Comments on: DE’s Sex Offender Registry-Good News/Bad News

By: Michelle

Michelle — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:16:24 +0000

WOW what a conversation…
Now the 19 year old having sex with his 16yr old girlfriend then being labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life is completely wrong in my book.
Im sorry but now-a-days the 14yr old is the new 16yr old. Kids are introduced to so much more these days.
The man that slaps a women on the ass and is convicted of sexual assault…well he was definitely wrong but to be punished and labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life…WRONG!!!
Or the man who grabs a teenage girl who has grabbed him as well…of course that man should know better he is wrong VERY wrong but that doesn’t make him a predator or a pedophile…so should he be registered as a sex offender??? Was he stupid for making such a stupid choice…Oh most definitely but should he be deemed for the rest of his life for one severe lack in judgment? Being punished in the court system…having to serve time for being completely wrong I agree but then having to be thrown in with a rapist/real pedophiles for the rest of your life…The registry doesn’t separate anyone. Most people think of the registered sex offenders as all being these very sick-minded individuals who attack the innocent…Most are but there are also thousands who aren’t but are treated as if they are…WRONG!!!

By: arthur

arthur — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:18:43 +0000

wow brooke, way to not answer the question.

By: Brooke

Brooke — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:59:31 +0000

Sorry, I didn’t mean to run out on the conversation, but I had to take the middle child, of my five, to dance class. It’s observation week.

I’m not anti-sex. But I’ve been working doing sex education for over 30 years, because I started as a teenager. I stood around gay bars during the height of the party before we even knew what caused AIDS, but we knew it was sexually transmitted. And I knew every night then, that the guys I failed to reach THAT NIGHT could be signing on for what was, at the time, pretty much a death warrant. If I sound humorless, remember how many stupid young people I’ve spoken to.

And women? None of them would be affected by such things. So when my friends in their 30’s turned out to be infertile, because they’d been scarred by undiagnosed chlamydia, or my friends in their 40’s came back with positive PAP smears, it was all just … the luck of the draw.

I’m not excited by any lists. If the government lost all our info, I’d be tickled pink. But this business separating the “bad” sex offenders from the “kids will be kids” is exactly the same as the crack vs coke sentencing laws, AND disrespectful of rape victims, in sorting them into “real” victims, and “others”, AND the dismissive attitudes towards the impact of teen sex underestimates a public health problem.

But other than that I’m cool with it, lol.

By: nemski

nemski — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:17:39 +0000

Jeez, Brooke I never said that no to prosecution. I just think the list is draconian.

By: Denise

Denise — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:13:30 +0000

Brooke—you are right…..children should not be having sex but having said that, why won’t you answer Arthur’s question? Two 16 year olds(or 15 year olds for that matter) have sex. Who gets prosecuted? Only the young boy that couldn’t keep it in his pants? Or the girl that wouldn’t keep her pants on? Are you afraid to answer the question?
I have two children of my own(wondering if you have any) and always drummed it into their heads that they needed to wait to have sex. Did it work? Not hardly. But I feel better knowing that I gave them as much information as possible. In a perfect world, sex would only be between married adults but we don’t live in a perfect world–at least the rest of us don’t. And i agree with a lot of the comments about the sex offender registry. Someone who abuses, molests, rapes or otherwise harms ANYONE(not just children) should be on the list. But as an example, a 15 year old girl sends a picture of herself naked to an 18 year old boy(on his phone or computer or whatever). Should that boy be on a sex offender registry and have to be on it for the rest of his life? There are some offenders that i don’t believe should be on the registry. And then there are some that I believe should be sentenced to the death penalty for the heinous crimes they commit. And then there is everyone in between. This is something that should be looked at on a case by case basis.

By: El Somnambulo

El Somnambulo — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:17:00 +0000

Brooke wrote: “I’m not arguing with that, at all. If you want the list abolished, or time limited, or whatever, that’s your opinion.”

That’s what the whole bleeping article was about, attempts to twist logic to make people look like they countenance rape to the contrary.

By: Scott P

Scott P — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:12:21 +0000

Absolutely, Brooke. I agree with you 100%. Statutory rape, forcible rape, and all other sex-related crimes should be prosecuted and the offenders should be punished. Unless the crime is bad enough to earn a life sentence, that punishment lasts for a set amount of time. If, after serving that sentence, the offender is not reasonably considered to be a threat to the general public, he should not be forced to bear an everlasting punishment just because his crime involved his wee-wee. If the crime was a one-time, isolated thing, the punishment should be a one-time thing.

Now let it be noted, I’m not discounting the fact that there are some bad mother-watchyourmouths out there. There definitely are people who will never be able to stop doing what they do, and it might not be a bad thing to know who they are.

By: arthur

arthur — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:59:59 +0000

This has been my question brooke..two 16 year olds have sex. who are you going to prosecute? both of them?

By: Brooke

Brooke — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:57:09 +0000

And, nem, I’m not arguing with that, at all. If you want the list abolished, or time limited, or whatever, that’s your opinion. But no amount of opinions is likely to sway my understanding of the importance of prosecuting statutory rape. Children are not in a position to “consent.”

By: anon

anon — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:33:20 +0000

The word consensual still has meaning in the language, even if the law has its own definition.

By: nemski

nemski — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:29:34 +0000

Brooke, here’s the deal. Some of us believe that not everyone should be on the list for their entire life after paying their debt to society.

By: Brooke

Brooke — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:25:21 +0000

Consensual. “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

By: El Somnambulo

El Somnambulo — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:03:27 +0000

The situations that Brooke highlights deserve long prison sentences and a lifetime on the registry if they get out.

I am referring to the scores of ‘low-level’ sex offenders on the registry that don’t come even close to the horror stories, violent rape, intra-family abuse and the like, that Brooke references. Those perpetrators are precisely those for whom prison and an effective registry exist.

And, I’m sorry, but consensual teenage lust does not fall into that category.

Brooke states that, “We won’t let 14 year olds drive a car. We won’t let them drop out of school. We won’t let them buy alcohol, buy tobacco, or enter into a contract.” Well, we don’t send them to jail, either. At most to a juvenile detention center if there is a pattern of behavior. And, even then their record gets expunged if they behave.

For consensual teenage sex, if caught, the penalty is far worse. And, you’re on an offenders’ registry for the rest of your life.

I really don’t know what more to say on the subject.

By: arthur

arthur — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:01:01 +0000

what of two 16 year olds? who is the victim and who is the perp?

By: Brooke

Brooke — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:57:30 +0000

I tell girls and boys exactly the same thing. And I would consider a 19 year old female having sex with a 14 year old boy an equal danger to society. But biology gets a vote about who faces bigger risks (statistically) from starting sexual activity earlier.