Husband labled a monster.

[ErinGoBragh]

Just a point of clarification.

The OP doesn't state that her husband served 3 years in prison. The OP states that her husband was released from prison 3 years ago. We don't actually know how long he was to register for the SO list. It could have been not at all or it could be for life, just in a different classification.

Either way, he was convicted and no matter what the degree, he is a sexual offender.

Wow.. I totally misread. Thank you.

 

[cyjeff]

I am in complete agreement with quincy.

It's sad how easily a man can be blackballed for things that a woman could easily get away with.

Ah, the old "women molesters are fine" defense.

I guess you don't get cable news.

I really frown upon sexism (directed at either gender), and many of these "laws" are certainly biased against men. For instance, I saw a neighbor of mine in the sexual offender's database. His crime? Indecent exposure. Are they SERIOUS? How many women run around exposing their breasts, backsides, etc? Guess what happens to them... they get cast in the next episode of Girls Gone Wild. LOL

Where, exactly, is your neighborhood? You know, the one where women run around naked.

On the flip side, men can expose their upper body where ever they want without incident. That one seems biased towards men.

You will notice, of course, that the OP never talked about the difference between the "boyfriend" and the "girlfriend"... right?

As for "inappropriate touching", well, that could be any number of things... including a misinterpreted pat on the back ("OMG! he was trying to unhook my bra!!11!").

I'm really ashamed to be female, sometimes.

I am very happy that you have never been inappropriately touched. I agree it is subjective.

There are doctors that can help you with the female thing.

 

[cyjeff]

My goodness, cyjeff. You are certainly one angry person. Yikes.

I couldn't be more biased against sexual offenders if I was wearing a "Child Molesters should have to spend ten minutes with the father" T-shirt.

You seem to want to say, "well, because it COULD be rationalized if we squint our eyes and look at it THIS way it doesn't seem so bad".

As I said, you have never seen the fallout, apparently. I have.

Throw all that platitudes you want at this. The law is the law.

I do agree that there should be a tiered approach to child molestation. However, right now there is not.

 

[quincy]

Thank you for explaining the fact that you are biased, cyjeff. I had already guessed that.

You made two (at least) false accusations in your posts: one, that I "don't know JACK" about the matter and, two, that I "have never seen the fallout." You do not know me well enough to make those assertions.

As for the "pertinence" of my other comments, I was merely showing my bias. I believe we (as a country) are making sex offenders out of too many people (much the way we, as a country, are seeing terrorists in every foreign face, and boogie men in every closet). This is not to say I do not support the harshest punishments possible for true child molesters and rapists, because I do. But who is a child molester and who is a rapist?

I think the sex offender laws are overly broad, and the registries that include all offenders regardless of the degree of the offense are overly punitive.

The laws were designed, and the registries formed, mostly as a reaction of the public to a few isolated but very well-publicized and, granted, horrific cases involving children. The response to these cases, however, has resulted in laws that punish normal and, quite franklly, healthy behavior in normal healthy individuals.

Teenagers who experiment with sex with willing partners are being labeled sex offenders for life. And I find that wrong. Kindergarten teachers are no longer allowed to hug their 5 year old students, for fear of being labeled a sex offender. And I find that wrong. Parents are no longer allowed to take photos of their kids in bathtubs. And I find that wrong.

So, there is my bias, cyjeff. The law as the law needs some common sense injected into it.

 

[cyjeff]

Thank you for explaining the fact that you are biased, cyjeff. I had already guessed that.

You made two (at least) false accusations in your posts: one, that I "don't know JACK" about the matter and, two, that I "have never seen the fallout." You do not know me well enough to make those assertions.

As for the "pertinence" of my other comments, I was merely showing my bias. I believe we (as a country) are making sex offenders out of too many people (much the way we, as a country, are seeing terrorists in every foreign face, and boogie men in every closet). This is not to say I do not support the harshest punishments possible for true child molesters and rapists, because I do. But who is a child molester and who is a rapist?

I think the sex offender laws are overly broad, and the registries that include all offenders regardless of the degree of the offense are overly punitive.

The laws were designed, and the registries formed, mostly as a reaction of the public to a few isolated but very well-publicized and, granted, horrific cases involving children. The response to these cases, however, has resulted in laws that punish normal and, quite franklly, healthy behavior in normal healthy individuals.

Teenagers who experiment with sex with willing partners are being labeled sex offenders for life. And I find that wrong. Kindergarten teachers are no longer allowed to hug their 5 year old students, for fear of being labeled a sex offender. And I find that wrong. Parents are no longer allowed to take photos of their kids in bathtubs. And I find that wrong.

So, there is my bias, cyjeff. The law as the law needs some common sense injected into it.

Then your option, as I said, is to write your legislature.

As for my assumptions... I have seen the victims. I have tried to make it better. You just want to rationalize.

Don't lecture me upon the dangers and terrors of child molestation.

As for the "pertinence" of my other comments, I was merely showing my bias. I believe we (as a country) are making sex offenders out of too many people (much the way we, as a country, are seeing terrorists in every foreign face, and boogie men in every closet). This is not to say I do not support the harshest punishments possible for true child molesters and rapists, because I do. But who is a child molester and who is a rapist?

This says it all. Yes, you say, I will give voice to the politically correct "all child molesters should be punished" rant, but will coach it in the rationalization that not everyone that has sex with a child is a child molester.

So, what are your rules? Most states already have Romeo clauses. I can only assume you are talking about additional affirmative defenses outside of those. Well, unless you are just trying to muddy the water by bringing up a scenario that you KNOW has already been resolved.

What is this "normal and, quite franklly, healthy behavior in normal healthy individuals" that you are talking about that falls outside of the Romeo defense?

And yes, if you are going to be a jerk and point out when I misspell in an effort to make me appear less intelligent, I will return the favor.

As for the rest, you really have no idea what you are talking about. My BIL is a second grade teacher. Hugs his kids all the time.

I know of no current or past criminal case against any parent for taking innocent pictures of their children in a bathtub. Name one. Allow me to research it. I will wait.

You are trying to scare people into lessening the laws against child molestation by saying, "See, by the LAW, even YOU are a child molester!!!! We HAVE to stop the MADNESS!!!"

And there really isn't any. The laws need tweaking, but are doing their job.

 

[quincy]

Cyjeff, I notice on this thread, and on the others where you have posted, that you really do not have a clue what you are talking about, past your opinions - which seem hardfast and unchangeable. However, I hope you DO take some time to research this matter (including your claim that states have already addressed Romeo and Juliet laws) and correct your statement that "the laws are doing their job."

On Monday, Georgia's Supreme Court, by the way, stated that Georgia's current Sex Offender law was unconstitutional (they struck down the 2007 version of the law earlier). In 2007, only a handful of states had laws in effect that covered teenage intimacy which would make consensual teenage sex a misdemeanor and not a felony.

The State Representative who drafted Ohio's "Megan's Law" bill said that Ohio's law makes criminals out of fourteen and fifteen year olds, and this was something "the legislature had not envisioned at the time."

The Adam Walsh Act will eliminate from judges the discretion they now have when faced with youthful offenders. The laws will become black and white, and the offense will be punished regardless of the offender or the circumstances.

Currently there is a young girl whose guilt as a sex offender is being considered, because she sent partially nude photos of herself to her friends. She faces being labeled a sex offender for life, and SHE is the only victim of her particular crime.

I can quote cases and studies and laws from the 50 states, but I am convinced that facts do not matter to you. I can only suggest, therefore, that you preface all that you say with "this is my opinion only and has no basis in fact or law."



(and I do not need to point out your spelling errors to make you appear less intelligent. . . you manage to accomplish that in every one of your posts, all on your own)

 

[cyjeff]

Cyjeff, I notice on this thread, and on the others where you have posted, that you really do not have a clue what you are talking about, past your opinions - which seem hardfast and unchangeable. However, I hope you DO take some time to research this matter (including your claim that states have already addressed Romeo and Juliet laws) and correct your statement that "the laws are doing their job."

On Monday, Georgia's Supreme Court, by the way, stated that Georgia's current Sex Offender law was unconstitutional (they struck down the 2007 version of the law earlier). In 2007, only a handful of states had laws in effect that covered teenage intimacy which would make consensual teenage sex a misdemeanor and not a felony.

The State Representative who drafted Ohio's "Megan's Law" bill said that Ohio's law makes criminals out of fourteen and fifteen year olds, and this was something "the legislature had not envisioned at the time."

I tell you what... let's start with the facts here....

I have said that I believed in a tiered system of offenses. However, one really doesn't exist in most jurisdictions.

With the notable exception of Romeo laws.

Now, about Romeo laws....

Alabama...

Being 16 years old or older, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex less than 16 and more than 12 years old; provided, however, the actor is at least two years older than the member of the opposite sex.

Alaska...

being 16 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual penetration with a person who is 13, 14, or 15 years of age and at least three years younger than the offender, or aids, induces, causes or encourages a person who is 13, 14, or 15 years of age and at least three years younger than the offender to engage in sexual penetration with another person;

Arizona...

No Romeo cushion.

Arkansas...

California...

(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual
intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than
the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and
shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
(d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of
unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age
is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished
by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

Do I need to go on? Really?

Most states have as law an affirmative defense to rape that the "rapist" be two or three years within the age of the "victim" as long as the victim is above an absolute age.

So, how many years do YOU wish?

The Adam Walsh Act will eliminate from judges the discretion they now have when faced with youthful offenders. The laws will become black and white, and the offense will be punished regardless of the offender or the circumstances.

Because discretionary sentences allow jurists to legislate from the bench. One kid goes to prison and the next gets a nasty talking to ... and all of a sudden, the law has been rewritten.

Currently there is a young girl whose guilt as a sex offender is being considered, because she sent partially nude photos of herself to her friends. She faces being labeled a sex offender for life, and SHE is the only victim of her particular crime.

Distribution of child pornography doesn't differentiate if the pictures were taken of yourself.

I can quote cases and studies and laws from the 50 states, but I am convinced that facts do not matter to you. I can only suggest, therefore, that you preface all that you say with "this is my opinion only and has no basis in fact or law."

Right...

Again, what SHOULD the above laws be? How young CAN adults dip into the adolescent pool?

I ask again, what "normal behavior" outside of a two or three year gap are you trying to protect.

Please don't try the "love is an affirmative defense" chestnut. It doesn't fly.

(and I do not need to point out your spelling errors to make you appear less intelligent. . . you manage to accomplish that in every one of your posts, all on your own)

Right...

Again, what DO you want the laws to say?

Feel free to tell THEM.

I don't see how having a long diatribe on what you WANT the laws to be helps the OP. YOU have hijacked a thread so that you can pontificate about what the laws SHOULD be rather than what they are.

 

[cyjeff]

Oh, and I am still waiting for that case study on parents taking pictures of their own children in a bathtub.

 

[Cuckoo Clock]

Ah, the old "women molesters are fine" defense.

I guess you don't get cable news.



Where, exactly, is your neighborhood? You know, the one where women run around naked.

On the flip side, men can expose their upper body where ever they want without incident. That one seems biased towards men.

You will notice, of course, that the OP never talked about the difference between the "boyfriend" and the "girlfriend"... right?



I am very happy that you have never been inappropriately touched. I agree it is subjective.

There are doctors that can help you with the female thing.

Are you one of those nutty radical feminists, or something? Your reactions are quite... emotional.

And, if "inappropriate touching" includes being sexually touched by a stranger without your permission, then yes, I have. I certainly didn't whine or call the cops because, in the past, I have pinched men's butts before... without their permission. Besiides, the guy was a little tipsy, and he didn't hurt me; just groped me a bit, picked me up, and kept trying to kiss me. I'm sure some women out there would have had a gigantic cow, but that is not my style.

PS I'm glad men can go without their shirts. Woot!

 

[cyjeff]

Are you one of those nutty radical feminists, or something? Your reactions are quite... emotional.

I not only don't have the plumbing, but don't have the inclination.

And, if "inappropriate touching" includes being sexually touched by a stranger without your permission, then yes, I have. I certainly didn't whine or call the cops because, in the past, I have pinched men's butts before... without their permission. Besiides, the guy was a little tipsy, and he didn't hurt me; just groped me a bit, picked me up, and kept trying to kiss me. I'm sure some women out there would have had a gigantic cow, but that is not my style.

I am sure that some people have rationalized all kinds of illegal behavior as normal.

Doesn't make it any less illegal.

PS I'm glad men can go without their shirts. Woot!

How wonderful for you.

 

[Cuckoo Clock]

Jaywalking is illegal too, but I don't see too many cops taking the time to arrest somebody for it.

IMHO, a lot of women have this belief that they are some sort of sacred object, and if a guy just looks at them the wrong way, it's an automatic sexual harassment lawsuit. That isn't exactly what this topic is about, but the subject got me thinking.

Btw... you sound like you're grumpy. What gives?

PS Men can be feminists too. You didn't know that?

 

[cyjeff]

Jaywalking is illegal too, but I don't see too many cops taking the time to arrest somebody for it.

IMHO, a lot of women have this belief that they are some sort of sacred object, and if a guy just looks at them the wrong way, it's an automatic sexual harassment lawsuit. That isn't exactly what this topic is about, but the subject got me thinking.

Btw... you sound like you're grumpy. What gives?

PS Men can be feminists too. You didn't know that?

Why am I grumpy? You are trying to say, "Get over it. A little unwanted touching should be welcome and taken as the compliment it is".

Are you serious?

I guess I will go give my secretary a hearty slap on the butt to let her know what a great job she is doing.

 

[cyjeff]

Oh, and I found a number of people that wrote to this site to get help with their jaywalking violation as well.

 

[Cuckoo Clock]

Why am I grumpy? You are trying to say, "Get over it. A little unwanted touching should be welcome and taken as the compliment it is".

Just because something is "unwelcome", that doesn't make it a freaking federal offense. Geeez..

A pat on the shoulder from a stranger might be unwanted by a shy person, but that doesn't mean that the said shy person was "violated" by it.

Are you serious?

Ummmm... yep. And pardon me for saying so, but I think you're p*ssy-whipped.

I guess I will go give my secretary a hearty slap on the butt to let her know what a great job she is doing.

Well, if she likes spankings as much as I do....

 

[>Charlotte<]

Just because something is "unwelcome", that doesn't make it a freaking federal offense.

Unwelcome
Three years in prison
Sex crime