by Jesse Galef
North Carolina had a law which prohibited sex offenders from going within 300 feet of any facility for the care or supervision of children and “any place where minors gather for regularly scheduled educational, recreational or social programs.” I say had because the law was just successfully challenged by two registered sex offenders who wanted to attend a church which the law had made off-limits:
James Nichols and Frank DeMaio were indicted in May on charges of violating the law by attending Moncure Baptist Church, which has a nursery and regular programs for children.
Both men are registered sex offenders. Nichols was convicted twice of indecent liberties with a teen girl and most recently of attempted second-degree rape in 2003. DeMaio was convicted twice of taking indecent liberties with children.
They challenged the state law, saying it was too broad and denied them their right to attend the church of their choice.
The country court sided with them, declaring the law unconstitutional. The judge ruled that the state didn’t do enough to protect religious freedom.
I see a valid secular reason the state would want to to prohibit registered sex offenders from getting near children, but the court ruled that the law was overly restrictive in achieving its goal, saying:
“The state has not closely drawn the statute to avoid unnecessary abridgment of associational freedoms in achieving its objectives,” [Judge Baddour] wrote in his 16-page ruling. “Additionally, there are a host of protected religious activities abridged by this statute which do not serve the compelling governmental interest.”
Preserving religious liberty is important, so I understand and don’t completely hate this ruling. While I would prefer to see the government get more leeway in pursuing secular interests, the free exercise clause is part of secular governance. If the State can accomplish the same thing without restricting individuals from attending the church of their choice, they need to find a way to do it. Exemptions are not unheard of — the article mentions that the North Carolina law already allows sex offenders near schools to vote or pick up their own children, and some other states with similar laws have special exemptions for churches.
I’m sure the Vatican was watching this case with great interest — they needed to know whether their priests would be allowed in church! (Sorry, that was a bit of a cheap shot, wasn’t it?)
(Story via Religion Clause)
Personally, I think the whole “registered sex offender” thing has gone WAY too far. Two teenagers who have sex, or send each other nude pics via cell phone, for example, or some guy who accidentally gets child porn on his computer while looking for the legal variety (or who wasn’t even looking for porn at all), all those people get lumped in with truly dangerous predatory pedophiles. It needs to stop.
Personally I’m wondering how long it’ll take for thoughtcrime to come into play on the subject.
Every comment you have ever posted and the location from which they have originated has been duly recorded. As soon as we can seize power again, we will start working at rebuilding the theocracy God has ordered and the American people deserve. Repent now and reform your thinking before it’s too late. There will much crying and gnashing of teeth.
(Wow! I thought I was simply going to be sarcastic this morning, and now I’m scaring myself because what I wrote doesn’t sound that far fetched …)
Thought crime, man. Thought crime.
Christopher Hitchens brought up the excellent point that religion is the concept of thought crime as an accepted way of life, since god is watching your every movement and judging them. Given that, I can see religious people being okay with persecuting others for thought crimes.
Deity-believing people and non deity-believing people are, of course, welcome to disagree with me, as I’d love to hear what the other side thinks.
They need to make degrees for sex offenders, according to their particular crime. So those with violent and repeated sex offenses never get the chance to do it again. Wow those with sex offenses on children who have children shouldn’t be allowed to keep them without a psychological profile done to ensure the child’s safety.
I believe the categories differ from state to state, but law enforcement does have scales or ranks for sex offenders.
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1241,q,540389,mpdcNav_GID,1532.asp
Well, that’s one way to discourage people from bringing their families to church! :D
Wait, what?
They’re allowed to have children, or keep their existing children??
This seems like the right move by the judge – freedom of religion is strongly protected by the Constitution and the state really cannot be telling people where they are allowed and not allowed to worship. Period.
Now, the question I have is – what is Moncure Baptist Church going to do about it? While the state should not be interfering in people’s religious worship the individual churches have every right to include and exclude whoever the heck they want. You aren’t going to see a church faill to a discrimination lawsuit – discrimination by churches is pretty much protected by law. So that’s something that the church community is going to have to decide – and some folks are not going to like the decision that the community comes to. Unless the church decides to lock the men out the church will probably split (if they lock the men out there will be people who object, but probably not enough to leave and start their own church. If they don’t there will be families who will stop attending – that’s just how it works – and they’ll likely start looking for a new church that “fits their values better” as my evangelical neighbor might put it).
That’s where this needs to be handled – at the individual church level. I can understand how keeping sex offenders away from schools and daycares is in the best interests of the state (though I question the value of the label “sex offender” these days since it covers everything from rapists to flashers to 18 year olds who have sex with their 16 year old significant others – these are not equivalent crimes and really shouldn’t have the same label). But keeping sex offenders away from churches isn’t the state’s business – it’s up to the church to police their own and the congregants to leave if they don’t like what the church is doing. Just ask the Catholics – they’ve all had to make exactly that decision over the last few years.
The church stands behind their desire to attend…
Nichols said that he found God in prison, and when he was released last September, Moncure Baptist welcomed him with open arms.
“James seemed very sincere in everything he said” about turning his life over to God, Moncure Baptist Church Matt Garrett testified.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/6310732/
Mmmm… I don’t know a lot about your laws or your constitution. Once said that, can anyone explain me why your argument can’t work that way:
-Freedom of expression is strongly protected by the Constitution and the state really cannot be telling people where they are allowed and not allowed to speak. So, If someone wants those guys giving a speech in his school, they should be able.
“Freedom of Speech” doesn’t mean “The right to speak anywhere, anytime” it just means a person cannot be persecuted for speaking out against/for a particular topic. The purpose of freedom of speech is to allow citizens to openly speak in opposition of their government w/o the risk of arrest. Someone wise once said “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. (Thomas Jefferson did NOT say this, at least there is no record of it).
Your definition would allow someone to break into your home, toss down a soap box, and start spouting off the Gettysburg Address at 2:15am should they feel the need. This isn’t allowed for obvious reasons.
Yeah but… in wich way is it different from “freedom of religion”? Can I go to a catholic church and perform a scientology ritual? Nop. You can’t go to my home to force me to hear you, of course, but I can’t go to your church to pray against your will.
So… with Jer’s justification, both men can go everywhere if they are invited to pray or to speak, and then that law wouldn’t have any real aplication. I hope that wasn’t judge’s reason to allow it.
(Another matter would be if that law is fair and well applied)
The church is literally built on the concept of grace — people can be redeemed. I’m glad that the government realized that an exemption should be made in a case like this.
That said, if I’m the pastor/on the leadership team of that church, I’m going to double check my security policies in Sunday School and nurseries to ensure that only parents can pick-up their kids from classes.
Again, 96% of all sexual offenses against children are by people they know. Child abductions do happen, but they are very rare. Kidnapping is obviously a tremendously more serious offense than sexual abuse.
Except that sex offenders have the highest recidivism rates of all criminals. So, they can’t be redeemed. And they shouldn’t– they don’t deserve it.
Way to throw around stupid stereotypes and assumptions. Since when does a high recidivism rate mean “irredeemable” or “cannot be rehabilitated”? And pray tell, Why is a 16 year old who slept with his 15 year old girlfriend “undeserving”?
Come to that, who the hell are you to be deciding who’s deserving or not? Shouldn’t everyone have a chance to make up for previous mistakes?
To me, this whole “Sex-Offender Registry” thing is utter bollocks. It’s just shoving people into eternal punishment and increasing the chance of their recidivism – why not, after all, if they’re to be punished regardless?
OK. So you don’t think parents should know when someone who has abused children is moving in next door to them? I think when offenders act on their urges rather than respecting children’s rights to their own freedom and bodies(or, FSM forbid, actually getting help), they give up their own right to privacy.
By your logic, if a murderer moves in you should be informed, and every shop in sight warned should a shoplifter move in. An argument can be made that we SHOULD do that, but singling out one group of offenders, no matter what they happened to do, is idiotic.
Anyway, there’s ALREADY a system by which you can find out such things: a person’s criminal record. I see no value to doubling up the work, or putting arbitrary and silly restrictions on where people can live.
To all:
Yes I generally agree with not punishing a criminal beyond their crimes. I also generally agree that the criminal justice system, *especially* in the US has severe problems and is in need of great reform.
I also know that, due to the neurologic reward system associated with committing sex crimes, these individuals are very very very difficult to rehabilitate. While fifty-some odd percent are caught after relapse, how many are *not* caught due to underreporting? It is common knowledge (although I could look up sources if people insist) that sex crimes are very underreported– and as such, I think that the percentages of relapse are probably much higher than what was reported in the link I provided.
In the interest of (some) fairness, I admit that I am not a dispassionate source. I also admit that I have listed only one study here and that it is better to read over much more of the sociological literature in order to better understand the general trends.
That being said, however, I feel that this particular crime must be fought at the community level. I disagree with some of the more obviously egregious abuses of the sex registry, but that is few and far between as far as I know.
Additionally, it is *absolutely not* a crime for teenagers within 3 years difference of age to have sex (at least where I live– which is Texas). Therefore, a 15 and 16 year old would not be persecuted. An 18 and 15 year old would not be persecuted. A 14 and 18 year old might and a 15 and 20 year old might, but that is a tough call because persecutions of sex offenses are very difficult to prove. In my case, the guy who tried to rape me was never charged because, even though he left a blood sample on my sheets (from a scratch) there wasn’t enough “evidence” to pursue a case.
Finally, I have a hard time understanding why any parent wouldn’t want to know if a pedafile has moved into their neighborhood. My child’s mental health would most certainly outweight some pervert’s “civil rights”.
I am pleased to hear about the law in Texas – it sounds quite progressive. Unfortunately, not all places in our shared homeland are. A good example is occuring in Michigan right now – here’s a link: http://www.annarbor.com/news/a-young-man-struggles-with-the-sex-offender-label/ .
In Florida they’re developing a township, effectively, under a bridge – because “sex offenders” aren’t allowed to live anywhere else according to the legal restrictions, but can’t leave the county.
As to pedophiles – I’ve taught my daughters to defend themselves, and I’ve checked every person who’s had major contact with them via the police. I’m not taking chances. But I don’t need a “sex offender registry”, and I particularly don’t need one that can’t distinguish between a pedophile and peeing in public.
Sundog you have a good point about how they don’t really distinguish what is and isn’t a sex offense. I know many states have different degrees for their sex offenders list but those aren’t well written or properly used in all cases.
The problem I see is that these laws are well intended but poorly written and thought out. Like many of the laws being passed today aren’t written to be easily understood and applied. Once these laws are passed those that enforce them then use them in ways they weren’t intended to be used. They have usually been rushed though without worrying about how they will be used.
There have been many good laws passed such as the one that enabled the Amber Alert that helped to rescue that 5 year old kid in AZ. but we need to have laws that are fair and just for all.
Sundog-
I appreciate you stance and I’m sure your daughters are smart, independent, and capable young women. However, how does one protect oneself from being pulled into a car and taken somewhere to be killed or held prisoner (like the little girl who was held captive by a sex offender for –what was it– 18 years?)? If I knew a sex offender was living in my neighborhood, I’d never let my kid walk to school or even play in my front yard unattended. (perhaps I’d be that cautious anyway)
Again, I feel that– due to the neurological condition of sex offenders– they cannot be trusted in general society. Sex offenders get a powerful neurotransmitter reward when they commit their crimes, and like drug addicts, they never return to “normal”. It is true that drug addicts can deal with their condition, but the temptation is always there. The same is true for sex offenders. Of course, your concern about minor charges being considered as sex offenses is correct. IMO, the actual charge that the person has been convicted of should be listed on the registry so that people can see for themselves the degree of the offense. However, bear in mind that, like drugs, sex offenders have to do more and more to get that same rush, and over time, their offenses become more and more egregious. As such, the guy who flashes little girls will likely progress into a guy that touches little girls inappropriately and that will likely progress into a guy that rapes little girls, assuming he is not impeded at some point. A sex offender registry is a way to impede him, and that is why they have been put into place in the first place.
Ok- I just checked the registry in my state and it not only lists the risk level of the convicted sex offender, it also tells you the crime the offender has been convicted of and the age of the victim.
https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/DPS_WEB/SorNew/PublicSite/Search/index.aspx?PageIndex=Search&SearchType=County
That’s quite good. Frankly, if more of the registries were like that, I’d have less of a problem with them.
And I understand your fears, entirely too well. I was resident in King County, Washington, during part of the 1980s and 90′s – during the reign of terror of the Green River Killer. My kids were very young then, not in the target group, but believe me, I worried.
But what I fear most is something I see happening all around me. This culture of fear and reticence that will not allow our kids to be kids – to play in our streets, to walk to school and friend’s houses. I decided, with the very great support of my wife, that we would not play to that fear. My children walked to school from a young age, had the freedom to do as they chose (provided the schoolwork got done).
I see these registries as yet another symptom of this culture of fear. Worse, it’s one I feel will probably backfire badly, since by isolating the sex offenders, preventing them from getting good jobs or working or living in certain areas, we’re presenting them with little reason to even try to rehabilitate. I’m no bleeding heart – some pervert rapes a little girl, give him the maximum and no parole, PLEASE – but when a person HAS spent the time in jail, has paid for his crime, I do feel he should get the opportunity to live a normal life. Putting roadblocks in the way only makes more likely the possibility of recidivism.
Perhaps I am being a little too idealistic, but I can’t help but feel there is something terribly unjust about the entire concept.
“Way to throw around stupid stereotypes and assumptions.”
Ummm. I wasn’t: http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
“Since when does a high recidivism rate mean “irredeemable” or “cannot be rehabilitated”?”
Since these people damage innocent kids because they very likely *will* relapse at some point. You should take a psych 101 or criminal justice 101 class if you really want to know the answer to that question.
“And pray tell, Why is a 16 year old who slept with his 15 year old girlfriend “undeserving”?”
Ummm… yeah. That is not considered a sex crime in any place that I know about.
“Come to that, who the hell are you to be deciding who’s deserving or not? Shouldn’t everyone have a chance to make up for previous mistakes?”
I’m a responsible citizen and I work with children… oh, yeah, and I was almost raped in college by a complete stranger who broke into my house at 3 am and woke me up in my bed… that’s who the hell I am. Sex offenders (like serial killers) aren’t born, they develop into worse and worse offenders over time. Further, people who prey on little kids or terrorize women should be locked up forever.
“To me, this whole “Sex-Offender Registry” thing is utter bollocks. It’s just shoving people into eternal punishment and increasing the chance of their recidivism – why not, after all, if they’re to be punished regardless?”
Clearly, you don’t have kids.
I agree with most of what you say, LRA, but I have one or two issues with the general “side” that you’re espousing:
1) People are stupid. Here in Britain, a woman had her house attacked and was forced to flee – why? Because she’s a paediatrician and people in general are such idiots that they think that’s the same as a paedophile. People should not be told about the crimes of their neighbours, period. It encourages vigilantiism and brings me on to point number 2:
2) When any criminal has paid their debt to society, then civilised society does not continue to treat that person as a criminal. Telling the general public that a person is a paedophile or a sex offender ensures that they will be punished for the rest of their lives for one crime, if only because they will be in constant fear of being recognised and assaulted. That’s just barbaric.
forgot a /b after “not”, sorry!
I do agree with you as Custador does. It is a problem that there is no easy answer to. Has the sex offender laws actually worked? I don’t know if they have but would say for the most part they haven’t and I doubt that they stop those that are going to rape again. If a sex offender moves into an area and the neighbors are notified I would say the person would just go outside the area he has been reported in to find victims. LRA you stated that sex offenders just get worse and worse, I can’t disagree. Do you feel that once a person is convicted of select sexual offenses they should be put in prison for life or should be isolated from the rest of society? In another comment you said that 52% of those convicted of child offenses would be rearrested, so it is ok to punish the other 48% because they have learned to control themselves?
oops! I posted a response to you all above.
“Since these people damage innocent kids because they very likely *will* relapse at some point. You should take a psych 101 or criminal justice 101 class if you really want to know the answer to that question.”
A: Not in any way an answer to the question.
B: Again, why are you in favour of eternally punishing someone due to a level of probability? These are individual human beings we’re talking about. How could this be considered just?
“Ummm… yeah. That is not considered a sex crime in any place that I know about. ”
Then I’d say you know about virtually nowhere. There have been dozens of such cases just in the US.
“I’m a responsible citizen and I work with children… oh, yeah, and I was almost raped in college by a complete stranger who broke into my house at 3 am and woke me up in my bed… that’s who the hell I am. Sex offenders (like serial killers) aren’t born, they develop into worse and worse offenders over time. Further, people who prey on little kids or terrorize women should be locked up forever.”
So, due to your most unfortunate experience, you’re not exactly dispassionate on this. Fair enough. But please try to recall that the making of laws and the meting out of justice requires just that – dispassion. If justice is not blind, then we go back to an eye for an eye – and that makes EVERYONE blind in the end.
“Clearly, you don’t have kids.”
Clearly, you have no idea. I have three daughters.
I have. I remember learning that most civilized countries frown upon punishing people beyond their crimes. You do not punish someone for what may happen. You do punish them for what has happened, in a way and measure that is appropriate for the offense. You offer psychiatric help and socialize criminals.
Then again, I (and the doctrine commonly accepted in my country) may be wrong.
“You offer psychiatric help and socialize criminals”
Or, the other Alternative is to completely pre-empt, replace that (deathly) life within them that manifests its hideous nature and harmful behavior patterns with a completely new and entirely opposite (higher) Life form and be re-made in the “very image and likeness of the Father” as it was in the beginning, before the fall, ie…the gospel.
There is a (complete and merciful) Solution.
In other words, evangelism and prayer service. Yeah, I’m sure that will prove completely effective in curing people with psychiatric problems.
No, that’s not the gospel TRJ. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays to you BTW!
The method of communication is irrelevant. What you’re claiming is that the gospel (or any other divine message or mechanism of your choosing, take your pick) in itself will cure psychiatricly damaged people. I think we can all guess how effective this would turn out to be if it became the official method of care.
And merry Christmas to you too, by the way.
We’re talking a resection of sorts where the dis-eased portion (that which is the cause of the illness) is completely excised and the Cure supplants it thereby re-making a whole “new creation” such as is the true offer. One life for Another so that the internal substance is wholly different than before.
Problem solved in the same way that a faulty engine is removed from the “body/shell” and is replaced with a (whole, ha) new Engine providing the Cure.
I know, sounds to good to be true, too simple huh? I’ve seen it over and over. Take care.
(sp) correction…err “*too good not “to”. Silly me, too much eggnog & turkey I suppose, ha.
It would seem strange then, that there are so many reports of mentally ill people compounding their illness by foregoing their medicine and joining one Christian cult or another that purports to be able to cure their illness through divine intervention.
Oh, I forgot, those people didn’t follow the correct spiritual procedure, so they were never even true Christians in the first place. Months of physical and mental agony, utter devotion, and desperate praying to Jesus to cure you doesn’t count if you don’t do it the correct way.
I agree with Steve, the entire “Registered Sex Offender” situation is ridiculous. If society wants to condemn sex offenders for the rest of their lives, we need to create a life sentence/death sentence for their crimes. If we think that is too hard on them, then we should let them pay their due and be done with it.
I am not a sex offender, and like most people, their crimes are repulsive. However my mother is a social worker and I work in the judicial system so I have a slightly different perspective on the topic than most. The fact is that 96% of all sex offenses against children are by people they KNOW. A sex offender law that forbade sex offenders from seeing their underage family members would be more appropriate than the silly schoolyard laws.
Society has used sex offenders as a scapegoat for all that they feel is wrong, and they are terrified of it. They are the modern day Nazi/Communist; we seem to have this deep seeded hatred for them and we often forget they are also people who make mistakes. Murders get off easier than sex offenders. While being sexually assaulted sounds horrible, I think we can all agree that being murdered would be far worse.
Most children are abused due to parental negligence. Unfortunately we can’t create laws that make parents be not retarded.
“Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).”
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
I’d love a life sentence for people who commit paedophilia. That is a much better idea than a Registry. Expensive though.
But then you’d have to change the concept of paedophilia or risk being utterly unjust. I think you’d agree a 15-year-old and a 18-year-old is a different situation than a 18-year-old and a 12-year-old.
In NC, public urination is classified as a sex offense.
This means that the “sex offender” in the neighborhood may be nothing more than a drunk who couldn’t get behind the bush quick enough.
I’m pretty sure he’ll fit right in. Maybe he should become a priest.
I wonder if the congregation knows about their new member. (boom tissss)
It should be easy enough for the congregation to have two of its burliest members meet the offenders as they approach the church, sit beside them for the whole service, escort them to the men’s room if needed, and then walk them to their cars.
From an article “Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question” written by Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness staff, to contradict LRA’s comment “that Sex Offenders have the highest rate of recidivism”… on the contrary, they have the lowest rate. In the article it said,
IN A RECENT U.S. STUDY OF 9,691 SEX OFFENDERS, THE SEXUAL RECIDIVISM RATE WAS ONLY 5.3% AFTER THREE YEARS (LANGAN, SCHMITT, & DUROSE, 2003).
Much lower than theft, drug related crimes and even murder.
I suspect that goes back to the whole classification issue of who does and does not go on the register. On the one hand you have the older partner in a relationship where the other was under age (who quite possible nevery re offend / as it wasn’t pedophillia to begin with), lummped in with serious pedophiles who have a psycological fixation on children that will not go away without external aid.
Older studies which focused on diagnosed pedophiles will show high recurrence rates. Newer studies on registered sex offenders might show lower rates due to the noise caused by people being registered who really don’t belong on the list.
I do recall that several teenage girls who sent nude photos of themselves to boys in their class where charged with “Distribution of Child Pornography” here in OZ. the circumstances make the charges seem ridiculous to me, there is simply no similarity between their actions and a real peddler of such material.
Mandatory classifications of Sex crimes seems to have lost sight of intent. In contrast we draw a lot of distinctions based on intend for murderers so that only those who planned their actions face the harshest available penalties.
Clearly, you can’t read.
“Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).”
@LRA
Aren’t you talking about different things as sex offences covers a lot more than just sex offences against children. You asked in which country a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old was a sex offence … well in the UK it is as the age of sexual consent is 15.
In the US (well at least in Texas), there is no age of sexual consent (as far as I know). In Texas, teenagers must be within 3 years of age difference for the act to be consentual. Therefore, an 18 year old could sleep with his 15 year old girlfriend, but not with a 14 year old– but at those ages it doesn’t really get enforced, especially if the kids involved are still in high school. It would more likely be enforced if an 18 year old slept with a 13 year old or a 20 year old slept with a 14 year old.
Just to cite my facts:
“Texas
The age of consent in Texas is 17 (Texas Penal Code Section 21.11). However , “…It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor…was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex…(and) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offence” and is not a registered sex offender {Section 21.11(b)}.
Section 21.12 further prohibits all sexual contact between an employee of a school (including educators) and a student enrolled at the primary or secondary school where said employee works (unless the student is the employee’s spouse). No age is specified by the statute (thus, even if the student has reached consent age of 17, it is still a violation), and violations are a second degree felony.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Texas
LOL! Y’all should read through the statutes of the other states as well. In Utah, a 16 year old can have sex with a 26 year old!!! Oh, those Mormons!
I’ve been using that as an explanation for the Twilight books for some time…
LOL! :)
http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html Here is one link with all the states consent ages listed. There are actually minors facing child porn charges within the USA and they will be placed on that list of offenders for life. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&fkt=5073&fsdt=14266&q=minors+charged+with+child+porn&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq= I know that the list have varying degrees of danger for repeat offenders but should a 14-18 year old be on it for life because he/she did what many would have done when they were younger.
Juvenile offenders are not persecuted for life. In Texas, their records are sealed at either age 18 or 21 (I can’t remember).
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/02/24/federal-law-compels-states-to-register-minors-on-sex-offender-registry/ Sorry but because of these types of Federal laws you might be wrong. The case that is mainly talked about in this story the 16 yr old is going to be on the list for a limited time but it will follow him for at least a while.
@ Jabster: A quick note of correction, the UK age of consent is 16 – in context, I’m pretty sure that’s what you meant to write anyway.
Just to introduce some shock value: In Japan, sexual consent is at 14 and in Brazil it’s 12. Scary much?
@Custador
Yep just a typo!
Yes, that was a cheap shot. Bulls-eye!
This makes the huge clash between the unconditional love of Christianity and the protection of the innocent completely glaring.
You just can’t love ALL and accept ALL like Christianity claims. It is impossible.