've described is not 'tracking dangerous offenders', it is 'punishing the bastards forever because they're evil'. I get the anger and hatred of sex offenders, I really do. But that is a perversion of our system of justice (no pun intended). If we hate them that much and it's all about punishment, then put them to death or keep them in prison for life. Don't twist the law so that you can keep hurting these bastards after they're out of prison. I just don't get that. And of course, no one can speak up for them, because if you do, you must *like* sex offenders. Bleah.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I absolutely agree, that is the real root of it. If you've committed a crime and paid your dues for it, served your time, done your probation, whatever, then at some point it should be over. If it ain't over, they you should be back in prison. At some point it needs to end, it cannot be perpetual punishment under the guise of "freedom" while being on a registry. Honestly, I do not feel that any type of registry is a good idea. When I say that the really bad sex offenders need to be properly dealt with, I actually mean in a way that does not include a registry. Keep him in prison, don't let him out, something like that.
The other big problem with the registry is that it encourages vigilante justice. If you hate offenders and feel like being a vigilante, just go search the registry for the one who lives nearest to you, and spend your free time hounding him and persecuting him. that's not justice either. That's just sick, perverted self-righteousness.
I have always felt uneasy about registries. I have slowly come to terms with sex offender registries, but I still feel they are too wide-ranging; as others have pointed out in other threads, in some states (Michigan), one can be put on the SO registry for multiple incidents of public urination (indecent exposure). That's not a sexual predator, as far as I know. That's not someone we need to be aware of in our community (I mean, I don't want to live next to a guy who pees in the alley on a regular basis, but he's not a danger to children that I'm aware of).
And what is the point of public registries? If the police need to know if there are any known sex offenders in the area of a given crime, I can easily support their having access to such a list. But do *I* need to know that? Does my neighbor?
And now we see it going even further. Anyone for a concealed weapons registry to be made public? There have been attempts made to do so. Is there an end to forcing people to 'register for life' to 'protect the public'? In some countries, everyone who has ever been arrested - even if not charged or convicted - has their DNA permanently on file with the police. In some countries, just being contacted by the police is enough. In one village in the UK, every male in the village had to give a DNA sample in an effort to catch a rapist. By the way, they caught him, and that's good. But to invade the privacy of everyone, to catch one person, and now everyone is on a 'list' until the day they die? Seems a bit extreme to me.
As always, I worry about the people, many of them conservatives but liberals also, who would defend to the death our freedoms, unless it involves making them feel safer, in which case they'd be happy to rip the Constitution to shreds and wipe their butts with it.
In my heart of hearts, I suspect that there are many who would fully support RFID tags implanted in every US citizen and resident, so that we ALL could be tracked 24x7. After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Right?
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I still don't have a cell phone, and I'm fighting tooth and nail to keep it that way. I've never sent a text message, never tweeted, never been on facebook, etc. Trying desperately to hold on to whatever privacy may be left.
I don't mind so much giving up aspects of my privacy if it is my choice and I understand the consequences. I just don't want to have it done to me, without my consent, and without my knowledge.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Oh sure, if an individual wants to give up his own freedoms he can do that. It gets rough when people want to make that decision and expect everyone to go along with it.
OP
OP
We're blending into a different topic entirely here but it does need to be looked at because it's related.
If the guy at 18 had RAPED the girl at 17 then yeah he's a sex offender. If the two of them were bf/gf and had sex because they loved each other then no, by no means is he a sex offender. Even if she took the initiative and stripped herself down to her birthday suit, stripped him down to his birthday suit and handed him a box of condoms (all of this of her own free and enthusiastic will) ... this does not make the guy a sex offender. A 17 year old guy and a 16 year old girl... is there a difference? Hell no! As long as both parties are consenting. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it's not an indictable offense. Or it shouldnt' be.
Now of course the LAW says .... well okay yet the under aged girl needs to be interviewed to see if in anyway she was coerced, forced, manipulated against her best judgement (??) or plied with alcohol/drugs or whatever! If so then charges need to be pressed for statutory rape if the parents of the girl so wishes because it's their right and she is still under their care/supervision. Even THEN the guy shouldn't be put on the register because he's not violent, he's in love and so is she, or they're just horny teenagers for crying out-loud. (ok, ok what do teenagers know about love? right... ask yourself when you were their age and if you were in love with someone who loved you back... same ting, just a different generation).
It's when the girl has said NO (even once -- and mean it! and not the coy, flirtatious "no" either), and the guy went ahead and had sex with her anyway... then it becomes a problem and yeah the guy is a creep and by all rights and definitions an offender.
Ruining a person's life is very serious business and needs to be taken in serious consideration. Yes I agree that violent sex offenders and pedos need to be on the list and treated like pond scum on a beautiful sunny day (where you say ICK! and throw it away and wash the body part til it's clean). Adults over 21 having sex with a girl at 17 I think need to be slapped on the wrist and be told that is a no-no that there are lots of 18+ year old girls to choose from and that's legal, if he does it again then jail time (say 6-9 months) with a warning that he'll be put on the list and told the consequences of being on that list... and if he does it again then stick him on the list because obviously he didn't learn his lesson or cared enough about his future... even if the girl(s) wanted him to he still should have the presence of mind to know better and say "no". 19 year old and 17 year old...? hrmm... as long as she consents, don't get caught... and use protection dammit. 20 and 17? very sticky... depends on how long they've known each other, like since jr. high or longer. Again as long as she consents. If it's a case of 20 and 16 or younger... then bam right into jail and counseling. But not on the list.
Kids aren't going to wait... (did you?) so that's why the laws need to be a bit more specific and tailored to the situation of age differences not circumstances. Circumstances can be changed, age differences can't.
Same ting applies to sexting. Which is nothing more than a build up to actually ending up in the back seat of your daddy's car, or on the sofa in your best friend's basement.
It's funny though... how it seems that the guy is the one who suffers for sexual indiscretion more than the girl. The girl may get chewed out by her parents and grounded and maybe have their sweet 16 car taken away from them but does she bear a life-long life damaging stigma?
What about 18 year old girl and a 17 year old boy? Does the girl end up being registered as a sex offender? Or is it a pat on the back "atta boy" for the guy?
OP
OP
True but if I'm not mistaken it when it occurs between minors and that they cannot actually determine if the act was forced and yet charges have been filed. Either way it's by law that determines if it's statutory. If it were 2 16 year olds and both consented but when the parents of one found out, charges are made, an arrest, a confusing court trial because one of them just can't quite remember correctly, and one of them goes to jail anyway, (guessed which one's which).
I define rape as when one (or the other) has said "no" and fought against it, it's definitely an offense.
As far as sexting goes, if it's unasked for or refused (by the recipient) then it's harassment and should be dealt with by the law. But I can see how it could be construed as "rape".
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
well, right there is the problem. Parents can't stand the idea of their little angel having carnal moments....and the poop breaks the sound barrier hitting the fan.
exactly. The only thing that I see as a bit of a gray area is the persistent convincing...it really didn't mean yes, but it happens anyhow...but still...is it rape?
yes, but as it stands, it's possession of pornographic material...
OP
OP
So no upset if Junior is having carnal moments?
How about when it's the girl sending to the guy unsolicited.
How about drunk or under the (voluntary) influence? And still nothing happened (sexually) but accusations can fly easily.
