New Hampshire Underground

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester  (Read 13340 times)

J’raxis 270145

  • Voluntaryist
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 1110
  • Posts: 3487
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #45 on: September 04, 2007, 06:04 PM NHFT »

The bill to pass sex-offender residency restrictions in Manchester has been tabled for further discussion. It’s been stopped for now, but we expect it to be back next month, and we’ll be continuing our work on this issue.

At today’s town meeting, Laurie gave a great speech, the text of which shall be up on the CURSOR website by tomorrow. She pointed out the several ways in which this law would be both ineffective at what it tries to do, and actually counterproductive in some respects. The aldermen unfortunately seemed more concerned about the exact size of the radius drawn around schools (500' or 1000') than about the law’s unintended negative effects, but their concerns were enough to delay the bill for now.

Afterward she was interviewed by TV channel 9 and WGIR, and outside city hall we both spoke to Rep. Infantine, who is continuing work on her bill before the state house.

More details to follow soon.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2007, 10:43 AM NHFT by J’raxis 270145 »
Logged

sandm000

  • Bunch O' Krap
  • Resister
  • ***
  • Karma: 72
  • Posts: 563
  • Blue Blaze Irregular
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #46 on: September 05, 2007, 10:08 AM NHFT »

Not to bring this whole thread back on topic, but would it be possible to hire private detectives to watch the alderman, to see if they could be convicted of a sex crime and then be subject to the laws that they are proposing?  I'm hoping that they would be guilty of the roadside peeing crime, not anything more harmful, but anything to get them to think before they act.
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • Voluntaryist
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 1110
  • Posts: 3487
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #47 on: September 05, 2007, 10:42 AM NHFT »

Not to bring this whole thread back on topic, but would it be possible to hire private detectives to watch the alderman, to see if they could be convicted of a sex crime and then be subject to the laws that they are proposing?  I'm hoping that they would be guilty of the roadside peeing crime, not anything more harmful, but anything to get them to think before they act.

Hah, I love stuff like this. Have you been watching how many anti–gay rights congressman have been outed as homosexuals by activists?

I certainly don’t have enough to hire someone, but I’d throw some money in if people wanted to pool money for it.

At the public safety committee meeting on Tuesday, it looked like Alderman Roy was the strongest in support; the other aldermen there—Osborne, O’Neal, Shea, and Long (my ward’s)—voiced various reservations about the bill. I believe the draft legislation originated from Thomas Clark, who spoke in support of it at the meeting.
Logged

d_goddard

  • Guest
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #48 on: September 05, 2007, 10:47 AM NHFT »

Congrats on tabling this!

The best option to kill police-state legislation of this kind is a three-pronged approach. In order of most immediate importance:
1) delay, stall, delay... by any and every means possible
2) FUD of all kinds, on all points, trivial and irrelevant to central and philosophical. Especially the trivial and irrelevant; those work best in helping objective #1 above
3) public outreach and education. This is the long-term pro-liberty investment, but don't think for a moment our argument will win hearts and minds fast enough to stave off the immediate-term police-state desires of the 'crats
Logged

sandm000

  • Bunch O' Krap
  • Resister
  • ***
  • Karma: 72
  • Posts: 563
  • Blue Blaze Irregular
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #49 on: September 05, 2007, 11:02 AM NHFT »

Not to bring this whole thread back on topic, but would it be possible to hire private detectives to watch the alderman, to see if they could be convicted of a sex crime and then be subject to the laws that they are proposing?  I'm hoping that they would be guilty of the roadside peeing crime, not anything more harmful, but anything to get them to think before they act.

Hah, I love stuff like this. Have you been watching how many anti–gay rights congressman have been outed as homosexuals by activists?

I certainly don’t have enough to hire someone, but I’d throw some money in if people wanted to pool money for it.

At the public safety committee meeting on Tuesday, it looked like Alderman Roy was the strongest in support; the other aldermen there—Osborne, O’Neal, Shea, and Long (my ward’s)—voiced various reservations about the bill. I believe the draft legislation originated from Thomas Clark, who spoke in support of it at the meeting.
All those 'OUTings' sort of gave me the idea.
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • Voluntaryist
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 1110
  • Posts: 3487
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2007, 12:00 PM NHFT »

Congrats on tabling this!

The best option to kill police-state legislation of this kind is a three-pronged approach. In order of most immediate importance:
1) delay, stall, delay... by any and every means possible
2) FUD of all kinds, on all points, trivial and irrelevant to central and philosophical. Especially the trivial and irrelevant; those work best in helping objective #1 above
3) public outreach and education. This is the long-term pro-liberty investment, but don't think for a moment our argument will win hearts and minds fast enough to stave off the immediate-term police-state desires of the 'crats


In order:—

1) Looks like we’ve accomplished that, once at least. The aldermen were quite confused over whether or not there is a grandfather clause for current residents who end up in the restricted zones, and what the radius would be; apparently that’s not even in the draft legislation yet, so they tabled it pending further research. One of the bureaucrats (the solicitor or city attorney) is supposed to present a map next time around.

2) Check out our handout on the website. We’re attacking this mostly from the position that the legislation will mean sex offenders are going to move into neighborhoods away from schools, thus rendering certain neighborhoods much less safe than others. From the meeting I gather southeast Manchester is the largest school-free area. Protecting one neighborhood at the expense of yours is the title of our handout… two can play at the “won’t someone please think of the children!?” game. ;)

3) I’m getting ready to engage in an LTE barrage per your initial suggestion, now that I’ve been to the meeting and heard the aldermen speak on it, and heard the actual legislation, or pieces of it, read. See here if you have any more advice on this, and thanks for the initial idea. ;D
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • Voluntaryist
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 1110
  • Posts: 3487
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2007, 12:10 PM NHFT »

The aldermen also mentioned that these residency restrictions are being litigated in virtually every other community in which they’ve been passed. If killing this bill ultimately fails, that’ll probably be the next approach. Is this litigation the NHLA’s doing, the NHCLU’s, or someone else?

Would it help if the aldermen find out prior to passing the ordinance that someone will be looking into litigating it shortly thereafter? Or do politicians—in general known more for their arrogance and pride than ability to see reason—tend to treat a statement like that like some sort of threat and just dig in?
Logged

d_goddard

  • Guest
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #52 on: September 05, 2007, 12:53 PM NHFT »

Would it help if the aldermen find out prior to passing the ordinance that someone will be looking into litigating it shortly thereafter?
YES

For reasons I don't completely understand, a lot of elected officials, especially (R)s, are scared of having their laws credibly challenged in court.
Logged

d_goddard

  • Guest
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2007, 12:54 PM NHFT »

two can play at the “won’t someone please think of the children!?” game. ;)
You people ROCK.
Logged

LaurieP

  • Guest
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #54 on: September 05, 2007, 04:44 PM NHFT »

NY2NH... I am the woman/girl  ;) who was on Will Infantine's show and that was/is my husband that was discussed.  Rep Infantine was one of the few who bothered to read the reports and information I gave him about my husband last year... and I never hid any of the gory raunchy details of that night of consensual sex from any of our NH reps when I started petitioning them for a law change.  There is an article in the Concord Monitor, USA Today and various gatehouse news media outlets that spoke to this in print over the last 6 months.  I gave the state reps my husband's court docket numbers and offered up any information they wanted, last Oct 2006.  Unfortunately, and probably to their own benefit, they didnt bother to read any of the INCH thick reports on the matter so they could act 'appropriately surprised and horrified' if questioned about me or the bill.  The truth is still the same, as it was then, as it is now.  The sex was consensual.  It was reported when the natural mom found out, and my husband DID believe she was 17.  What the reports will not detail is that being mistaken is not a defense.  They wont detail the idle chatter and talk that the cops used to get my husband into the station to talk to them (no mention that they told him the minor was a missing person who had run away and he was one of the last people to see her, could he come down and give a statement...which any decent 19yr old would do when he had no clue he had committed a crime) and that they told him it was a sexual assault investigation of his buddy who was also there that night (as well as another female and 2 more males at one point, all consenting) but fail to mention that specifically in the transcript that was taped, making it look like he knew that they were investigating HIM for a crime (which he did not till they started asking him if there was anything that had been bothering him about that night).  I keep the reports in my kitchen... anyone's free to read their statements, which after all, are the meat of the case.  Unfortunately, when we're teens we dont 'GET IT' about the law the way we should.  They passed off his miranda rights as if everyone who is questioned gets read these... not just people who are suspected of a crime but all volunteer statements as well.  Anyhow.. more to the point here.. the issue is, he is not a public safety threat and shouldnt be held or labeled as one and he is not alone.  There are hundreds more across the nation, and that is a conservative estimate.  I found approx 150 guys on our webiste (some of them gals) who were guilty of statutory rape when they were 21 or under according to the year of conviction (which by the way, conviction is often a year or more after the act...) .  Of those 150, approx 30 responded, all with their own stories.  You cant take everyone at their word and I know this. But even if just a few of those stories were 100% true, it is an OUTRAGE.  They should never have been prosecuted, much less registered for the rest of their lives.  There is one couple up in Croyden NH and they are now married, victim and offender, and he's registered for life because of their consensual premarital sex... and they have 4 kids.  Do they deserve this?  Can any rational person answer yes to that?  (rational is the qualifiying word here...  ;D)

The answers to forcible rape and child molestation lie within the front end of the system, not the back end when these creeps are released on the street. (ie registries and other restrictions on released people)  And by creeps I mean those that have violated a child or woman or man or boy (or animal... I don't want to discriminate) against their will, or thru deception and lies or trickery in the case of children.  These people need to be locked up.  Judges must grow some balls and sentence them to some real prison time, not a paltry 3 years or 8 years.  They should be serving some REAL time.  And GOD FORBID they ever repeat that crime.. they should go away for life.  It's that simple to me.  I've read the case law and court documents of people who have raped their own children and I can't get through it without throwing up.  But really gets me is that these sickos arent even sentenced to any meaningful prison time.  And then you get a kid like Genarlow Wilson, who at 17 got consensual oral from a 15 year old girl, who is sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 10 years.  I know rapists, violent adult rapists and child molestors, that have served less time.  WHY?  The system needs to be fixed HERE, not when these guys get out on the street.  I'm not sure I'm 100% convinced, but experts say that treatment works... since I have not dedicated my life to reviewing the data or working with sex offenders on this level, I'll bow to their expertise.  If they have empiracal evidence that shows it actually decreases the rate of reoffense, then I'm all for it.  But in the meantime, they can get that treatment in prison.  And there will be plenty of room for them in prison if they ever let out low level drug offenders... don't get me started... I got some personal experience on this one too... *sigh*

The NH Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against Boscawen and Dover regarding their residency restriction on different grounds.  Boscawen was filed because they passed it with hardly any public notification, I believe.  Dover is under attack on a few different fronts.  I personally know of 1 family that I encouraged the NHCLU to support and them to contact the NHCLU when their 5 year old son was kicked out of kindergarten because Daddy, a registered sex offender for a teenaged consensual sex crime, was NOT  'allowed' to drop his son off at school, due to their ordinance.  His son, who spent the first 3mths of kindergarten being dropped of by his mother, was forced to stay home and leave his friends behind, to say nothing of losing his early start on an education.  His mother could no longer bring him because she was forced by the state under the welfare program to go for job training to become a nurse.  They were on welfare because her husband, the registered offender, lost his painting business (their only source of income) after being posted online when the law expanded in 2003 to encompass the 13 to under 16 age group for public posting of registry information.  Welfare said they wouldnt waste their time on him, since he was virtually unemployable by any source of meaningful, family supporting employment.  And this is just one of many of the injustices I have come to discover.

It's ironic to me that I would feel the need to say this on a proliberty website, and since I'm new here, I'll qualify this with a "no offense"   :)  When you strip the rights of one group of people, you attack the rights of ALL people.  I'm not defending sex offenders, I'm defending US!!!  As I type this, there are already 3 states that have registries for Murder.  Sensible you say?  Maybe, if they were talking about releasing a serial murderer onto the streets.  But consider this:  they've used the same broad brush approach and included crimes that range from premeditated murder to unintended homicide (involuntary manslaughter).  How is the the guy that didnt mean to back up over a kid a public safety threat to anyone else?  It follows the same twisted logic... because they register people based on offenses, not on facts.  In NH they have tried over the last several years to institute a registered drug offender registry.  And other states in the great U.S.S. of A. have already done so.  And in Maryland, they are considering passing a - LISTEN UP FREESTATERS - a GUN registry.  Everyone convicted of a crime involving a gun will be registered.  And you can bet money that this will follow the same broad brush approach as the other registries have, even if it starts out narrow and specifically targets a few 'acceptable' offenses.  All laws our government passes inevitably grow to allow more government control and power over the people.  Isnt that what we're fighting for?  No one here is fighting to free sex offenders... we're fighting to keep our own rights protected.  There are solutions to the sex offender problem, of that I have no doubt.  But the answers are not found in broad based laws that are passed under the mask of 'civil' restrictions that are legal because of the government's overwhelming interest in protecting the public safety.  The next logical question would be:  Who's next? 

Has anyone else ever seen the documentary about the lepers?  These people were isolated and segregatred to an island in Hawaii (sounds like what people want to do to all convicted/registered sex offenders, and actually, I wouldnt mind Hawaii, since I'd have to go there to be with my husband if this happened  :-\).    But what struck me the most was how the public and the government so EASILY overlooked the family members of the infected/labeled lepers.  Not only where the lepers outcasts, but so were their family members, their children too.  It's one thing if we think a registered offender deserves any and all of the restrictions placed on him and their is no doubt that some deserve to be pecked by vultures in a dry desert for days till they die, but let's not forget that most of these guys/gals have families that love them and any time we attack them as a society we inadvertently attack their children and their spouses too. 

So if we agree with laws that ostracize and outcast sex offenders in the name of protecting children then lets be clear that we are in effect saying we don't care about the children of these registered offenders.  We don't care if they suffer from public ridicule and scorn, from being subjected to the same residency restrictions as their fathers/mothers, that we dont care if they are beat up in school because the other kids assume their daddy must be a child molester because he's on a website. 

There are so many problems with this, it's hard to tackle them all.  We've got to start back at the beginning, but since the genie is out of the bottle, that's almost impossible.  So instead, we tackle one issue at a time, as they crop up and as we are available and willing to do so, regarding this topic. 

Residency restrictions are an easy one for me.. they do not accomplish their goal of protecting children. 
Wtih the vast majority of abuse happening within the home, there is no way a residency restriction would deter or stop that type of abuse.  And for those that say that having a sex offender living near a park or school is like throwing steak in front of a dog, I'd say this:  that's based on the flawed logic that ALL sex offenders are mere seconds away from reoffending, against a stranger no less.  Since we already acknowledge that the term sex offender is so broad, it's easy to see that not all of these people would be mere seconds from offending.  And since research and medical statistics show us that predatory pedophiles represent the smallest group of registered sex offenders, we know that only a fraction of registered offenders are salivating with the thought of reoffending again.  And since predatory pedophiles almost always violate children within their direct circle of trust, that leaves an even slimmer chance that a residency restriction will stop them. 

What I suggested instead (and this is only to show all of you how 'balanced' I am.. lol) is that we can institute no loitering zones for registered sex offenders if people feel something needs to be done to address this 'what if' issue.   A man loitering at a park with no kids of his own or a school or place where kids congregate who IS a known registered sex offender can and should be subject to some sort of action.  I've got no problem with that.  But assuming that these guys can't walk 2000 feet to be near a park or school is just ridiculous.  And that's what residency restrictions do.  And we've got enough stupid laws already.  We don't need to allow any more to pass. 
« Last Edit: September 05, 2007, 04:49 PM NHFT by LaurieP »
Logged

LaurieP

  • Guest
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #55 on: September 05, 2007, 05:17 PM NHFT »

Oh and we have 3 children.  And just for laughs... I'll share a snippet of conversation from one of my neighbors, who is homosexual.   One night while having drinks with these guys, one of them says to me... 'hey, with Mike being a registered sex offender it means people wont give us a second thought in the neighborhood'!  He said this in good fun and we took it in good fun.  All of our neighbors know us and know about us down here.  They probably know more about my husband's previous sex life than most people ever wanted to know about their neighbors  ;).  But the irony of his statement isnt lost on me... only a decade ago (and even to some degree today) it was the gays that were ostracized and shunned by a strong majority of people in this nation.  Granted they weren't doing anything criminally wrong (unless you consider that sodomy laws were being upheld in the 1990's), but nonetheless they were targeted as a group that brought fear to most parents. 

And to answer the question about whether or not I'd like a registered offender living next door (aside from the fact that we are that family):

I wouldnt like it, since it would lower my property value.

I wouldnt pay any more attention to my kids than I do now (since as a good parent, you WATCH your kids and you know where they are in the neighborhood and you would already be paying the highest possible level of attention to them.

I'd look the guy/gal up online and try to determine what their offense was really for and even call the police to ask if any extra information is available.  The police are allowed to tell you the age of the victim if you ask them.  If I didnt feel like I knew enough, or wanted to know more, I'd confront the offender in a non-threatening way and ask them to explain if they were willing to do so.  My feelings would also differ based on whether or not this man had a family and children of his own, versus just some old dude living alone.

But that said, the truth is, I've got criminals living all around me.  I know most of them weren't ever arrested, much less convicted, but I'm sure that they are guilty of trespassing or stealing or drunk driving or any number of drug offenses that they were not caught committing.  I guess I can be sanctimonious here, since I've never been arrested  8) )  But if Big Brother had cameras, I'd bet we'd be seeing a lot more of each other behind bars, wouldnt we? 
Logged

ny2nh

  • Radical
  • ***
  • Karma: 2
  • Posts: 695
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #56 on: September 06, 2007, 07:47 AM NHFT »

Laurie -

I remember watching Will's show (Will, a friend of mine, had told me about your story) and thinking that something does need to be changed. I think that the registry should not be the same for all "sex offender" crimes.....someone, who at 19 had consensual sex with a 15 year old, should not be treated the same way as a child molester or a rapist. Changing the registry requirements/categories would seem to me to be the biggest priority.

I do still have a problem with the whole consensual sex with a minor though. Once someone reaches the legal age of adulthood (18, I presume), there are ramifications that go along with that.  They are adults at that point - and knowing the age of someone they have sex with becomes the adult's burden. Ultimately, the 18 or 19 year old needs to think with the head on his shoulders and consider if the person he's about to have sex with is of consenting age...because if she is not, he's committing a crime. If he doesn't know that 15 year old well enough to know that she isn't 17, then maybe he shouldn't be having sex with her. If we chalk all of these instances up to them just being young, what would stop 19 year olds from pursuing 15 year olds (or 13 or 14) knowing that they could just say they thought she was old enough. Thinking they are old enough should not be enough. No matter what - they are the adult and the minor is still a child. It's an unfortuate situation that can easily be avoided.

That said, do I think your husband is a threat to society - no. Should he be treated the same as a predator - no. Do I want to give a pass to ALL 19 year old who have sex with someone under age - also no.

The details of the investigation sound wrong as well - but that, to me, is a different issue.

I also agree that those that are truly predators spend far too little time in jail.
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • Voluntaryist
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 1110
  • Posts: 3487
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #57 on: September 06, 2007, 10:44 AM NHFT »

I do still have a problem with the whole consensual sex with a minor though. Once someone reaches the legal age of adulthood (18, I presume), there are ramifications that go along with that.  They are adults at that point - and knowing the age of someone they have sex with becomes the adult's burden. Ultimately, the 18 or 19 year old needs to think with the head on his shoulders and consider if the person he's about to have sex with is of consenting age...because if she is not, he's committing a crime. If he doesn't know that 15 year old well enough to know that she isn't 17, then maybe he shouldn't be having sex with her. If we chalk all of these instances up to them just being young, what would stop 19 year olds from pursuing 15 year olds (or 13 or 14) knowing that they could just say they thought she was old enough. Thinking they are old enough should not be enough. No matter what - they are the adult and the minor is still a child. It's an unfortuate situation that can easily be avoided.

It shouldn’t be criminal for someone to do something they don’t even know they’re doing. This is called “strict liability,” and it has no place in a free society. (To put our laws in context, many states’ and even the federal government’s statutory rape laws are not strict liability.)

It’s true that in a relationship—sexual or otherwise—where one person is less mature or knowledgeable, the other person certainly bears additional responsibility to make sure they’re not causing any harm, accidentally or intentional. This is just personal responsibility and common sense. Criminal liability should only apply here if true harm occurs and either actual intent, negligence, or recklessness can be proven.

As for disapproving of people having sex with someone they just met, and thus don’t know well enough to trust—not my business. Shouldn’t be anyone else’s business either. I personally think doing so is highly dangerous—venereal diseases and the like—but I’m not about to negatively judge other people based on their sexual preferences. And even if I did think it was wrong in some moral sense, it shouldn’t be illegal.

I don’t want to drag this thread off-topic (that being organizing people opposed to sex-offender residency restrictions), so if we’re going to debate the merits of sexuality law or cultural values, we should start a new thread.
Logged

ny2nh

  • Radical
  • ***
  • Karma: 2
  • Posts: 695
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #58 on: September 06, 2007, 01:50 PM NHFT »

It’s true that in a relationship—sexual or otherwise—where one person is less mature or knowledgeable, the other person certainly bears additional responsibility to make sure they’re not causing any harm, accidentally or intentional. This is just personal responsibility and common sense. Criminal liability should only apply here if true harm occurs and either actual intent, negligence, or recklessness can be proven.

As for disapproving of people having sex with someone they just met, and thus don’t know well enough to trust—not my business. Shouldn’t be anyone else’s business either. I personally think doing so is highly dangerous—venereal diseases and the like—but I’m not about to negatively judge other people based on their sexual preferences. And even if I did think it was wrong in some moral sense, it shouldn’t be illegal.
Between two consenting ADULTS I would agree 100% - but we're talking about a child here....someone's son or daughter - and if that were MY son or daughter, I would think it was MY business and I would have a problem with it.

The burden has to fall on the adult.
[/quote]
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • Voluntaryist
  • Enemy of the State
  • ******
  • Karma: 1110
  • Posts: 3487
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: Sex offender insanity coming to Manchester
« Reply #59 on: September 06, 2007, 02:23 PM NHFT »

It’s true that in a relationship—sexual or otherwise—where one person is less mature or knowledgeable, the other person certainly bears additional responsibility to make sure they’re not causing any harm, accidentally or intentional. This is just personal responsibility and common sense. Criminal liability should only apply here if true harm occurs and either actual intent, negligence, or recklessness can be proven.

As for disapproving of people having sex with someone they just met, and thus don’t know well enough to trust—not my business. Shouldn’t be anyone else’s business either. I personally think doing so is highly dangerous—venereal diseases and the like—but I’m not about to negatively judge other people based on their sexual preferences. And even if I did think it was wrong in some moral sense, it shouldn’t be illegal.
Between two consenting ADULTS I would agree 100% - but we're talking about a child here....someone's son or daughter - and if that were MY son or daughter, I would think it was MY business and I would have a problem with it.

The burden has to fall on the adult.

It’s certainly the parents’ business—but not the government’s, unless perhaps the parent wants to make it so because something bad happened. That’s another problem with the current statutory-rape laws, though: Neither the “victim” nor the parents thereof have any say in pressing charges.

Part of my concern over this issue is the rights of the people involved in the relationship being outlaws, but part of my concern is the rights of the parents—because the law currently steps all over those, too.

There are happy marriages where one person is a registered sex offender because the relationship started—and in some cases with the full acceptance by the parents—when one partner was underage. Did you know that in some states, marriage law is still at the younger ages of 13 or 14, but the sexual age of consent is at 16, so technically a married couple couldn’t even consummate their relationship legally? Take a look at the last paragraph of Laurie’s speech linked on the CURSOR site, too, for another example of similar insanity, where the parent herself got in trouble with the law for her daughter’s relationship.

That’s the result of legislating this.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up