Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,492
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 6, 2015 10:30:00 GMT -5
I don't agree that "socially awkward" adults should be absolved of crimes against aggressive minors, but I do feel that there should be some sort of repercussions against minors for "consenting" to participate in inappropriate activities with adults. Facebook has lots of minors who lied about their age so they could open an account. The dating app Tinder can pull info from your Facebook account to create a Tinder account. Knowing that, a 16-year-old girl can easily create a Tinder account and start trolling for guys that are 18-25. Her fake age would show and if she really looked like she could be 18, no one would know. She knew the legal consenting age is 18 but didn't care. Should that just be allowed? What?? ?? The highlighted section would be best addressed by parent to child.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jul 6, 2015 10:32:32 GMT -5
I'm not against consequences for lying about one's age to gain access to age-restricted material -- but IMO that is a separate issue from the statutory rape one, and I think is probably best handled by the companies granting access themselves. If Tinder starts getting a reputation as the new match.com for statutory rape/pedophilia, they're a lot more likely to take steps that are actually effective in curbing underage use than a bunch of prosecutors who get together and start issuing citations, or whatever the proper "punishment" should be. Most state laws are already clear that just because you think someone is of age doesn't mean you're not committing a crime, so the behavior of the minor who is lying about their age really has no bearing on the criminal act. Maybe the motto of those >18 should be "distrust and verify."
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 6, 2015 10:33:08 GMT -5
I don't agree that "socially awkward" adults should be absolved of crimes against aggressive minors, but I do feel that there should be some sort of repercussions against minors for "consenting" to participate in inappropriate activities with adults. Facebook has lots of minors who lied about their age so they could open an account. The dating app Tinder can pull info from your Facebook account to create a Tinder account. Knowing that, a 16-year-old girl can easily create a Tinder account and start trolling for guys that are 18-25. Her fake age would show and if she really looked like she could be 18, no one would know. She knew the legal consenting age is 18 but didn't care. Should that just be allowed? What?? ?? if 16-year-old X actively seeks out a sexual encounter with 21-year-old Y and X deceived Y to make Y think that X was 18, should only Y be punished? I think Y should definitely be punished, but it seems unfair that X could go around doing this with countless other people similar to Y knowing the law and they would never face any repercussions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 18:23:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 10:33:51 GMT -5
How many 19 year old females end up on the list for having sex with a 14 year old? This is not applied equally via gender in our society. It just isn't.
Mid, I was also thinking of drinking and rape cases we were talking about at earlier times and males being held to a different standard of consent in that comment.
I'm not saying there should be no repercussions. I do not however think every 19 year old in a situation like this needs to be mandatorily labeled a sex offender to the public for his establishment years if not lifetime.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 6, 2015 10:34:12 GMT -5
The highlighted section would be best addressed by parent to child. I totally agree.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Jul 6, 2015 10:38:42 GMT -5
I guess the answer is don't have sex with people you don't know.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 6, 2015 10:39:21 GMT -5
I'm not against consequences for lying about one's age to gain access to age-restricted material -- but IMO that is a separate issue from the statutory rape one, and I think is probably best handled by the companies granting access themselves. If Tinder starts getting a reputation as the new match.com for statutory rape/pedophilia, they're a lot more likely to take steps that are actually effective in curbing underage use than a bunch of prosecutors who get together and start issuing citations, or whatever the proper "punishment" should be. Most state laws are already clear that just because you think someone is of age doesn't mean you're not committing a crime, so the behavior of the minor who is lying about their age really has no bearing on the criminal act. Maybe the motto of those >18 should be "distrust and verify." I understand and agree with you, but to what extent does one verify? Check their ID, sure - but what if they got a fake one made and it's really good? Should adults have one of those blue lights so they can scan the ID and make sure it has the proper seals and everything? Should they ask for a SS card? Birth certificate? How much before it becomes ridiculous? Note that I am in no way saying that sex between minors and adults is okay (outside of between maybe a 17/18-year-olds or something similarly close... even though I don't think minors should be having sex period). I'm just bringing up the age verification point.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,379
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jul 6, 2015 10:40:19 GMT -5
I'm not against consequences for lying about one's age to gain access to age-restricted material -- but IMO that is a separate issue from the statutory rape one, and I think is probably best handled by the companies granting access themselves. If Tinder starts getting a reputation as the new match.com for statutory rape/pedophilia, they're a lot more likely to take steps that are actually effective in curbing underage use than a bunch of prosecutors who get together and start issuing citations, or whatever the proper "punishment" should be. Most state laws are already clear that just because you think someone is of age doesn't mean you're not committing a crime, so the behavior of the minor who is lying about their age really has no bearing on the criminal act. Maybe the motto of those >18 should be "distrust and verify." I understand and agree with you, but to what extent does one verify? Check their ID, sure - but what if they got a fake one made and it's really good? Should adults have one of those blue lights so they can scan the ID and make sure it has the proper seals and everything? Should they ask for a SS card? Birth certificate? How much before it becomes ridiculous? Note that I am in no way saying that sex between minors and adults is okay (outside of between maybe a 17/18-year-olds or something similarly close... even though I don't think minors should be having sex period). I'm just bringing up the age verification point. abstinence only pledges.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 6, 2015 10:40:54 GMT -5
I'm not against consequences for lying about one's age to gain access to age-restricted material -- but IMO that is a separate issue from the statutory rape one, and I think is probably best handled by the companies granting access themselves. If Tinder starts getting a reputation as the new match.com for statutory rape/pedophilia, they're a lot more likely to take steps that are actually effective in curbing underage use than a bunch of prosecutors who get together and start issuing citations, or whatever the proper "punishment" should be. Most state laws are already clear that just because you think someone is of age doesn't mean you're not committing a crime, so the behavior of the minor who is lying about their age really has no bearing on the criminal act. Maybe the motto of those >18 should be "distrust and verify." Wait a second there, Mid....are you suggesting that the legal adult should be responsible for their actions?? ?? Surely not! Not with all those 'aggressive', scantily clad 14 year olds out on the prowl and all? I don't know why you're getting all up in arms, as I'm not saying that the adults shouldn't take responsibility.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jul 6, 2015 10:42:32 GMT -5
They aren't, though. The situation described in the OP is fairly rare and IMO not representative. Here (a very red state), statutory rapists spend 10 years at most on the registry, and are unlikely to serve any jail time. The "Romeo and Juliet" relationships don't land you on the offender registry unless the victim was 13 or younger. Most prosecutors have enough to do without playing bedroom police between consenting teens. When a story like this hits the media, there's usually more to it.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 6, 2015 10:46:51 GMT -5
I understand and agree with you, but to what extent does one verify? Check their ID, sure - but what if they got a fake one made and it's really good? Should adults have one of those blue lights so they can scan the ID and make sure it has the proper seals and everything? Should they ask for a SS card? Birth certificate? How much before it becomes ridiculous? Note that I am in no way saying that sex between minors and adults is okay (outside of between maybe a 17/18-year-olds or something similarly close... even though I don't think minors should be having sex period). I'm just bringing up the age verification point. abstinence only pledges. Perfect! What could possibly go wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 18:23:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 11:03:23 GMT -5
They aren't, though. The situation described in the OP is fairly rare and IMO not representative. Here (a very red state), statutory rapists spend 10 years at most on the registry, and are unlikely to serve any jail time. The "Romeo and Juliet" relationships don't land you on the offender registry unless the victim was 13 or younger. Most prosecutors have enough to do without playing bedroom police between consenting teens. When a story like this hits the media, there's usually more to it. So he only can't get a professional lisence, work with kids, get a good job, rent a nice place, for only a decade. Then suddenly at 29 everyone ignored the gaps in his resume and rental history and he's just the same as if he hadn't spent 10 years on the registry. Prison might be better.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 6, 2015 11:06:52 GMT -5
They aren't, though. The situation described in the OP is fairly rare and IMO not representative. Here (a very red state), statutory rapists spend 10 years at most on the registry, and are unlikely to serve any jail time. The "Romeo and Juliet" relationships don't land you on the offender registry unless the victim was 13 or younger. Most prosecutors have enough to do without playing bedroom police between consenting teens. When a story like this hits the media, there's usually more to it. So he only can't get a professional lisence, work with kids, get a good job, rent a nice place, for only a decade. Then suddenly at 29 everyone ignored the gaps in his resume and rental history and he's just the same as if he hadn't spent 10 there are plenty of jobs he can do where he'd have no contact with kids. He can also live places, just not within a certain distance of a school.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 18:23:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 11:15:58 GMT -5
Zib said she wouldn't rent to him. You think others don't check the list?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jul 6, 2015 11:20:45 GMT -5
So he only can't get a professional lisence, work with kids, get a good job, rent a nice place, for only a decade. Then suddenly at 29 everyone ignored the gaps in his resume and rental history and he's just the same as if he hadn't spent 10 there are plenty of jobs he can do where he'd have no contact with kids. He can also live places, just not within a certain distance of a school. Have you seen some of the maps? I was looking at a map where a sex offender COULD live once you blacked out areas near schools, parks, daycare centers, etc. and there were very few places they could live. Add to this that if you are having a hard time being employed, you likely need to be on public transportation lines - which are very near the places that you need to avoid. It really is a no-win situation and I'm not sure of the solution.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,379
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jul 6, 2015 11:23:16 GMT -5
Is there a vehicular homicide list? or DUI list? or aggravated assault list? or breaking and entering list?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 6, 2015 11:24:02 GMT -5
Zib said she wouldn't rent to him. You think others don't check the list? Yup, I cant. My rentals are too close to a school. On the other hand, I did rent one once to a man who married his HS sweetheart and they had 3 kids. He told me up front and brought a card from his probation officer and I called the probation officer. The guy had a job and was just going through the hoops. It really was a Romeo and Juliet situation. But the one I rented him was not close to a school. I can't bend that rule. They rented until they bought a house. I imagine they rented until he was off probation or however that works. Oddly enough, buying a house no one runs a criminal check on you, just renting one. I might be one of the few LL's that do run criminal as well as credit. One last rental to sell and I'm out.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Jul 6, 2015 11:38:00 GMT -5
I think sex offender registries are stupid, and it's a way for the state legislatures to make it look like they are tough on crime when they are just implementing another do nothing expensive program to track people who don't need to be tracked.
In my experience, there are a significant number of men who were 21 and had a 15 or 16 year old girlfriend. Appropriate? No. But I don't see it as a sex offender either. Some of these guys are mildly mentally retarded and the girl is the brains behind the operation. There was also a retarded 19 year old who appeared to be playing doctor with a 6 year old. Wholly inappropriate, but he was acting in accordance with his developmental age.
When we've branded a person a sex offender, not only are they a convicted felon, they can't live certain places, nobody will hire them, and we've basically marginalized them as citizens.
With respect to forcing the plea agreement, at least in NY, if you plead to any crime in the sex offense category, you're on the offender list. Very, very, very rarely will someone be offered a plea outside that category.
And for the person peeing in public getting put on the registry list, in almost 20 years of practicing law, I have NEVER seen it.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jul 6, 2015 11:54:56 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to the general idea that an adult is responsible to determine ability to give consent, i.e. determine the age of the person they're looking to bang. But I do think when the minor specifically misrepresents themselves, that should be taken into consideration with the sentencing. I'm not saying they should get off scott free, but I am saying it should be a mitigating factor, and that the punishment should fit the crime. Lifetime sex offender registration seems rather harsh in a case like this.
And I agree that a minor who mis represents themselves as an adult in this situation should face some charges as well. I mean, there are charges for lying about your age in other arenas right? If I create a fake ID and buy alcohol at age 18, do I get off scott free because the dude selling me alcohol failed to see through my deception?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jul 6, 2015 12:00:23 GMT -5
I'm not against consequences for lying about one's age to gain access to age-restricted material -- but IMO that is a separate issue from the statutory rape one, and I think is probably best handled by the companies granting access themselves. If Tinder starts getting a reputation as the new match.com for statutory rape/pedophilia, they're a lot more likely to take steps that are actually effective in curbing underage use than a bunch of prosecutors who get together and start issuing citations, or whatever the proper "punishment" should be. Most state laws are already clear that just because you think someone is of age doesn't mean you're not committing a crime, so the behavior of the minor who is lying about their age really has no bearing on the criminal act. Maybe the motto of those >18 should be "distrust and verify." Question.
So, as stated above, if an 18 year old uses a fake ID to purchase alcohol, and the seller of the alcohol fails to see through the deception, is the seller of the alcohol the only one who committed an unlawful act? Or is it both of them?
What if I decide to impersonate a police officer? Do I get off because the onus is on everyone else to see through my deception, and not on me for initiating the deception in the first place?
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Jul 6, 2015 12:01:16 GMT -5
there are plenty of jobs he can do where he'd have no contact with kids. He can also live places, just not within a certain distance of a school. Have you seen some of the maps? I was looking at a map where a sex offender COULD live once you blacked out areas near schools, parks, daycare centers, etc. and there were very few places they could live. Add to this that if you are having a hard time being employed, you likely need to be on public transportation lines - which are very near the places that you need to avoid. It really is a no-win situation and I'm not sure of the solution. There is one currently on the list living right across from the daycare and elementary school in my neighborhood. Have far are they supposed to live?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jul 6, 2015 12:30:34 GMT -5
Have you seen some of the maps? I was looking at a map where a sex offender COULD live once you blacked out areas near schools, parks, daycare centers, etc. and there were very few places they could live. Add to this that if you are having a hard time being employed, you likely need to be on public transportation lines - which are very near the places that you need to avoid. It really is a no-win situation and I'm not sure of the solution. There is one currently on the list living right across from the daycare and elementary school in my neighborhood. Have far are they supposed to live? According to google, sex offenders are not supposed to live 500-2500 feet, depending on state. Residency restriction laws have led to some unanticipated and unintended consequences. In many locations — most noticeably in urban areas — the restrictions have created overlapping exclusion zones that severely limit where offenders can live. In some cities the only acceptable sites are in high-crime neighborhoods or commercial zones. Even when residential areas are available, sex offenders just released from prison may not be able to find affordable housing in those areas. If unable to find legal housing, offenders may report false addresses, become homeless or go underground. Others may be forced to live in rural areas with less access to employment or mental health services. Even in rural areas where schools and day care centers are more geographically dispersed, most unrestricted land is forest or farmland.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Jul 6, 2015 12:56:33 GMT -5
So we are not even talking miles. A half mile at the most. That is not very restrictive.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jul 6, 2015 12:59:34 GMT -5
So we are not even talking miles. A half mile at the most. That is not very restrictive. I'm not sure of the details for my state, but that would exclude my entire city.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 6, 2015 13:17:19 GMT -5
So we are not even talking miles. A half mile at the most. That is not very restrictive. I'm not sure of the details for my state, but that would exclude my entire city. some towns are only a couple of square miles.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Jul 6, 2015 13:25:15 GMT -5
It definitely doesn't exclude many places in my city. Like I said, one lives right across the street from a huge daycare. It is maybe 500 ft. The elementary school I would estimate 1000 ft. from his apartment. Less than a five min walk.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Jul 6, 2015 13:26:20 GMT -5
I would have assumed it was too close, but apparently not.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 18:23:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 15:07:20 GMT -5
If someone pees in the park and is put on the list why is he a risk? How is he more of a risk then anyone else? What was the point of putting him on a sex offender list? It certainly isn't because others need to be informed about him. If it isn't punishment and it isn't to inform others that he is a risk, then why put him on the list? Same with a 16 year old girl who sends a nude photo of herself. She is not a risk to others any more then any other average high schooler. She just made a dumb choice. Why put her on a sex offender list if not to punish? Who needs to know that she sent a nudie to her boyfriend? No one thats who. Maybe Swamp can answer, but I imagine it is used as a threat by some prosecutors to get plea agreements on other crimes. It is seen as a punishment by those threatened with it, I would think. You don't know what you're talking about. what fact do I have wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 18:23:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 15:11:46 GMT -5
There are over 800,000 people on the sex offender's registry. Approximately 25% were added to the registry as minors. according to reason mag
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 18:23:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2015 15:17:03 GMT -5
I think sex offender registries are stupid, and it's a way for the state legislatures to make it look like they are tough on crime when they are just implementing another do nothing expensive program to track people who don't need to be tracked.
In my experience, there are a significant number of men who were 21 and had a 15 or 16 year old girlfriend. Appropriate? No. But I don't see it as a sex offender either. Some of these guys are mildly mentally retarded and the girl is the brains behind the operation. There was also a retarded 19 year old who appeared to be playing doctor with a 6 year old. Wholly inappropriate, but he was acting in accordance with his developmental age.
When we've branded a person a sex offender, not only are they a convicted felon, they can't live certain places, nobody will hire them, and we've basically marginalized them as citizens.
With respect to forcing the plea agreement, at least in NY, if you plead to any crime in the sex offense category, you're on the offender list. Very, very, very rarely will someone be offered a plea outside that category.
And for the person peeing in public getting put on the registry list, in almost 20 years of practicing law, I have NEVER seen it.
Midjd said that not all people caught with a nude picture of a girlfriend are prosecuted as sex crimes. If someone was accused of selling drugs, for instance, could the police or da agree to not prosecute for the nude picture in exchange for a guilty plea on other crimes? If I understood Midjd there was discretion on who to charge with what with respect to pictures of underage friends. I am sorry if this is wrong understanding of what she said.
|
|