Replies

Let us not forget the "sex offender" can be an exceedingly broad term.

It is not just Pedophiles. It is the 20 year old who was seduced by the 15 year old.

And don't say it doesn't happen. Sex between young girls and young men a few years older is rampant. It is just that *most* of the time, charges are not brought.

Also, "sex abuse" is now one of the most commonly used "levers" in divorce cases. Attorney friends of mine have told me of cases where the accused went to jail, even when they had evidence that he could not have been at the place and time referred to in the accusation. The prosecutor simply said that the accuser must have been "confused".

This is one of the votes I've been wondering about. On the surface it sounds like a good idea, after all - it IS for the children, right? On the other hand (a thumb and four fingers) - is this really going to prevent a relapse by the criminal, or make children safer. I kinda like the GPS idea, but are we setting a dangerous precedent?
The estimated cost of implementing this law, as stated on the ballot, is up to several hundred million dollars. That probably in real terms, means one billion dollars.
Personally, I feel that we have more than enough laws to last us through the 21st century, and unless a new law can be shown to be truly needed and beneficial, it should not be passed.
While I'm all in favor of protecting children from sexual predators, I don't get the sense that this proposition has the correct answers.
I'd appreciate your considered thoughts on this law.

Agreed. While I'm discussing the age of consent issue on another post, I think I'll chime in here too.

Age of consent is not a smart conservative standard for us to embrace. It is really a trick invented by liberals to get us to accept the destructive moral concept of "consenting adults" (which means at eighteen, or whatever arbitrary age picked by law makers, anything goes).

Traditional Biblical morality called for the death penalty for these so-called "sex offenders":

1. if a man had sex with a girl who was married or engaged (with parental blessing), or
2. if a man had sex with another man (or boy), or
3. if a man abducted a girl and had sex with her.

Consent was only an issue if the girl involved was single (not married or promised in marriage). The standard was not how old she was but whether there was an outcry by the girl.

There is a big difference between an naive, underage girl being seduced by (or as you mentioned in some cases seducing) someone older, and when a man abducts and assaults a small child. Both are wrong, but punishment should fit the crime.

Biblically, in the first case the man is obligated to marry the girl (with no option of divorcing her). In the second instance, it would result in the death penalty.