Posted on 03/07/2006 3:44:12 PM PST by wagglebee
SAN FRANCISCO, March 7, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The California Supreme Court has overturned a law requiring that an adult who engages in oral sex with a minor be tagged for life as a sex offender.
The court handed down the 6-1 decision, arguing that for a 60 year-old to sexually abuse a 16 year-old is not serious enough an offense to warrant registration as a sex offender.
The sex offences registry law, promulgated in 1947, “violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions,” said Justice Joyce Kennard for the majority, according to the AP.
Because the age of consent for consensual sex in California is 18, adults who have sexual intercourse with a minor age 16-17 had not been subject to sex offender registration. Sexual intercourse of any form with a child under the age of 16 would still require mandatory registration as a sex offender.
A lawsuit challenging the law was forwarded by 22-year-old Vincent Peter Hofsheier, convicted in 2003 for oral sex with a minor girl, aged 16, he met in an internet chat room. As reported by the L.A. Times, after getting the girl and a friend drunk, he told the teenager, “You owe me something,” as related by Justice Marvin R. Baxter, the only dissenting justice in the decision.
I'm surprised they didn't try to do away with the list altogether.
--- The court handed down the 6-1 decision, arguing that for a 60 year-old to sexually abuse a 16 year-old is not serious enough an offense to warrant registration as a sex offender. ---
Here we go again. How about this freaking wild idea?!???
The LEGISLATURE determine the age at which such registration is required, and then the SUPREME COURT decide whether or not that law meets the constitution. If they decide it does not, they should state why so the legislature can correct the law.
/end sarcasm
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
"California Court Overturns Sex Offender Registration for Oral Sex with a Minor"
This is an outrage!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FreepMail wagglebee.
"...with a minor age 16-17 had not been subject to sex offender registration..."
Kind of like the driver's permit we have in our state to ease the kids into things I guess!?
This is just stupid reporting. The decision had nothing to do with whether it was "serious." The way the California law is currently written, a conviction for having oral sex with a minor subjects the defendant to lifetime registry as a sex offender, but a conviction for statutory rape does not. The court's decision said that to treat oral sex with a minor as more serious than intercourse with a minor was an irrational distinction. The Legislature can (and should) fix the problem by requiring sex-offender registry for both offenses.
The illegal aliens of Calif. must be thrilled with this :-)
Exactly what they did (not that you could tell from the inept reporting).
I blame bill clinton for this.
As reported by the L.A. Times, after getting the girl and a friend drunk, he told the teenager, “You owe me something
How stupid..did he hold a gun to their heads and say drink this booze..they got themselves drunk and he took advantage
Because the age of consent for consensual sex in California is 18, adults who have sexual intercourse with a minor age 16-17 had not been subject to sex offender registration. Sexual intercourse of any form with a child under the age of 16 would still require mandatory registration as a sex offender.
A lawsuit challenging the law was forwarded by 22-year-old Vincent Peter Hofsheier, convicted in 2003 for oral sex with a minor girl, aged 16,
These two paragraphs make sense?
So this year the judges say 16 and an adult is okay. Next year, 15, then 14, etc etc.
Sickening.
How would these judges feel if one of their 16 year old sons or daughters was seduced (or whatever it was) by a 60 year old man? No big deal?
It's a badly-written article, but a correct (or at least defensible) decision. The way California law is currently written, you have to register as a sex offender if you are convicted of having sexual intercourse with a person under 16, or of having oral sex with a person under 18.
The rationale seems to be this: people convicted of sexual intercourse with someone 16-17 years of age do not have to register as sex offenders, while people convicted of oral sex with 16-17 year olds do. The court could find no rational reason to distinguish between the two, and so overturned the registration requirement.
The decision sucks, but it makes sense from an Equal Protection standpoint (if you twist the jurisprudence really, really hard). Luckily, the decision leaves a way to reinstate the registration requirement: make people convicted of sexual intercourse with a 16-17 year old register, as well of people convicted of oral sex with a 16-17 year old.
This, IMHO, is a gap that the California legislature should have already filled. If anything, the result of this ruling will be more onerous, not more lenient, laws for California sex offenders. That's assuming that the legislature does their job, of course.
How sick. I would not want my children anywhere near those judges.
That's... not exactly what happened. See posts 9 and 18. This is sloppy reporting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.