[robertpaulsen]

"I find it interesting how many of these threads you show up on defending sex offenders, decrying laws to notify others of them, and decrying punishment for them. It's very curious!"

I find it interesting that you are willing to make an exception to both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution in order to single out a particular type of criminal and subject them to a unique brand of justice. Hell, a paroled murderer has more freedom and more rights than a "sex offender" (whatever that means).

But you're willing to turn the U.S. Constitution into toilet paper because these perverts deserve it, right? Let's ruin the life of that 18-year-old boy who "inappropriately touched" a 14-year-old girl. Or the man accused of date rape because the whore girlfriend changed her mind half-way through sex.

I used to know what a rapist was. I used to know what a child molester was. Today, the definition is so broad I don't have a clue what those terms mean anymore.

You and your ilk cheapen true rape by calling everything rape. The real child molester is lost among all the "sex offenders". We're all becoming numb to the name-calling by your crowd.

Unlike you, I save my anger for the real bad guys, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry who cross some arbitrary and shifting behavioral line you've drawn.

[LucyT]

What part of illegal don’t you understand. The solution is simple. Keep your hands, and all parts of your body, off anyone under the age of 18; that goes for men and women.

Defend:

To support against arguments, attack, or criticism: justify. Idioms: speak up for, stand up for, stick up for.

[cajungirl]

You have a curious take on this.

I too have concern about these molester lists and notifications but I understand why they come about.

And an 18 year old boy has no business inappropriately touching a 14 year old and very well knows what he is risking.

[Arthalion]

I used to know what a rapist was. I used to know what a child molester was. Today, the definition is so broad I don't have a clue what those terms mean anymore.

Indeed. There was a thread here just the other day about a current attempt to federally prosecute a model photographer because he took images of minors in swimsuits...images no more revealing than those seen in a Sears catalog or on the beach. The federal position was that because SOME perverts MIGHT be turned on by it, it's pornography and is therefore prosecutable. If the prosecution is successful, everyone who has ever taken a photo of their kids playing in a sprinkler, on a boat, or lounging around a pool will become a sex offender overnight.

Here's another scary thought for you. In the state of Californa (and many others), if a man grabs his own wifes breast without her permission, or takes her to bed after she's had too much to drink, he can be charged with a crime and be forced to register as an SO. The definition of SO is now so broad that it's useless to condemn someone simply because they're on one of these registries. Some registries and some states do identify what actual crimes the person committed so that we can make a reasonable decision on whether or not to avoid the person...but other registries and states only identify that a person committed some sort of sex crime, and that is completely useless information.