Sex Offenders

[franklie 0]

There was a thread in one of the other forums where a discussion started about sex offenders and the Adam Walsh Act. I think we can all agree that violating/molesting children, and rape of men or women are morally reprehensible and should be punished.

But what about the following cases? Should the offenders have to file as sex offenders as well?

http://www.wftv.com/news/16348047/detail.html

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/legalCente...3362&page=1

[Jenn! 918]

No. Slapping the sex offender label on for relatively frivolous and/or unintentional things demeans the cases where it is applicable.

[Ban Hammer 13,575]

There was a thread in one of the other forums where a discussion started about sex offenders and the Adam Walsh Act. I think we can all agree that violating/molesting children, and rape of men or women are morally reprehensible and should be punished.

But what about the following cases? Should the offenders have to file as sex offenders as well?

http://www.wftv.com/news/16348047/detail.html

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/legalCente...3362&page=1

first one - yes

second one - no

third one - tough call.

Edited July 9, 2008 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No. Slapping the sex offender label on for relatively frivolous and/or unintentional things demeans the cases where it is applicable.

I agree with that. The UK has had cases where people have gotten on the sex-offenders register for things like indecent exposure (basically drunken streaking), or for a guy sleeping with his 15 y/o g/f at age 17 or 18.

Rapists and predators are a whole different kettle of fish, and should be treated as such.

Edited July 9, 2008 by Number 6

[KiKi 0]

There were cases here in Oregon where married couples were having sex in their car in a park LATE at night and the police came.

The MAN had to register as a sex offender but not the woman....how in the hell is that fair?

Some of these laws go wayyyyy too far.

Here's ther article.....

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august1..._laws_81806.php

[Ban Hammer 13,575]

There were cases here in Oregon where married couples were having sex in their car in a park LATE at night and the police came.

The MAN had to register as a sex offender but not the woman....how in the hell is that fair?

Some of these laws go wayyyyy too far.

Here's ther article.....

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august1..._laws_81806.php

that is a weird one!

[Amby 490]

sex offender because you had sex in public? did they offend someone?

[KiKi 0]

LOL.....apparently.....but only the guys, I guess the women were okay.

Seriously though, that is discrimination, big time!

[MrsCat 6]

First one - yes, despite his lack of knowledge, it should be imputed in this case, because he should have made further inquiries as to her age.

Second one - no, both are "victims" or just stupid young kids and don't know better

Third one - yes, its clear the law states she could not consent while drunk. He should have known better, he knew she was drunk.

[Ban Hammer 13,575]

LOL.....apparently.....but only the guys, I guess the women were okay.

Seriously though, that is discrimination, big time!

that's because women are saints.

[MrsCat 6]

LOL.....apparently.....but only the guys, I guess the women were okay.

Seriously though, that is discrimination, big time!

that's because women are saints.

Its because unclad wieners are ugly and unclad bobbies are pretty.

[Amby 490]

LOL.....apparently.....but only the guys, I guess the women were okay.

Seriously though, that is discrimination, big time!

that's because women are saints.

Its because unclad wieners are ugly and unclad bobbies are pretty.

I agree. I'm happy I'm female because I've had sex in public many times so I would be a sex offender ifI wasn't. Happy I dodged that bullet

[caybee 21]

First one - yes, despite his lack of knowledge, it should be imputed in this case, because he should have made further inquiries as to her age.

Second one - no, both are "victims" or just stupid young kids and don't know better

Third one - yes, its clear the law states she could not consent while drunk. He should have known better, he knew she was drunk.

The third one was convicted for having oral sex at 17 with the 15-year-old who apparently was not drunk, not for having sex with the 17-year-old girl who appeared intoxicated (the jury did not agree that she was). At the time, consensual intercourse between him and the 15-year-old would have been a misdemeanor in Georgia, but the oral sex was considered aggravated child molestation with a mandatory sentence and placement on the sex offender registry. Oral sex between minors became a misdemeanor after Wilson was arrested. He won his appeal before the Georgia supreme court and was released from prison last November. The appeals court ruled his punishment was cruel and unusual. I don't know if he remained on the registry after his release. Personally, I don't believe he should.

FWIW, oral sex between consenting adults was illegal in Georgia until 1998, punishable by a sentence of 20 years.