I'm pretty sure that in every state in the US, people who are labeled as sex offenders by the law are required to register as sex offenders on public listings. These listings give the name and current address of the offender. They also usually provide a picture. In some states, I hear they even have to have special license plates. In many states, they cannot live within so many feet of a school or playground (which, in dense urban and suburban areas, leaves very few options for housing).
Now, in theory this sounds fine. Rapists are the scum of the earth and deserve to be treated as such. But the problem is, there are too many people on those lists who do not deserve to be there.
One of the most common examples of this is when a person aged, say, 17 has consensual sex with someone who is 15. If the state's laws say that the age of consent is 16, then the 17 year old can be charged with rape. He then has to register as a sex offender. He will find it very difficult to work anywhere since many employers now check these databases. He will find it very difficult to live anywhere save for a rural area. All because he had consensual sex with someone who was two years younger than them. If both parties agreed to the sex, then why should either one get charged with any crime? People claim that people under 16 are not able to make good judgment, but look around any impoverished area and you will see plenty of people not making good judgment in regards to sex (not using protection). And the idea that when a person turns 16 they can suddenly make a good judgment of whether to have sex or not is ludicrous.
An even more egregious example is one I heard a couple days ago at this discussion about drinking at my college. According to a police officer (and this has actually happened in many places), if you are caught urinating in public you can be charged with a sex crime (indecent exposure) and be registered as a sex offender. That's right; if you're drunk and stupid and take a piss in someone's lawn, you're not just called a dumbass and have to pay the owner of the lawn a small fine. You have to essentially lose what life you had and live in exile.
Who else agrees that there needs to be a major reworking of what is considered a sex offense and what isn't?
Now, in theory this sounds fine. Rapists are the scum of the earth and deserve to be treated as such. But the problem is, there are too many people on those lists who do not deserve to be there.
One of the most common examples of this is when a person aged, say, 17 has consensual sex with someone who is 15. If the state's laws say that the age of consent is 16, then the 17 year old can be charged with rape. He then has to register as a sex offender. He will find it very difficult to work anywhere since many employers now check these databases. He will find it very difficult to live anywhere save for a rural area. All because he had consensual sex with someone who was two years younger than them. If both parties agreed to the sex, then why should either one get charged with any crime? People claim that people under 16 are not able to make good judgment, but look around any impoverished area and you will see plenty of people not making good judgment in regards to sex (not using protection). And the idea that when a person turns 16 they can suddenly make a good judgment of whether to have sex or not is ludicrous.
An even more egregious example is one I heard a couple days ago at this discussion about drinking at my college. According to a police officer (and this has actually happened in many places), if you are caught urinating in public you can be charged with a sex crime (indecent exposure) and be registered as a sex offender. That's right; if you're drunk and stupid and take a piss in someone's lawn, you're not just called a dumbass and have to pay the owner of the lawn a small fine. You have to essentially lose what life you had and live in exile.
Who else agrees that there needs to be a major reworking of what is considered a sex offense and what isn't?
