Young, but 'predators' for life

Las Vegas Sun ^ | 06 jan 08 | Abigail Goldman

[rellimpank]

New sex-offender laws, meant to protect, may instead ruin lives and increase risks

Everything began with babysitting. Michael's mother often made him watch her boyfriend's 7-year-old son, Aaron.

One afternoon, while his mother was working, 15-year-old Michael

[txzman]

Stupid laws with no common sense application of justice.

Let’s just go back to old English common law and hang the boys when they get judged guilty.

[Mr. Brightside]

A 14-year-old boy found guilty of fondling a 13-year-old girl one time will have his photograph posted on national public Internet sex offender registries for at least 25 years.

Holy cow! By that standard, how many of us are sex offenders?

This sounds a little extreme to me.

[Michael Knight]

Thats probably the point. The judges no doubt want us to just repeal all sex offender laws by having them mistakenly applied to situations that dont make any sense.

[B.O. Plenty]

We would wonder why the male person who knocked up Brittny Spears 15 year old sister (jail bait) is not in fact, in jail, wouldn't we?...

[driftdiver]

“We would wonder why the male person who knocked up Brittny Spears 15 year old sister (jail bait) is not in fact, in jail, wouldn’t we?...”

Because she’s famous.

[RicocheT]

What the 15 year old did is disgusting, but I’d change the law to allow some discretion on the first offense of a youth of 16/17 or under. Let the sentencing judge have some discretion on the first offenders. If the violator was a clueless kid who just needed a good shake and yell to realize what is right or Wong I’d let the first offense be lessened by not putting him/her in the lifetime registry. If the violator was a many time violator when first caught and not likely to change, into the registry.

[cubreporter]

yes, that was our question too.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“Thats probably the point. The judges no doubt want us to just repeal all sex offender laws by having them mistakenly applied to situations that dont make any sense.”

Judges write the laws?

This isn’t a case of them ‘legislating from the bench,’ it’s a case of them applying dumb one size fits all laws, created by politicians who want to run as ‘tough on crime.’

Most of them don’t read the laws the vote for, or understand them.

The article leaves out all the 17/18 year old boys who are ‘sex offenders’ for the crime of having 15 or 16 year old girlfriends.

Overall a sad situation!

I know this won’t make me popular with the Socon crowd, or maybe it will - I lay a lot of it on the fact that sex is used to sell everything in our culture, in conflict with the puritanical message that sex is dirty and bad.

[muawiyah]

You shouldn't have been a sex offender, but it's not too late to go confess your guilt and see if they want to post your picture anywhere.

[Graybeard58]

I read the whole story at the link given. Many of the legislators who pushed for this law weren’t even aware of what was in it.

I confess, when I was 15 years old, I touched a 14 year old girl in a lewd manner. She touched me back in a lewd manner. Arrest the both of us.

[muawiyah]

Currently the message is you can get a lifelong miserable disease from sex ~ even if she's only your sister.

Life's a lot tougher. We've got DC just over the way, and supposedly your odds of exposing yourself to AIDS there is about 40% of the time ~ and that's whether you date a man or a woman.

Used to be no one thought twice of going down to the ghetto and finding a prostitute, right?

[Graybeard58]

Bring back the pre marital Wasserman test requirement.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

“right or Wong “
What’s the Chinese guy got to do with it?

[goldstategop]

The law imposes punishment after the fact. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. I could see merit in keeping a lifetime database on a habitual or repeat sex offender. But tagging a child for life as a sex offender is just going too far. That's not justice or community safety; that's just taking it out on a kid out of retribution. No one discussed either whether the law was constitutional or gave possible thought to the effects on under-age offenders. I am alright with punishing people if they commit a crime but unless there's evidence they will re-offend, its not just or right to label them a lifetime danger to society.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[sodpoodle]

****Everything began with babysitting. Michael’s mother often made him watch her boyfriend’s 7-year-old son, Aaron**

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everything began with an immoral grandparent who raised an immoral daughter who gave birth to one more morally bankrupt victim .

[rellimpank]

--it's one of the few in the LV Sun that I bothered to read-

-lots of meat there-not the least of which is the entrance of the overreaching federal government into every nook and cranny in the form of legislation not read by any of those voting for it---

[goldstategop]

There can no justice without allowing a judge to look at the individual circumstances of the case as well as the offenders' past conduct. Was it a one time thing? Does the offender have a prior record? Is the offender genuinely remorseful or someone who would do it again if he wasn't caught? People are individuals and a blanket rule leads to unfair results. No one would want to be viewed as a criminal for the rest of their life because of something they did at 15.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[RightWhale]

Had a dog like that. Always wondered what its ancestors were. One I am now sure was coyote. Anything with fur that was not a dog was food.

[goldstategop]

Its amazing how few politicians take the time to read and discuss the laws that effect all of us. They should be debated so its known what a law might do. That way the law is fair and it protects every body. Don't get me wrong, I don't shed tears for habitual sex offenders who just go ahead and do their thing without concern for the lives they destroy. But it makes no sense to assign a label to someone unless we understand whether they can change. If we don't allow people to do that, they will never be all they can be. I'd want the law to give people a second chance to do something good with their lives. Those who do shouldn't be followed around for the rest of their lives; those who don't should be. Simple and straight.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus