Allow Me to Introduce My Victim

Marie Claire tells the story of Frank Rodriguez, a Texas carpenter who is listed on his state's sex offender registry because he pleaded guilty to "sexual assault of a child." That "child" was his high school girlfriend, Nikki Prescott, who was nearly 16 at the time; today she is his wife and the mother of his two daughters. The state of Texas treated their relationship as a crime, and they have been living with the consequences ever since: Rodriguez had to move out of his parents' home because his 12-year-old sister lived there, and even living in the same house with his wife and daughters was illegal until he completed seven years of probation. His sentence completed, he and his family were still dogged by the stigma of his lifetime registration, which disrupted his education plans, impaired his job prospects, and scared away neighbors. Now he is petitioning for removal from the registry under a new law that loosened the requirements for the state's "Romeo and Juliet" exception:

Texas law...stipulated that the accused had to be within three years of age of his underage sexual partner to avoid registration. Frank is three years and two months older than Nikki. A further element of the law said that the accused could avoid registration if he was under 19 years old and his partner was over 13 years old when they had sex. Nikki was 15. But Frank lost again: He was 19....

Under the new bill, the accused can file a petition if he was within four years of age of his sexual partner and if the partner was at least 15. 

Marie Claire found that 34 states require registration of juvenile offenders. In the 23 states that keep a separate count of such offenders, nearly 23,000 are currently listed. While some of them committed actual assaults, many had consensual sex with other teenagers or even played doctor with other children. The magazine reports that "each of the 50 states now has at least one grassroots group dedicated to getting young people—many high school age, but some under the age of 10—off the registry."

As I noted last month, a similar fate could await the 17-year-old boy caught with his hand up the skirt of a 15-year-old girl in Big Bear High School's 2011 yearbook. (As the advocacy group California for Romeo and Juliet Law explains, California is less enlightened than Texas on this score, setting the age of consent at 18 and making no exceptions for consensual teenage sex.) For more on the unfairness and ineffectiveness of sex offender registries, see my July Reason feature story "Perverted Justice."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Bob Beckel||

    But but but....it's government how could you believe that it could do wrong? It only exists for the benefit of all its citizens.

  • Old Mexican||

    Did the Judge ripped open a new one on you, Bob???

  • ||

    by flooding the list with people who should not be on it, the value of the list (to track truly dangerous offenders) is reduced to virtually nil

  • Dave||

    But the value is not nil. Bullies who want to find someone to hate on can use these lists to find victims that no one will defend. A few bullies have even hit the jackpot: murder!

  • Greer||

    they don't call them jail bait for nothing.

    With almost all things the government does, some one gets fucked. And looks like this guy got fucked twice.

  • Anne Archist||

    Government is bad!

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    I wonder how many Texas legislators fucked their girlfriends in high school.

    I understand that there's some people who are committed to wait until marriage, but don't fucking lie to me, I know some of them can raise their hands!

  • Coeus||

    I wonder how many Texas legislators fucked their girlfriends in high school.

    Judging solely by how they look, I'm gonna say "not many".

  • IceTrey||

    He wasn't in high school.

    "At the time, Frank was 19 years old, a recent high school graduate in the town of Caldwell, Texas."

  • ||

    Not only shuld he be removed from the registry, he should sue the state for damages.

  • RandomDude||

    I've been barking up this tree for years. Just because I was a 49 year old man who had consensual sex with my 14-year old girlfriend, I'm on this stupid list for life, and I can't get a job, or even attend her high school graduation (this past May; I was so proud)!

  • Joe M||

    F

  • ||

    Has anyone seen the troll spray?

  • BakedPenguin||

    As I said on another thread, I feel bad if scared HERCULE away. His stuff was way better than this.

  • anarch||

    I've seen it spray other trolls' territory.

  • ||

    That's how "troll spray" works. We are supposed to have a can of synthetic troll scent, and when applied around the H&R premises, convinces new trolls that there's already a very dominant troll in the area who has marked this territory.

  • Brett L||

    I thought this was the entire purpose of the Urkobold, no?

  • Anne Archist||

    Trolls are bad!

  • Vladyslav Gaychuck||

    BITCHES TO RECOGNIZE!

    You say shit make no sense. You not just bark up tree, you bark up Vlad's leg!

  • Vladyslav Gaychuck||

    I send ex wife after randomdude. Ex wife look like STEVE SMITH on steroids.

    I pull card on you!

  • np||

    regardless of randomdude's trolling... can you imagine how we'd treat Joseph's (~44) relationship with Mary (~12) today?

  • ||

    No Worries. They'd both be dead from a suicide bombing or American Kinetic Action.

  • JSinAZ||

    You do know where Bethlehem is, right? Suicide bombing maybe, but more likely throats cut with a curved blade.

  • Dave||

    And don't forget, God got Mary preggers!

    OMG! The Christian God is a child molester! Guess I'll have to switch to Islam - but Mohammed married a six year old girl! Judaism? A girl can get married at age three! Buddhism? No required age of consent that I know of. Hinduism? They allow little girls to marry DOGS (really)!

    Surely there's some politically correct religion I can join that hates properly! Where is it?

  • nicole||

    Nikki's mother, worried that her daughter's relationship with Frank was getting too serious, reported Frank to the police. She expected the cops to issue a warning, but instead she set in motion a legal nightmare from which Frank would never recover.

    Worst mother in the world? She's still a part of their lives, though the wife says their relationship has never been the same...but this just reminds me of Brian Aitken's whole story with his mom too. Lives ruined by well-meaning people calling the cops for help with a domestic situation.

  • nicole||

    Also, I wanted to say: good for Marie Claire. The article isn't exactly perfect for those of us who disagree with these registries overall, but this was a solid story for a very different readership.

  • Coeus||

    We need need to start a public information campaign. Something like "Unless you want them dead, don't call the cops".

  • Tony||

    If only more cops visited libertarian's homes.

  • barfman||

    *baaaaarrrrrrrrrffffffffffffff*

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: nicole,
    Lives ruined by well-meaning people calling the cops for help with a domestic situation.
    Moral of the story:

    NEVER CALL THE COPS.

    They're not there to help you, they're not your friends, and they're certainly not there to protect you.

  • nicole||

    Yep.

    I am relatively Dunphy-sympathetic, but this is an issue I would like to see him respond to. I believe that he wants to help people. But stuff like this prevents people who need help from seeking it. I may not want a government police force, but obviously a lot of people do and yet the savvy ones know it can be very dangerous to ask the cops for help. That's not good from any perspective.

  • Jim||

    I can already tell you how he'd respond: that it's all the fault of the legislature, and the poor helpless boys in blue have their hands completely tied and must enforce all assinine laws.

    This stems from his belief that elections are legitmate expressions of the will of the people, and that the legislators therefore must be obeyed, or pure chaos will ensue.

  • ||

    my belief is that these laws are asinine, but what exactly are the POLICE supposed to do

    i hate to sound like a high school govt. teacher but... the legislative branch WRITES laws.

    i fucking loathe these stupid ass laws. when i was a cop in Mass (age of consent of 16), a fellow officer had to investigate a case where some assmunch parents pressed charges after their 15 yr old daughter's boyfriend turned 16 and kept schtupping her. at which point, since ONE was 16, it became a prosecutable felony.

    what do you propose the officer who investigated the "case" should have done? lie? hide evidence? what?

    it's like blaming some staff sgt. in iraq for bush (or obama's ) war strategy

    i used to work in hawaii. the age of cosnet was 14. it was funny when parents would try to make statutory rape complaints for their 14 yr old (who was schtupped by a 60 yr old man) and you'd tell them "that's legal"

    man, would they get pissed. at US

    the war on sexual predators, like the war on drugs and the war on domestic violence is an example of legislative excess (to put it mildly) , awful policy, kneejerk legislation, erosion of rights, etc.

    fortunately, my state has an age differential thing, so a 60 yr old and a 15 yr old is illegal but 14 is the minimum age of consent, so as long as they are close (classic high school shit) it aint a crime

    cops have a lot of discretion with misdemeanors and with victimless crimes (sometimes even when felonies) but almost none when you have juvenile "victims" and adult offenders and sex offense shit.

    our protocol is - send it to the prosecutors and let THEM decide when it's a sex offense.

  • Jim||

    The answer is, we're better off with officers discretion about what they enforce and what they don't, than we are with blanket enforcement. At least with discretion, some people would not be prosecuted, some of the time.

    This stems from a fundamental break in mentality you have with myself, and several others: legislatures are not legitmate expressions of the will of the people, and rights are NOT confined to those which are listed in the consitution. Iow, it doens't matter that your hated legislature passed the law, a moral person would refuse to enforce it.

    Not being retarded, you do not have to explain to me who writes the laws. What you do need to explain (if you're actually the liberty lover you proclaim) is why you feel you must be a slave to them, whether they are conducive to liberty or not.

    I would submit that a man of conscience would refuse to enforce such laws, regardless of whether or not they were passed "legally" by the legislature.

    I also note that in the conversation earlier today, you did not answer the direct question of whether or not you've ever seen another officer breaking the law (outside non-arrestable offences such as minor traffic violations).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's rare enough to have a liberty-oriented policeman brave the H&R posters - why not encourage him instead of catechizing him about will-you-promise-to-ignore-such-and-such-unjust-laws?

    What good would catechizing him do? I doubt it would persuade him. It might persuade other police that they can safely ignore all libertarian concerns.

    Imagine the (hypothetical) response of statist-oriented police officers to these sorts of responses. "See - it's unnatural for a law officer to have libertarian sympathies - libertarians themselves recognize it! So just drop your dumb reservations about drug laws and so on, and start having fun enforcing them!"

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    (did that constitute "concern trolling?" Maybe so - but if some cop says "I am against many of the laws I enforce, and I don't go out of my way to enforce them - and I'm willing to admit this behind a screen name" - is that glass 4/5 full or 1/5 empty?)

  • ||

    note also, and i can confirm this by my computer's list of case reports/arrests i have taken... that less than 3% (with the exception of lame-ass Domestic Violence laws) of the cases i enforce are "stupid" e.g. WOD shit, etc.

    iow, this is outlier shit. the crap i generally deal with are robbery, burglary, assault (felony and occasionally misdemeanor. most misdemeanor assaults are usually mutual combat noncrimes that one party tries to play victim on), auto theft, check fraud, identity theft, DUI, etc.

    iow stuff that most libertarians (save some of the DUI nimrods here) could probably agree do not violate fundamental rights to enforce.

    drug laws are SO rarely a part of my patrol experience, ditto other victimless shit

  • tarran||

    I'm sorry, but actions speak louder than words. For all of dunphy's talk, and I'll be charitable and assume he's being truthful rather than engaging in testilying, the only liberty enhancing things he's ever copped to doing are:
    1) Friending LEAP on Facebook. not joining, mind you, friending it.

    2) He once refused to arrest a black man who had done nothing wrong despite his sergeant's order to do so.

    On the tyrrany enhancing side of the ledger, apparently he did a fair bit of undercover work trying to capture people supplying illicit drugs. And judging by the litany of stereotypes he associated to specialists in a long list of drug types, he was quite the busy beaver sniffing out traders in illicit goods.

    Granted, unlike his comrades in Afghanistan, dunphy's victims won't have their hands cut off. They may be sodomized and lose their property, have their children kidnapped. They may find it difficult to sell their labor services down the road. Their right to defend themselves will be severely curtailed.

    People whose moral sense is so crippled that they view police work as honorable need to be catechised. It's possible that a few of them might be salvaged and grow up to be honorable people who pursue an honorable trade like heroin trafficking. But for must of them rehabilitation is impossible.

  • ||

    at the time i worked undercover (mostly drug stuff but also weapon stuff) i was not against the WOD, philosophically speaking. it was my exposure TO the drug war that changed my mind.

    that's reality. i couldn't in good conscience do undercover drug work now. and i don't

    people's ideas and ideologies change... hopefully due to evidence and experience.

    and when i was undercover, i dealt exclusively with hard drug dealers. iow, nobody went to jail for less than selling to me for $$$ (no "distribution) on multiple occasions shit like heroin, methcathinone, methamphetamine, cocaine, etc.

    i can live with that.

  • ||

    exactly. these people want to have their cake and eat it too. if a cop ignored a law when THEY were a victim and wanted assistance they would be outraged. but as long as cops ignore the laws THEY want ignored, it's ok to (essentially) violate rule of law and seperation of powers by deciding the age of consent is too high, so screw it - we'll ignore that law.

    is that really the system they want to live in? where each cop is his own judge and legislator as to which laws are "just"?

    yes, we do have some discretion and it's a good thing, but when judges make something a (for example) b felony in regards to minor victims, they are not inviting police discretion

    lots of cops can (and do) ignore petty mj violations, etc.

    statutory rape? not so much

    i remember i arrested a guy in hawaii (age of consent 14). he was 30. for stat rape.

    she was like 1 month shy of 14. i was like "you couldn't fucking wait a MONTH to fuck her?"

    he's all "the pussy was GOOD"

    i told him NO PUSSY is that good

  • Anne Archist||

    is that really the system they want to live in? where each cop is his own judge and legislator as to which laws are "just"?

    Yes its called "anarchy" and thats what we want cuz its the most fairest way of living nobody should tell me what to do it isn't fair.

  • ||

    great. homey don't play that. but if anarchotopia is your thang, more power to you

  • ||

    when it comes to in loco parentis shit and juveniles, etc. and sex offenses, sorry but ... we don't have much, if any discretion

    that's simply legal reality.

    i sent a case to the prosecutors once and strongly recommended they not prosecute (it was a child porn case, but it was basically a few kids screwing around in making it).

    fortuntely, the prosecutor agreed. but it was NOT my decision

    i am not going to conceal evidence or lie in a report because i don't agree with a law. i would hope you would agree that is NOT the way to fight bad law

  • ||

    he won't be a cop for long if he does this

  • nicole||

    my belief is that these laws are asinine, but what exactly are the POLICE supposed to do

    I'm having a naively optimistic evening I guess, but I feel like a concerted lobbying effort on the part of police who frame the issue as "your attempts to be tough on crime are making it more difficult for us to do our job" would be a lot more effective than most anything an average citizen could do.

    But I'm talking much more broadly than about this case, this mom, or any parent who complains about this sort of thing. If you want to help people, you are aware that your sincere efforts are being hindered by the general problem of overcriminalization. Smart folks know there's always something to get snagged by. I know you don't like these laws, but if I were you I'd be pretty loudly angry about how they were hurting your ability to do what should be your job.

  • tarran||

    I'm having a naively optimistic evening I guess, but I feel like a concerted lobbying effort on the part of police who frame the issue as "your attempts to be tough on crime are making it more difficult for us to do our job" would be a lot more effective than most anything an average citizen could do.

    I can count the times I've heard the police lobby to have a law repealed on one finger.

    It would take 10 bits to store the integer recording the number of times I've observed the police lobbying against repeal of laws.

    The police love the fact that we're all committing three felonies a day as we peaceably go about our business. If gives them an excuse to fuck with anyone they want to, anytime they want to. Fewer crimes on the books mean lower budgets and fewer cops.

  • ||

    who is "the police" who lobby. the ONLY laws my union lobbies on, and they are the only ones that represent me are stuff like retirement or line of duty death stuffs

    they have never taken a position on drug laws (for or against), sex laws, etc. and considering our membership has VASTLY disparate views on same, i think thats sound policy.

    again, you can wank all you want, but this is not a police problem

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: dunphy,

    my belief is that these laws are asinine, but what exactly are the POLICE supposed to do[?]


    Act like they are rational beings instead of blindly follow orders?

  • ||

    it's not "orders". it's called rule of law. i know that, much like judicial activists, etc you don't care about rule of law WHEN It's an issue where violating same comes down on your ideology's side.

    you want cops to only selectively enforce laws that YOU agree with, and that's ok.

    cops have some discretion, but you et al keep having the same stupid argument and blaming the cops for bad policy.

    this shit aint unconstitutional. there are many remedies for bad policy, but police flagrantly ignoring the rule of law is a remedy worse than the problem

    fwiw, the reality is this. the people (mostly parents) who WANT these laws are far more vocal and care far more than those who are opposed to them

    that's why these laws stay on the books

    and you know it

  • Anne Archist||

    it's not "orders". it's called rule of law.

    The rule of law isnt fair why should they tell me what to do I can do what I want fuck the man!

  • ||

    that's a fair cop!

  • oncogenesis||

    what do you propose the officer who investigated the "case" should have done? lie? hide evidence? what?

    Yes! Excellent suggestions. Thank you.

  • ||

    lol. so perjury, obstruction, etc. are ok if it's for a "good cause"? classic. really shows the lack of morality of some people

  • Amakudari||

    my belief is that these laws are asinine, but what exactly are the POLICE supposed to do

    Be at the forefront of demanding reforms, given their firsthand experience with the devastation caused by pointless laws. I'll accept the argument that law enforcement has certain procedures for felonies, and most of the fault here falls on people who demand these laws. But most of those people who demand such laws never see their nasty effects. Cops do, prosecutors do, (heck, prison guards do) but where's the outcry from the law enforcement community about unjust laws that needlessly ruin the lives of people who've done little wrong? Rather, you usually see the opposite: police groups supporting more punitive laws.

    Take for granted that much of my experience was from California, but whenever some initiative came up for marijuana legalization, you can be sure that the police unions, sheriff's groups, police chief associations, etc. all came out very, very strongly against it.

    For something more topical, there was a proposition a few years back that established a lot of the crazy shit in California sex laws. It increased penalties, limited parole, imposed definitions for statutory rape, prevented all offenders from living within half a mile of anywhere children gather (which applied retroactively!), etc. Guess who supported it?

    If cops complained about enforcing these laws, I think you'd have a real point. As is, though, I don't see any reason to make the assumption that the police as a whole dislike the laws they're executing.

  • ||

    who made that assumption

    cops i know run the political and ideological gamut

    some LOVE the drug laws. some hate them. some are "meh" etc.

    cops tend to be right leaning and ime more libertarian than you'd suspect but ime are also pretty broad based in their views.

    what i do see ime is that a very substantial %age of cops think mj laws are useless at best.

  • tarran||

    Wow, yet only one joined LEAP?

    Only one out of thousands of 'libertarian leaning' cops joined LEAP?

    Dude, if you're going to pull B.S. out of your ass, at least try to make it unobvious B.S.

    I mean, come on, this is embarrassing.

  • ||

    here's a fucking hint. if you want police to "help' but you are reporting an unequivocal felony occurring to a minor victim, that's probably a bad idea.

    duh

    most people don't even KNOW the age of consent. frankly, most people (god knows, reason commenters included) don't even have cursory knowledge of their own state's legal code.

    heck, some people make major life decision, moving to another state, without even RESEARCHING state laws and constitutioonal law, which is asinine if you think about it.

    if you are reporting that YOU are a victim of rape (and not a minor), it is entirely up to you whether you want police to pursue the case initially. but when you make them privy to a crime , no matter how ludicrous , that is written as a serious felony, the cop has to look into it. or he would be remiss.

    most people know, many from personal experience, that it's a great idea to ask the police for help. that's one of the reasons why we routinely poll so high in terms of respect and admiration . there's a LOT of stuff we can also help handle with no police report or punitive action. but statutory rape is generally not one them

  • ||

    It's rare of me to say this, but the government doesn't deserve the ire it's getting on this topic.

    1) Everyone here can agree (I hope) that there is some age limit/differential for sex, outside of which the non-minor can legally be stopped

    2) Everyone here can agree that if 1 is true, than the legislature must set said limit/differential

    3) Whatever that limit is, there will be cases where someone was only a few months too young or too old. And if you pushed the limits outward to encompass those individuals, there would then be others "just a few months" in the wrong direction. This is simply a fact.

    Now, this creates problems like the one in the article. Would it be a good idea to try and figure out some remedy? Obviously, but in the meantime, why are some of you acting like these laws are wrong in principle? What else are we supposed to do?

  • Anne Archist||

    1) Everyone here can agree (I hope) that there is some age limit/differential for sex, outside of which the non-minor can legally be stopped

    NO I can do what I want its not fair!

    the legislature must set said limit/differential

    NO the leggislator is the Man I didnt vote for him!

    if you pushed the limits outward to encompass those individuals, there would then be others "just a few months" in the wrong direction

    NO its not fair if the pigs tell me i cant have sex their not the boss of me!

  • Dave||

    The Netherlands used to have a law that allowed statutory rape to be charged only if the minor wanted to press charges, if they were at least 12 years old. This solves much of the problem of men telling lies to naive girls. Unfortunately, they nixed that law a few years ago due to pressure from the U.S.

    Broadly speaking, the age of consent was 10 or less (depending on jurisdiction) for centuries. Rape laws cover real rape, and the age of consent only began to rise in the late 1800s, usually under the guise of stopping "white slavery" (prostitution). It was called "white slavery" at the time because no one could admit that a woman might be willing to have sex for money unless she was forced into it, much the same way that statutory rape laws presume that persons under the age of consent aren't really wanting sex but are somehow being coerced.

    Oddly enough, in both cases the real slavery comes about when the government tells people what they are and are not allowed to do with their bodies.

    We could still do a pretty good job with no age of consent or a very low age of consent, reducing the acts that can be considered sex (at least one man was convicted of statutory rape for sucking on a girl's toes), and simply having a reduced penalty for statutory rape. A year in jail will generally be as effective in preventing old men hitting on young girls as a life sentence with no parole. Even the expectation of a month in jail would at least prevent older men from bothering young girls on the street - if it were enforced, of course. The question is, what are we really looking for? Justice for children, or control of children?

  • ||

    waaaaahhhhh! police suck

  • Coeus||

    Which part of this do you dispute?

    They're not there to help you, they're not your friends, and they're certainly not there to protect you.

    Since it's been established legally that serve and protect is not what police are for, is it that you think you're everybody's friend?

  • ||

    i disagree with all of it, as do most people

    you are also (as usual) wrong on the facts of law. it has not been established that to serve and protect is not what police are for.

    it has been established that (case law from the scotus) police have no constitutional duty to protect any individual unless a special relationship exists (in custody, promise is made, etc. )

    those are not the same thing

    i have friends who have given their lives and/or been severely injured because they cared enough to do so.

    i suffered severe smoke inhalation injury for pulling people out of a burning building because the fire dept wasn't there yet

    i know tons of examples of cops going out of their way to risk themselves to help others

    and i also know that , as polling data shows, the public recognizes this and unlike most reasonoids doesn
    t cherry pick to come to the opposite conclusion

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Nikki's mother, worried that her daughter's relationship with Frank was getting too serious, reported Frank to the police.

    I wouldn't report him to the police, I'd tell him that if he touches my daughter again, no one will ever find his body. If they love each other now, they'll love each other in a few years when she's old enough to weigh accurately the consequences and they can support any offspring.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Pedophiles, Islamic terrorists, and racists are useful targets for a phase-in of a police state. Nobody wants to defend the 9/11 hijackers or Brian Mitchell.

    After the legislative groundwork and executive-branch infrastructure are created to oppress an unpopular segment of society, the police state can move on with imprisoning the rest of us at will. After all, we're all criminals—the average American commits three felonies a day.

  • ||

    Pedophiles, Islamic terrorists, and racists are useful targets for a phase-in of a police state.

    After all the groundwork laid by going after TehEvilDrugs, of course.

  • Old Mexican||

    In the 23 states that keep a separate count of such offenders, nearly 23,000 are currently listed.


    23 thousand juveniles, right?

    This is nothing more than applied puritanism. America is going insane.

    "Extraordinary cases make bad law."

  • nicole||

    My mind just boggled at the overall 650,00 number for registered sex offenders nationwide. And I'm "informed."

  • Brett L||

    A) I think the registry sucks, but B) as long as there is some arbitrary age limit to consensual sex, this is going to happen. (SLD, without the registries this would be far less painful for the bubble cases. Also, I reiterate that sex offender registries run counter to both American legal tradition and are the modern day equivalent of the stocks and therefore cruel and unusual punishment.)

    Also, this was a Raising Hope episode.

  • Terr||

    I was 16 and my girlfriend (now wife of 7 years) was 19 when we started bangin'. Fuck you, government.

  • Brett L||

    Have a 29 year old friend who has a 13 yo son. His baby mama did 90 days in jail for statutory rape in Georgia while she was pregnant. Their story is not happily ever after, although he is now married and has another 20 month old and a baby on the way. It didn't scar him for life, just ruined his teenage years.

  • ||

    perfectly legal in many states. illegal in others. welcome to republican (small R) govt.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Ditto. I was 19 and she was 15. She lied to me when I met her at the party after she grabbed my crotch and told me she was 17. I guess that makes me a sex offender.

    However, as fucked up as NJ is, they now have a cutoff at age 13. You can still be charged, but it's a different offense without all of the sex offender bullshit.

  • ||

    When I was 15 and having my first explorations, my wife was 6. Luckily we didn't meet until she was 28.

    Still, she enjoys making "I was in third grade then" comments when I talk about the good times I had in the 80's.

  • pmains||

    How about allowing those on the list to petition for removal if they can show that they are not a danger to society? I know this puts the burden on the accused, but at least it might mitigate this sort of situation.

  • Bar Taker||

    Then we'll just have stories like this one, only it'll be because they were rejected.

  • robc||

    How about not having a fucking list?

    Your time ends when your time ends. Not in jail? Not on parole? Then done.

  • LarryA||

    How about only putting people on the list who are actually dangerous pedophiles? Besides preventing cases like this one, it would cut the number of listings to something a parent could actually watch.

  • ||

    How about fuck lists? If "society" thinks they're still a danger, then why did they allow them out of jail in the first place?

  • Fat Crack Ho||

    My first inclination is to blame the whole debacle on that silly quiff of a mother. But then, how would I react if some 19-year-old boy was fucking my 15-year-old daughter? I can't sit here and say I wouldn't pull out all the stops in an effort to make him stop.

    Anyhow, this is yet one more example of the type of injustice that might be avoided if the citizenry at large knew its real powers, rights, and responsibilities when serving on a jury (even though it sounds like this guy's case was disposed of without a trial).

  • ||

    fwiw, there is a way to make him stop without prosecuting and shit

    get a fucking protective order. any parent can apply for one on behalf of their minor child

    if he was caught with her after the order was issued and served, it's a misdemeanor

    doesn't matter what the kid wants, the parents have an absolute right to say who can and can't contact their kids

    i helped some parents get one in a case where their son was being groomed for sex.

  • Fat Crack Ho||

    "get a fucking protective order. any parent can apply for one on behalf of their minor child"

    I guess that makes sense. Not exactly the sort of thing I've dabbled in before. But now that that's been pointed out to me, I can state unequivocally that the mother is, in fact, a silly quiff.

    "i helped some parents get one in a case where their son was being groomed for sex."

    Personally, I never feel like I'm properly groomed for sex unless I'm wearing a pompadour, a la, Al Sharpton. But as they say on the innernets, YMMV.

  • skr||

    how old was the son and by whom was he being groomed?

  • ||

    the son was 15, and it was by a couple who had been told twice, and very firmly to stay away from the son by the parents and they continued to associate with him (boat trips, etc.)

    once the parents got the order, they actually went as far as to arrange an out of state meeting with the boy.

    they thought they could evade the law that way

    the prosecutor and i did the full meal deal with warrants for airline records, email records, etc. and proved the conspiracy to violate occurred within the state

    they went as far as to buy the kid a ticket on a seperate flight, etc. (but used one of their own credit cards etc)

  • ||

    I'm kinda partial to the old fashioned method of handling this. Dad (and his sons) warn the kid away. If he doesn't take the hint they beat some sense into him. Sure, you end up with bloody feuds and even wars that way... but it mostly works.

  • ||

    i'm from the east coast. mafia town. i have a certain level of respect for old skool stuff like that. i live in the pac nw. home of the passive-aggressive pussy, so it doesn't happen here

  • Dave||

    Good job of slave catching, Dunphy!

    Gotta keep them slaves on the plantation. They don't got no sense, and we needs to protect them.

  • ||

    I'm the odd one out -- we were both 17 (first girlfriend) -- I'm a good, obedient little serf, it seems!

  • Chupacabra||

    Statist!

  • ||

    Sounds like it's still illegal in California. Strange, in that roughly half of all folks lose their virginity by age 16.

  • np||

    too tired to be pissed off much.. so i'll just say since such criminal/moral-panic laws aren't going away (and despite others saying so, the non-reason-public are generally supportive of them) lesson is to move to another country first before doing the deed

  • ||

    fwiw, i know a cop in mass who started dating his gf when she was 16. perfectly legal THERE. in some states, a major felony.

  • np||

    well, problem is if they say they simply took a trip to another state (or a neighboring state?), and someone saw them holding hands entering a hotel room together, his life is over...

  • ||

    most definitely true. pays to know the law before you enter another jurisdiction

    like it or not, this is a republic where laws change DRASTICALLY state to state.

  • Anne Archist||

    its not fair their shoudnt be a state I can do what I want fuck the pigs.

  • ||

    fwiw, on a related note, you may recall the whole marykay letourneau debacle.

    she started bangin' vili when he was 13 and she was a middle aged school teacher

    the court gave her a mild slap with the first offense, but when she was caught with him on probation schtupping, she got a real sentence

    since being released, she got back together with him (they had to petition the court to lift the protective order and are now married)

    the ironic part is that despite his desire to be with her and that she is now his wife, HE sued the PD(or his family did) for allegedly failing to protect him from her

    lol. the chutzpah

    he lost

    supposedly, the couple is quite an item in france, where they are folk heroes.

    vili got a massive amount of money for his story , but he blew it all in a short period of time (dirtbags are poor dirtbags usually for a reason).

    the real losers in that case were marykay's kids and ex-husband who moved to another state and changed their names

  • ||

    dunphy, I saw them in the Southcenter mall a few years ago (IIRC I think you're from WA, but for those not in the know, that is a few miles trashy of Seattle). They were holding hands and he was dressed like a suburban gangster wannabe. It was weird.

  • ||

    that is a few miles trashy of Seattle

    Can i see your compass? It sounds cooler than mine.

  • ||

    yea. they had a big public wedding in woodinville iirc.

    frankly, for a 13 yr old to bang his hot middle school teacher was quite a coup.

    now, she's a bit long in the tooth, but he's a total fuckwad and i guess they are in love.

    more power to them.

  • ||

    This guy should be registered. As my hero.

  • Cosmotarian Liberty||

    At least we have more sexual freedom now. It's not like the bad old days when no state recognized gay marriage. And iPads, we have those, and cell phones and flat panel digital TVs. I soon might be eligible for the state medical marijuana registry. This is the most free moment in all of human history!

  • ||

    Personally I like the half-plus-seven rule.

  • robc||

    I could be completely wrong, but I thought that was based on some ancient islamic (or maybe somewhere in that region) law.

    It works though.

    14 as minimum and "reasonable" age differencials.

    Note: my Dad violated this. My parents were 27 and 18 when they got married, so his min at that time was 20.5.

  • ||

    That rule sucks. My wife was 22 and I was 32 when we got married (25 years ago).

  • ||

    I suppose I'll have to notify the authorities.

  • erikjay||

    Nancy Rommelmann did a fabulous article about a similar (worse) incident, "Anatomy of a Child Pornographer," in REASON's July 2009 issue that made me an instant fan of hers. I offer no link -- you know how to find it! Anyway, I recommend the article, as well as the author, as they are both first-rate.

  • ||

    How the hell'd I know she was 13? hell she looked 15 anyway.

  • Dave||

    I swear I didn't know! she said she was THREE!

  • scarpe Nike Store||

    is good

  • coniefox||

    How can the carpenter do that!Despises him!

  • IceTrey||

    Sorry, can't sympathize with this dude. A 19 year old ought to know better than to be banging a 15 year old.

  • rather||

    I agree, he could have waited

  • Anne Archist||

    its not fair i should be able to fuck a child its not the states bussiness!

  • ||

    This is what happens when the state is involved in people's personal affairs. The state, by its nature, is unable to discriminate between a genuine sex offender and someone who simply displays bad judgement on one occasion--or even is really in love--and therefore must stamp all of them with the same scarlet letter.

    After shit like this happens a couple of billion times you'd think statists would learn. BZZZZT wrong! They still insist that the state and only the state MUST run our lives down to the last detail.

  • ||

    The Texas Kangaroo COurt system (as most other states) are a JOKE.

    www.web-privacy.au.tc

  • ||

    privacy bot makes a good point

  • ||

    The Sex Offender Registry is a joke... and a very unfunny one at that.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement