Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 sebster wrote:
Thankyou for that post. It showed the madness of thinking of statutory rape as rape, and also of the broadness of many sex offender registers.

But without our mindless vilification of all things sex, where else will we focus our two minutes hate?

Public sex offender registries are stupid. If you're found guilty of a crime you should be able to take your punishment and then get on with your life without it following you around forever. They also cover up that you're most likely to be sexually assaulted by someone close to or related to you, not some kind of career sex offender.

My state does, to my understanding, have a sex offenders' register, but it's not publicly available.

I wonder if there are any statistics on the recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders who work with kids, like the ones in the OP may end up being? I think here they'd end up on the registry and not able to work in anything to do with kids anymore, but I wonder if reoffending is something they'd do or not.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I wonder if there are any statistics on the recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders who work with kids, like the ones in the OP may end up being? I think here they'd end up on the registry and not able to work in anything to do with kids anymore, but I wonder if reoffending is something they'd do or not.

Data varies widely. Common thought holds that the average rapist is unlikely to commit a second offense. Child molesters however are widely viewed as having a high rate of subsequent offenses (the study I remember said 50% but I know others have the number lower and higher). I don't think though that the woman in the OP necessarily meets that criteria as not all statutory offenders share the psychological characteristics we commonly associate with child molesters.

feeder wrote:
But without our mindless vilification of all things sex, where else will we focus our two minutes hate?

We'll find something. We always find something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Data varies widely. Common thought holds that the average rapist is unlikely to commit a second offense. Child molesters however are widely viewed as having a high rate of subsequent offenses (the study I remember said 50% but I know others have the number lower and higher). I don't think though that the woman in the OP necessarily meets that criteria as not all statutory offenders share the psychological characteristics we commonly associate with child molesters.

Rates of re-abuse among child molesters varies wildly, based on a lot of factors. Specifically the nature of the crime, the ability of the person to recognise it was wrong and look for treatment, and the continued support of family (ie if the wife sticks by him he's a lot less likely to re-offend). Simply having committed child molestation is not enough information to know if they're likely to re-offend, you need to know all the other surrounding factors.

And that's kind of the thing about these sex offender registers. They're so broad, and so poorly controlled the supposed information in them is basically useless. If a guy moves in over the road and you find out he's on the registry, what do you do? Because it's very likely he just had sex with a girl who was younger than he thought, or some other crime that doesn't mean you have to move for the safety of your children.

If the registry was restricted to only offenders who committed serious, predatory crimes, and there was a review process that assessed if they were a considerable chance of re-offence*, well then the information in that register might be worthwhile.



*And hey, if that review says it's very likely they'll re-offend, maybe we don't let them out...

feeder wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Thankyou for that post. It showed the madness of thinking of statutory rape as rape, and also of the broadness of many sex offender registers.

But without our mindless vilification of all things sex, where else will we focus our two minutes hate?

Why, towards video games and DnD of course

 Devoted-to-the-machine wrote:
I have a brother who at 26 went to a party on a Wednesday night. On Friday he was in jail for rape of a child under the age of 18. He consensually slept with a 17 year old girl at that party who falsely identified herself as older. In Idaho under 18 equals rape without question. My brother went to prison for one year and was on probation for 5 years. He will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He is now married and has 1 child of his own and his now wife came with a son. He is subject to a scarlet letter he can never remove. I understand rape is an issue and my brother would be the first guy to do something to a rapist. He is not one. He had consensual sex with someone who wanted to be grown up. He cant watch his kids little league games (I go and video tape them). Classifing every person the same hurts those who never wanted to break the law. I am not saying my brother a saint. He is kinda a jerk and was a major alcoholic but doesn’t deserve to be a sex offender for the rest of his life.

Victim of hysteria. It might also explain the alcohol.

sebster wrote:
Thankyou for that post. It showed the madness of thinking of statutory rape as rape, and also of the broadness of many sex offender registers.

thank you

Orlanth wrote:

Victim of hysteria. It might also explain the alcohol.

I guess I would drink in excess too if I felt my life was ruined in some form but he has cut way back since his daughter was born two years ago

 Devoted-to-the-machine wrote:
I have a brother who at 26 went to a party on a Wednesday night. On Friday he was in jail for rape of a child under the age of 18. He consensually slept with a 17 year old girl at that party who falsely identified herself as older. In Idaho under 18 equals rape without question. My brother went to prison for one year and was on probation for 5 years. He will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He is now married and has 1 child of his own and his now wife came with a son. He is subject to a scarlet letter he can never remove. I understand rape is an issue and my brother would be the first guy to do something to a rapist. He is not one. He had consensual sex with someone who wanted to be grown up. He cant watch his kids little league games (I go and video tape them). Classifing every person the same hurts those who never wanted to break the law. I am not saying my brother a saint. He is kinda a jerk and was a major alcoholic but doesn’t deserve to be a sex offender for the rest of his life.

I had a friend I grew up with, took Tae Kwan Do with, and he suffered a similar fate. He was 21 at the time, I think, and slept with a 16 year old who claimed to be 18, had the ID, etc, etc. After the party, she informed him of her real age, and told him about another party that she expected him to be at. He refused, and told her that he had a family obligation and couldn't go. She threatened to tell the cops that he raped her, if he wouldn't go to the party. He didn't go, and she turned him in. Best job he can get now is being a dishwasher at Denny's. He's also now in his early 30's. People are fethed up. Was it rape? Certainly not. Statutory? Unfortunately, yes, but certainly not intentional. And it was used as a weapon against him.

Actions like that 16 yr old girl in your story timetowaste irks me to no end and trivializes those that actually were raped...

 Alfndrate wrote:
Actions like that 16 yr old girl in your story timetowaste irks me to no end and trivializes those that actually were raped...

I know, I totally agree. One of my ex's went to school with this guy, said she didn't know he behaved like that and would never talk to him again. This was before we knew what actually happened. I eventually found out, told her, and she apologized for judging him so harshly. But tt's a total social stigma.

 Devoted-to-the-machine wrote:
I have a brother who at 26 went to a party on a Wednesday night. On Friday he was in jail for rape of a child under the age of 18. He consensually slept with a 17 year old girl at that party who falsely identified herself as older. In Idaho under 18 equals rape without question. My brother went to prison for one year and was on probation for 5 years. He will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. He is now married and has 1 child of his own and his now wife came with a son. He is subject to a scarlet letter he can never remove. I understand rape is an issue and my brother would be the first guy to do something to a rapist. He is not one. He had consensual sex with someone who wanted to be grown up. He cant watch his kids little league games (I go and video tape them). Classifing every person the same hurts those who never wanted to break the law. I am not saying my brother a saint. He is kinda a jerk and was a major alcoholic but doesn’t deserve to be a sex offender for the rest of his life.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I had a friend I grew up with, took Tae Kwan Do with, and he suffered a similar fate. He was 21 at the time, I think, and slept with a 16 year old who claimed to be 18, had the ID, etc, etc. After the party, she informed him of her real age, and told him about another party that she expected him to be at. He refused, and told her that he had a family obligation and couldn't go. She threatened to tell the cops that he raped her, if he wouldn't go to the party. He didn't go, and she turned him in. Best job he can get now is being a dishwasher at Denny's. He's also now in his early 30's. People are fethed up. Was it rape? Certainly not. Statutory? Unfortunately, yes, but certainly not intentional. And it was used as a weapon against him.

Serious question here but where does the law lie in relation to this? In a lot of jurisdictions it's not uncommon to have a defense if the victim misrepresented his/her age, thereby concealing a material fact, as the accused obviously had reason to believe that the person was of legal age.
I understand strict liability for certain crimes, but applying it to this area of the law could lead to some very tragic results as seen above.

Underage girl had sex with above age male. He didn't check hard enough to make sure of her legal age, she's in the clear. I wish I was kidding.

It varies by state. Some states allow exemptions from charges if the accused is within a certain age range of the victim. Others exempt teenagers from violating age of consent under certain limitations etc etc. I don't think the US has any national standard.

So is the lesson here that you should ID your partner before sex, and make them sign a declaration that they are in fact over the age of consent?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So is the lesson here that you should ID your partner before sex, and make them sign a declaration that they are in fact over the age of consent?

Well, if you really want to avoid jail time, yes. Of course, they might get offended

 LordofHats wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So is the lesson here that you should ID your partner before sex, and make them sign a declaration that they are in fact over the age of consent?

Well, if you really want to avoid jail time, yes. Of course, they might get offended

Unfortunately, that still wouldn't even matter-you pretty much need a legal birth certificate, as even a signed declaration wouldn't really "prove" their age. Have your friends hook you up with people they have known for a long time who are definitely of legal age, or get together with a classmate from school. Otherwise, you could be screwed (not in the good way). Also, mothers are generally safe: nail a woman who has kids (consensually, of course), and you're probably safe.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Also, mothers are generally safe: nail a woman who has kids (consensually, of course), and you're probably safe.

That's really creepy advice XD

Something I don't have to worry about because my wife is older than I, and we both had to prove many personal details before I emigrated here

 LordofHats wrote:
Well, if you really want to avoid jail time, yes. Of course, they might get offended

Nothing like killing the mood after you pick someone up by asking them to fill out consent forms in triplicate

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Serious question here but where does the law lie in relation to this? In a lot of jurisdictions it's not uncommon to have a defense if the victim misrepresented his/her age, thereby concealing a material fact, as the accused obviously had reason to believe that the person was of legal age.
I understand strict liability for certain crimes, but applying it to this area of the law could lead to some very tragic results as seen above.

Well I can say that the law says regardless of ignorance of age or misrepresentation you still committed a crime and so you get to go to prison. Y brother could have fought it but was told clearly by the lawyer that when he lost his case he would do more time than just a year. They told him he would do 15 years in prison if he fought it.

 Devoted-to-the-machine wrote:
Well I can say that the law says regardless of ignorance of age or misrepresentation you still committed a crime and so you get to go to prison. Y brother could have fought it but was told clearly by the lawyer that when he lost his case he would do more time than just a year. They told him he would do 15 years in prison if he fought it.

It must depend in part on how the law is drafted. Generally if all the elements of a crime are not there (mens rea and actus reas) then no crime has been committed.

 LordofHats wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Also, mothers are generally safe: nail a woman who has kids (consensually, of course), and you're probably safe.

That's really creepy advice XD

Why? You're likely to not be with a woman who is underage, although it is possible. If she doesn't have a ring on her finger, it's perfectly acceptable to sleep with a woman who has children. No, see, telling you to hang out at a Chuck E. Cheese while looking for a single woman with kids...THAT would be creepy advice.




Ps, I don't condone that!!