Concerned: I really got a kick out of that last post of yours, it was quite entertaining. You are basically saying 15 – 16 year old child you are not mature enough to realize that if you are having sex and do not want to get pregnant you need birth control and you aren’t mature enough to seek out programs that will give you free birth control. So I as your parent will make you an appointment, make sure you get to your appointment and get you the pills you aren’t adult enough to realize that you need and I will make sure you take them because you aren’t responsible enough to do that either. Yet you believe that that same kid can be responsible and adult enough to decide whether or not to have sex and with any age person that they choose. A good determining factor in this is that if the child is not mature enough to realize that they need birth control prior to having sex than in my opinion as a parent they are not mature enough even think about deciding to have sex in the first place. Just my opinion though, thanks for the laugh.

Truth, apparently you don't know many 15 or 16 year olds. Birth Control programs don't work, but parents making an appointment, driving their teens to the doctor and making sure they take their pills does.

I do not believe that most 15-16 year-olds are having sex....The fact that they talk about it is different than actually doing it...Yes, they show it on tv but thats not reflective of reality...."Birth control" programs have not shown decreases in pregnancy rates either.

I don't believe sexual activity would increase because most teenagers already have sex. The statistics on the subject are outdated, and being based on voluntary response surveys, they are woefully understated. Also, if parents were more involved, more open and less judgmental, many sexually active teens would be on birth control, of course less pregnancy would result.

concerned- You don't think this sexual activity would increase because no one would be afraid of "getting in trouble"?
I have a hard time believing that all the participants in this sexual activity would take responsibility for the pregnancies that result.

I don't think that changing the law to reflect the current reality of the sex lives of teenagers would have any effect on anything other than jail overcrowding.

concernedcitizen- Without passing my opinion on your position one way or the other, what do you think would happen to the abortion rate under your plan?

swisschick- Anyone that even TOUCHES your mailbox without your consent is committing a FEDERAL OFFENSE among the other things this person has done...If you actually WANT to do something about this person, all you have to do is report this to the approriate authorities.

The young girls are not taken advantage of unless they are to stupid to know how to say no! If they choose to say yes, that is on them an no one else. There is no advantage unless the victim in question is a prepubescent child or drugged or unconscious. Why do we have to perpetrate this victim mentality? To all the teenagers out there:
If you want to have sex, great, please be careful and safe. If you don't, then JUST SAY NO! If someone won't take no for an answer, then that is rape and that is whole different issue and I'll be the first one in the lynch mob.

We are never going to agree, and that is fine.

I believe that protecting the teens that need protection is incumbent upon that teen's parents, and upon the teen themselves—if we can trust them to operate a vehicle (potentially deadly,) and work in the community, then we should be able to trust what they themselves choose to do with their genitals. That is my opinion. Your's is that the police need to be involved. That is fine.

My daughters know that who they choose to have sex with his their choice, their responsibility, and their business, and no one else's.

One thing that I would like to mention about the parent comment is that there are so many laws in place that it is to the point where a 15 year old girl can have an abortion and her parents cannot be notified. I knew a girl who at 15 had had 4 abortions and her parents didn’t even know she was having sex. It would be nice if the decision could be held between parents and the teen however that trusts that the parents are responsible and as you stated most sexual assaults happen with people the family knows. I just know too many young girls who were taken advantage of for me to think that these laws are not necessary.

I apologize if I came off like a jerk however the consequences are in place in an attempt to protect our children. Every 18+ year old knows that they will be labeled as a sex offender if they have sex with someone under 18. They know that they will have to live with that for the rest of their lives, yet we have so many young adults having sex with teens still. None of this should be a surprise to an adult that gets caught, how fair it is I don’t know in certain instances where the adult is 18, 19, or 20 however as of now it is one of the better systems that I have seen to protect teens from people who would take advantage of them. And if it is not an instance of taking advantage then just wait, and if the teen wants to you have to decide if the rest of your life is worth this person, I cannot see why it would be.

I would suggest that sex be a matter between parents, teenagers and their partners, and leave law enforcement out of it. Only the person involved knows when they are ready to have sex. The fact that anyone would want to give the police any more power than absolutely necessary is mind-boggling.

How would you subject that we determine when someone is of the appropriate maturity level to consent to sex. Should we have a written test? No the magical age of 18 is not perfect however it is what we have and should be followed unless you are prepared to accept the consequences that are well known. I am not saying that what you described does not happen however every person who makes the decision to have sex with an underage person knows the consequences if they get caught and they have to deal with them or they could wait 365 days for the other person to be legal. And the most states that have a 16 year old consent age also only allow that if the two participating in the act are within a certain age difference.

mespl, we seem to have a miscommunication, you seem to be talking about a particular situation, whereas I am talking about sex offender registry and statutory rape laws in the abstract.

We don't disagree that the situation you refer to is unethical and ill-advised, however, again the issue is that it makes no sense to say that someone who is 17 years and 364 days old is less mature than someone who is 18 years old. Maturity levels vary from adult to adult, and from teenager to teenager. Hence, having an arbitrary age of consent set at 18 (in many states it is 16) does not serve any purpose other than to ruin the lives of too many 18-22 year olds, and collect revenue for the state.

So I know that no one will change your thinking that a young teenage girl is at the same maturity level as an adult and any old male should be able to have sex with them but the fact is that the old guy knew the law and that he would be labeled a sex offender and he did it anyway and got caught so he has to deal with that for the rest of his life. If he doesn’t like it he could have easily prevented it from happening in the first place.

mespl, obviously if someone is passed out then they cannot grant consent, to use that as an argument is asinine. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just suggesting that 18 is an arbitrary number, and much to high. The average age of first intercourse is 14.6. Also, one select group of sex offenders (same-sex pedophiles-those who target same sex pre-pubescent children) have a high recidivism rate. However, most other groups do not.

A child is most likely to be molested by a family member, not a stranger.

To even suggest that having sex with a consenting adolescent represents a dangerous psychopathology indicates a lack of understanding about the subject and severely hampers your credibility.

Sorry but a 40 year old man could never have consensual sex with a teenager since he knows that a teenager is too young to consent to sex. The 40 year old man is taking advantage of a young impressionable girl who is still learning about the ways of the world. Also a sex offender is never safe, sex offenders are repeat offenders and there is no rehabilitation that has been found to work. And don’t tell me that a 15 year old girl who is passed out needs to learn to keep her legs closed. Adults need to learn to be adults and do what is best for children around them that means keep your old hands off of 15 year old girls because as an adult you know better.

I'm pretty sure that (however, not knowing your exact circumstances, prinny) if I found out I was in a "relationship" with a registered sex offender, I wouldn't be.
-
I see it all too many times on TV and other news. . . A woman has a SO boyfriend and will defend him to the end over her children when one is missing. Or, has been found dead. Not me.

I did not intend to initiate a discussion about the morality of sex with teenagers, but yes a 40 year old man can have consensual sex with a teenager if said teenager gives consent. It would not be legal, but legality does not negate consent in a philosophical sense, nor does it dictate morality. Do I think that it's distasteful and inappropriate? Absolutely! However, we should put the responsibility where it belongs, and that is to teach our teenage daughters to keep their legs shut!

Anyway, I digress. The issue at hand is sex offender registry. It shouldn't exist. it doesn't protect, it does more harm to the ex-offenders than it does good to the public, and it is disproportionate punishment, as there is no murderer or domestic violence registry, and those are larger and more dangerous groups.

At a very basic level, once an offender is deemed safe and released, it is no one's business where they live or what they do.

sorry! "they're" not "there". I know the posting Police will crucify me and use my spelling as proof that my arguement is wrong somehow and I'm mentally deficient. Figured I'd set the record straight.

While I agree with SuperDave's comments about a relationship between a 17 y.o. and a 15 y.o. (there both minors)and can in some instances agree with his example about public urination (any deer hunter knows when ya gotta go, ya gotta go), sorry Concerned, a 40 y.o. man cannot have CONSENSUAL sex with "minors" no matter how many words you put in caps, how many quotation marks you use or badly that particular minor wanted to have sex.

I tend to agree with Prinny that it is difficult to believe that you will ever be truly "safe". If I were new to the area it would be useful to look for groupings or higher risk areas much as someone would read newspapers, police reports, etc to identify the higher crime areas of any city.

I am perfectly aware that I am not going to be able to know if all offenders are registered and where they live, but I can look on this registry and find out which areas have the most and try to stay away from that area. I have also taught my kids very well about stranger danger, when you know someone who has been affected by this you are very aware of everything around you.

Concerned.... it is true that there are mis-applications of the registration laws, and that there are some negative consequences, though the accountability the registry provides, keeps offenders knowing that they are being kept an eye on. It also helps to assure that when there is another sex offense committed, and they need to find the suspect, they have pertinent information to sort through (a current list of possible suspects) instead of combing through just the general public, as it is known that past behavior COULD potentially forsee future risks of recidivism. My question is, how can we completely predict someone's danger level? Offenders lie all the time to appear less dangerous, and people do things unexpectedly, whether they appeared dangerous or not. It happens more than you think.

getinto.... it is true the registry gives you information as to where these offenders live, though one should be realistic enough to say, I'm not going to live where "they" live. Honestly, there are so many sex offenders living in all cities/states now-a-days, it would be theoretically impossible to live completely away from ALL of them, unless you were on a desered island! However knowing an offender's past can help you to make sure that if there is an offender in your neighborhood, you might not allow your young children outside alone to play, or you would adequately teach your children common "stranger danger" to include these individuals. But thinking that you are "safe" because you don't live near an offender of any kind, is ridiculous. Beware of the person standing behind you in the grocery store, the well-dressed, even-mannered-looking person that is really thinking how to lure their next victim away by his/her charming looks/personality. People just need to practice safe community social skills and be aware of possible illegal/criminal behavior.

I see this issue from both sides, and trust me I am NOT biased either way, just realistic and knowledable of the subject area, as I am in a relationship with a registered SO. This person's registration requirement effects me and my family(children) daily, and has it's good and bad points. To top it off, I am a criminal justice student, so I know both the social pros and cons to the issue, and the legalities of it. No system/tactic will ever be perfect, but this is a valuable resource to law enforcement and community safety, not just a punishment. Commnity safety is first and foremost, and if we can prevent just one more victim, then it is worth it!

Also, now he thinks I'm a good friend of his. WHAT!!!! Ick! I've seen him hang out at a bowling alley in the game room with 12-15 year old girls on a regular basis. My boyfriend bowls there and the group of us can't figure out why he's allowed to be around kids of that age.

I have a problem because he is using my address and a 30-40 year old man shouldn't be having sex with a 15 year old conscious or not. (It's in his record). Freak.

SwissChick, if he is dangerous, then by all means, he shouldn't be out and lying about his address. If he is not dangerous enough to be locked up, than it's none of your business where he lives, and as such would have no reason to lie about his address.

Having CONSENSUAL sex with "minors" does not mean someone is a "sex offender," it just means that particular minor wanted to have sex.

I have a comment from a different point of view. Last place I rented (last year), I took a personal day from work. I went to get the mail and as I was walking back to my front door, this guy (who I knew of slightly) came bounding in the driveway with his vehicle and said, "Give me my mail". I asked why he thought he would have mail here. Come to find out he was using that address as an (illegal?) mail drop and I apparently caught him off guard by being home that day. (He had been going through the mailbox on many occasions according to my neighbors). He told me he would contact the police as I was "illegally withholding his mail". I said, "see ya there".
-
I went in the house to verify (on registery) what I had heard about him (registered sex offender, and lo and behold, there is my address listed under his picture), get my purse and called the 800 number on the website. They told me to go to the local police department. Well, of course, the little puke never went there regarding his mail. (Actually he's about 6'4").
-
(The police department told me to contact the DOC website number). Geez. I was getting the runaround.
-
I made a report with them and they told me they would start watching our mail box. I called the 800 number again and that time they told me they would send out a registered letter to confirm his address. I told him that he wasn't at this address to get it. Didn't matter. According to their website information, when an offender moves they have (I believe) 5 days to notify them. He was never charged with noncompliance. I don't get that at all. I thought they said they were getting tough on them.
-
By the way, his offenses (2 convictions with minors, one is having sex with an unconscious person) are well within the guidelines of a sex offender. IMO. AND, he's in his 40's.

Concerned: I have to agree with most of your comments! Statutory Rape involving people near the same age, e.g. 17 year old boy and 15 year old girl, does not belong there. Indecent exposure, e.g. public urination, does not belong there. This is a modern day scarlet letter, that is all too frequently misapplied.

I can look on the registry and find out where all these offenders live and make sure I live no where near them, in my book the registry is a very useful tool. My Opinion.

getintotherealworld, how does this keep the public safe?? keeping dangerous people locked up would keep the public safe. Letting rehabilitated or non-dangerous "sex offenders" become part of the public again would also keep the public safe. The people who support this detrimental and horrific politically motivated policy are at best sheep and worst hateful mean-spirited sick individuals. This needs to stop.

I am glad they are doing everything possible to keep the public safe.

Sex Offender Registry is one the most insidious and despicable practices our government is engaged in at the moment. A large percentage of "sex offenders" have this status due to a non-coercive sexual act (statutory rape,) and have done nothing wrong, are not, and never have been a danger to anyone.

Sex offender registration destroys the lives of those caught in it's broad and non-discriminating net, and does absolutely NOTHING to protect victims or potential victims.

For those that truly are a danger to society, they need to be kept incarcerated as necessary. Otherwise, if they are safe enough to be out, they are safe enough to be unsupervised.

This disgusting and unconstitutional holocaust of citizen's rights needs to end now.