Nanny State

Why Banning Sex Offenders from Halloween Might Make Kids Less Safe

|

“I want to do anything I can to protect the children of our city,” declares Tulsa City Councilor Jeannie Cue.

She wants to do for her city what politicians have done statewide in places such as Illinois and Georgia: Ban registered sex offenders from Halloween activities such as passing out candy or even decorating their homes. Pushing a law “for the children” may be smart politics (smarter still if it’s “for the children” and against “sex offenders.”) But when good intentions mix with bad or non-existent risk assessment, the result may be more hazardous to children than the status quo.

Sex offender registries don’t gauge threats terribly well. They mix truly frightening predators such as child molesters with registrants who make the list for minor offenses like streaking and public urination. Consider two teens engage in consensual sex. If one is over 18 years old and the other is under age 18, the adult could be forced to register forever as a sex offender. That’s what happened to the anonymous male registrant profiled by Reason TV in this short documentary. He’s listed in the same database as violent rapists and child molesters, even though he went on to marry his girlfriend.

Registries are supposed to protect children, but they also victimize them. A recent Human Rights Watch report profiles children as young as 10 who have been listed as sex offenders. “Youth sex offenders are stigmatized and publicly humiliated, often causing them to become depressed and even suicidal," says the report. "They may become targets of harassment and vigilante violence.” In 2006, exactly that happened when 24-year-old William Elliott was gunned down by a deranged shooter who looked up offenders on Maine's registry. How had Elliott ended up on the list? When he was 19, he had a by-all-accounts consensual relationship with a girl just shy of her 16th birthday.

The horrifying specter of predators run amok on the most kid-centric night of the year takes up plenty of airtime on local news programs, but Halloween is generally no more threatening to children than any other day. A 2009 analysis published in the Journal of Research and Treatment discovered that “children are sexually abused on Halloween, just not at higher than expected rates for any other autumn day.”

The threat of legal challenges has stalled passage of the Tulsa ordinance for now. The Tulsa city attorney noted the absolute lack of evidence tying Halloween to a heightened threat level, but that has not deterred Cue from pushing her ordinance (ditto for Oklahomans who seek a statewide law). When has the lack of a problem deterred politicians from seeking a politically-popular “solution”?

If the ordinance is implemented, it could only legally apply to new sex offenses, meaning it would darken the homes of recent registrants, but not ones that were on the list prior to the passage of the ordinance. So parents would be left with an ordinance that applies to new offenders but not old ones, and is based on a registry that mixes those who committed violent acts against children with those who were children when they committed comparatively innocuous acts. Concerned parents would be better off doing what they can do right now: Consulting an online sex offender registry to make sure their children's trick-or-treat routes steer clear of those who have victimized kids in the past.

In fact, parents under all circumstances would do better to prioritize threats according to the risk they pose. Often mundane threats present greater danger to children than sensationalized ones (which of course include unverified tales of poisoned Halloween candy). The 2009 analysis published in the Journal of Research and Treatment notes:

According to the Center for Disease Control, children ages 5 to 14 are four times more likely to be killed by a pedestrian/motor-vehicle accident on Halloween than on any other day of the year … Sex crimes against children by non- family members account for two out of every thousand Halloween crimes, calling into question the justification for diverting law enforcement resources on that day away from more prevalent public safety concerns.

Law enforcement personnel should always be asking themselves: “What’s the best use of our time?” Why send cops around town making sure that sex offender registrants are foregoing Halloween festivities, when they could spend more time tracking down kidnapped children, busting child molesters, or improving motor-vehicle safety?

Maybe it’s time to fight against ordinances that crack down on sex offenders at Halloween. And if that makes you feel a little queasy, just remember: You’d actually be doing something for the children.

Watch Reason TV's latest Nanny of the Month, which features Tulsa's proposed ban along with two other equally stupid ideas:

Advertisement

NEXT: Marvin Gaye's Children Sue Robin Thicke, Pharrell Willaims Over Alleged Copyright Infringement in "Blurred Lines"

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.

  1. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHIRRUN???

  2. and this is why peak retard can never be reached. Every time you think it has been, something new comes along. And it is interesting how mostly Blue IL and mostly Red GA demonstrate bipartisan derp.

    Only the mind of govt could come up with something like the registry that serves absolutely no one well.

    1. Now, PC, it served the hysterics in society very well. Something was Done, after all, and hysterics demand that Something be Done every time anything goes wrong; that shuts them up until the next time anything bad happens. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    2. but our derp is better than their derp!!!

  3. So I joked about Sarcasmic and Lou Reed in the AM links…

    But how many Halloween sex offender posts are we going to have?

    1. There is no sugarcoating it. Reason writers are not going to stop until they do a story Jesse Walker’s new book about conspiratorial child molesters dressed like Lou Reed molesting any child who dresses up in a Cleveland Browns uniform.

      1. I feel let down that one hasn’t been posted already.

      2. I’ve gotta be honest too.

        Sex offenders possibly not participating in Halloween doesn’t seem to trigger my outrage meter. Perhaps I am not a true libertarian?

        1. Define “Sex Offender” for me, please. I think one of the main points here is that people who are no threat to children are being punished because of the arbitrary nature of that term and the lists involved.

          1. Right, I would not lump a drunk guy peeing in a bush with a guy who has an extensive child porn collection.

            Still, I am not going to lose sleep over the sad bush peer in Tulsa not being allowed to put a pumpkin on his porch. I can lose sleep on him being on the list in the first place though.

            1. So no problem with using government force on people for something totally unrelated to the theoretical, nay, mythical danger in an absurd way? What do you get worked up about, dude?

              I’m not trying to be a dick, but it’s these innumerable microtyrannies that are conditioning people into sheephood. The reaction you describe is the problem.

              1. innumerable microtyrannies

                How dare you engage in libertarian microaggression!

                1. my microbad.

              2. What do you get worked up about, dude?

                I do see this as a problem. I’d probably care more if it was a statewide vs. local issue, even though I still live far away from OK.

                But this is Tulsa, where if they want to have stupid laws, they can go for it.

            2. Right, I would not lump a drunk guy peeing in a bush with a guy who has an extensive child porn collection.

              Define “child porn”, also even if it was the most vile of the vile real stuff with prepubescent children being raped. If just because they downloaded it and collected it, how does this make them guilty of hurting anyone or even necessarily being dangerous to anyone?

              Do the molestation beams travel through time and space and re-molest the poor kids every time someone watches video of it?

              If I downloaded a bunch of videos of people being murdered should I put be on a “violent offender’s list” because that somehow makes me a violent criminal because I downloaded evidence of a crime and watched it, never contributing to it in any way?

              1. “Do the molestation beams travel through time and space and re-molest the poor kids every time someone watches video of it?”

                I have a close friend who was (falsely) convicted of unwanted touching (molestation). You would not believe the logical and moral contortions that are exercised at the 3 years of court mandated “therapy” sessions. My friend was not a libertarian before, but now he is absolutely rabid. He would have to vent to me after every session and he said his blood pressure would go sky high as he approached the day of “therapy”. Oh, and the answer you must come to to the above question is “yes”, if you don’t want to be reported to the probation officer/court as being “not co-operating with ‘therapy'”, and hence in violation of the terms of your probation/parole. Everything is designed to inculcate the belief that the “offender” is bad, small, wrong (about everything, it seems) and the “therapist”/state is automatically good, moral, just and superior in every way.

                Parenthetically, there is a sexual history questionnaire that is totally hilarious. “Have you ever masturbated in any discount, hardware, or department stores?” When he couldn’t stop laughing at the absurdity of the question, the “therapist” told him with a straight face that these questions arise out of actual cases and events.”I know,” he said, “That’s what makes it so funny.” She didn’t get it.

          2. And the punishment is absurd, barring them from decorating their house.

          3. Sex offenses are in the eyes of the beholders.

            Judges in Sweden just ruled that public masturbation is legal as long as your weapon isn’t aimed at a specific person.

            http://gawker.com/public-mastu…..1340599730

        2. Considering that “Sex offenders” constitute everyone who has every been convicted of doing anything even remotely inappropriate with their junk, the best you can say is that it’s wildly overbroad police work. It’s absurd to be posting a cruiser outside some guy’s house because he bonked his 16-year-old girlfriend while he was in high school.

        3. CPA, many of these “sex offenders” are guilty of nothing more than urinating in public, ie in a park or an alley. They are charged with indecent exposure and put on sex offender lists.

          Also, the many examples of people convicted for fully consensual acts provided by Nazdrakke and HC.

          Remember, this site is called “reason,” not “knee jerk hysteria.”

          1. It’s going to take at least 2 or 3 more H&R posts for me to get worked up.

        4. You think it’s reasonable that they can be arrested for turning the lights on in their house? If somebody is so dangerous that they can’t be trusted to be in the presence of children, then they should not have been let out of prison.

          Worrying about sex offenders is like worrying about assault weapons. It’s “FOR TEH CHILDREN”, risk-innumerate bullshit.

          1. exactly, child rapists should not be out of prison.

            they should be inexpensively executed. THAT is justice. expensive requires tax base to pay for crimes of others.

            all the masturbations that arise from letting morally disembodied live just confuse ppl. no they dont have right to turn on their porch light, they dont even have the right to be alive.


            1. they should be inexpensively executed. THAT is justice. expensive requires tax base to pay for crimes of others.

              So rape is equal to murder now?

    2. That’s what I was thinking. “New?” Isn’t this at least the third article on the subject?

  4. Clearly, cities and states just need to ban any outdoor activities for anyone on Halloween. Confine citizens to their homes – with the lights off.

    For teh childrunz.

    1. No one needs to put on a costume and collect a bag of Snickers bars. As an added benefit, we’d be helping the war against choosing what you put into your own body obesity.

      1. You mean the War on Muh Curves?

  5. I don’t think Halloween is really the most kid-centric holiday anymore. Halloween is way more fun as a young adult. The treats become way better and don’t even get me started on the tricks.

    1. Ah to be ten years old with a sack full of corn eagerly awaiting the fall of dusk once more..

      1. That’s a good point too. Maybe the young adults are all just chasing the nostalgia dragon.

  6. First the story about Ada, OK banning e-cigarettes and now this about Tulsa. Those wacky Oklahoman progressives!

    1. Progressivism: steaming toward the future on yesteryear’s technology.

      Progressivism: we’ll get there, eventually.

      Progressivism: the reactionary hysterics you love, the guiding hand of paternalism you need.

      1. My comment was a joke, let us just say that Tulsa and Ada are not ‘progressive strongholds.’

        1. Yar, I figured. But I don’t really make a distinction between conservative and liberal busybodies: they’re flavors of the same rancid Progressive stew.

          1. I call them all statists, and yes, rancid describes all their aims.

            1. Fair point. Progressivism always brings to mind the terrifying notion that Eden is only one more law/agency/legislative session/internment camp away.

        2. I am currently living in OK for reasons I won’t bore you with. I hate it and can’t wait to get back to civilization. This is one of the weirder places I have been to. It’s like being back in 1985 with cell phones. Stores close at night, and liquor stores are closed on Sunday. It’s the buckle of the bible belt, yet everyone feels like speed limit laws are for suckers. Seriously, it’s like everyone in the whole damn state thinks they are Mario Andretti. I tend to drive a little fast, maybe 5 to 7 mph above the posted limit, and these people ride my ass, and speed past me like I am doing ten under.
          They still allow smoking in bars and restaurants, but are trying to ban ecigs.
          God I can’t wait to get back to reality.

          1. oh, just to be clear, the people, like most people most places, are perfectly nice. It’s mostly the weather I hate. And also, once you have lived in Colorado, everywhere else just seems to be lacking.

  7. The sex offender registry is a powerful tool for both law enforcement and lawmakers alike to pad their resumes. Please don’t take it away from them. Think of their children.

    1. And I froze my ass off waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up.

  8. What about sex offenders that don’t bother to clean the cobwebs from the eaves of their house? What if a sex offender has a pet wolf he keeps tethered in the front yard? What if the sex offender has a patch of pumpkins in the front yard? Would these offenses land them in a cauldron of trouble? These are important questions I want answered!

  9. Fuck the sex offender registry. Either a person is a danger to society or they aren’t. If they are then they should be locked up or executed, and if they’re not then leave them the fuck alone.

    1. THE CHILDREN.

      WHY U NO THINK OF THEM!?

  10. “”I want to do anything I can to protect the children of our city,””

    translation:

    “I want to do anything I can to protect my cushy job and con the voters”

    1. LMAO. This is so true! The politicians do not know the first thing about who is a danger to children, nor do the lemmings that stand behind this type of absurd law!

  11. Serious question. Can the sex offenders claim their right to practice their religion is being violated by not allowing them to participate in Halloween.

    1. As long as a law is not specifically aimed at a religion and is generally applicable it would be allowed even if it burdens ones religious exercise (per Employment Division v. Smith).

      1. Employment Division v. Smith

        Too bad Blackmun couldn’t get two more votes. Passing “generally-applicable” laws which shit all over people’s religious practices is plenty invasive. Unfortunately, the Church of Sanctimonious Prohibitionism is the only religion Congress is still allowed to establish.

        1. I think Scalia’s majority opinion may come back to haunt him since the government is undoubtedly going to rely heavily on it for the contraceptive mandate-Catholic conscience cases.

      2. How is it not aimed at religion? If Halloween is a religious holiday and the government bans celebration on that day. Imagine if the government banned sex offenders from having Christmas decorations because they could lure poor children in with the promise of free toys instead of candy.

        1. You sound as if this hasn’t crossed their minds. “Those bastards will use any excuse to Hansel & Gretel our childrens!”

        2. I imagine a court would say the aim is the safety of children, not the burdening of the religion, and that such a burden is allowed if the law is generally applicable (applies to any sex offender who wants to celebrate Halloween in that way).

          1. Dumb! Not you, the law.

      3. Also, whether this is a “generally applicable” law is highly questionable. After all, the prohibition only applies to a specific subset (“sex offenders”) of another subset (criminals) of the American population. It sounds like class legislation, though it’s hard to imagine the Court willing to look at it like that when the law exists to Protect The Chirrun.

        1. And those are just the offenders who’ve been caught. Why are the courts so deferential to potential offenders? If draconic, reactionary measures aimed at registered offenders will keep our children safe, imagine how much safer they’d be if nobody is allowed to decorate houses or hand out candy.

          1. This.

            And require home-schooling.

        2. But it would be generally applicable in the sense it would apply to all convicted sex offenders trying to celebrate Halloween, including Wiccan and Presbyterian ones alike.

    2. That right, even if it were proven to be applicable, would almost certainly be excepted by the FYTW clause of the Something Must Be Done amendment.

  12. If it wasn’t for my significant other being all in the mood to decorate and pass out crap to beggars I would be sitting at home in the dark watching 2 football teams bash each others heads in only to later complain someone didn’t keep them safe enough.

  13. “Law enforcement personnel should always be asking themselves: “What’s the best use of our time?” ”

    When hasn’t the answer been: Asset seizure?

  14. Isn’t this more of an argument for lifting non threatening sex offenders from the registry (or legalizing marriage between consenting minors)? I don’t think predators should be allowed to do anything to attract children.

    If you’re 15,16 years old, do you know enough to “consent” to have sex? If you lured a girl that young to have sex with you, you should be in the registry for an year than have the record sealed once you pass some probational period.

    If you streaked or urinated in public, you shouldn’t be in the sex offender registry.

    1. Strange, when I was in high school I knew a 16 year old girl who very much did consent to sex with her 22 year old boyfriend on a very regular basis.

      He ended up dumping her only because he was worried of the legal implications, after that she ended up hanging out with some dumb high school boy and a much worse crowed, then ended up dying in an accident where the dumb high school boy was way too drunk to drive.

      Honestly she was much better off and much happier with her older 22 year old boyfriend. It’s a sad story really.

      I hate morons like you so much.

      1. Actually, they had been having sex since she was 14 or 15, too. Quite sure consent was definitely established, even if the law and morons like you claimed it was impossible.

      2. Everything you just said proves my point.

        1. Oh, maybe you could explain your logic there then?

          1. My point is girls that young may not be mature or intelligent enough to make that kind of decision. The girl in your story (if your characterization of her is true) would have probably consented to have sex with a teen pretending to be a 25 year old online entrepreneur.

            Having sex with a minor is illegal, regardless of consent. The only question is, should you be stuck in a sex offender registry if consent was involved. But even then, you have eliminate the possibility of criminal intent, and consider whether the minor was in a position to make an informed decision.

            Would you allow a 15 year old to drive a car or send him off to war, as long he consented?

            1. Not everyone is at the same level of maturity at ‘x’ age. She was just fine with him as her boyfriend. But because of the law her life changed in a bad way.

              Would you allow a 15 year old to drive a car or send him off to war, as long he consented?

              Because obviously sending someone off to war where they could die at any given second is the same as having sex with an older boyfriend.

              Again, I ask, did you eat lead paintchips when you were a kid?

              1. In her situation, It doesn’t matter if she was just “fine” with him. I could be just “fine” rushing off to war because I was brainwashed all of my life into thinking that wars are just glorious.

                Analogies are used to illustrate a point. Not all images or examples have to align perfectly.

                Since the girl in your story decided to hang out with a drunken idiot following a breakup, we can wonder if she was mature enough to make decisions regarding adult relationship at AGE 15. Yes, the first boyfriend was a good guy. But what if he wasn’t any different from the guy who killed her?

                Again, although the boyfriend created a moral dilemma, he is not responsible for the girl’s death.

                1. But here’s the flaw in your logic, just because she’s less mature doesn’t necessarily mean an older boyfriend is going to be bad for her.

                  You’re making the assumption that the older person is out to just take advantage of someone, when this isn’t necessarily the case at all.

                  He kept her safe, honestly.

                  Also, I’m sure there are TONS of 30-somethings or even 40-somethings who have gone on similar binges after a breakup that really bothered them. So to blame this purely on her age is fucking ridiculous.

                  By supporting using the law to enforce your own moral values onto them through the threat of violence, you are more responsible than anyone besides herself and the drunk driver for her death.

                  Again, this is nothing more than you forcing your own moral values onto others. You’re no better than the average progtard.

                2. Also, the LAW created the moral dilemma as much as he did.

                3. Also, for an analogy to work it needs to have some sort of similar level of proportion. Your analogy was patently ridiculous because going to war isn’t proportionally equal to the romantic/sexual partner you may choose.

        2. Had her older previous boyfriend who still very much had feelings for her not felt forced into dumping her because of the legal implications she would have never ended up like she did, he was actually fairly responsible.

          I liked her mainly because she was one of the few people in my high school that didn’t pick on me and treated me with respect.

          I’m just highly confused how this tragic story helps your point at all. If it weren’t for the law they would have almost certainly stayed together and could very well be married today.

          1. “Had her older previous boyfriend who still very much had feelings for her not felt forced into dumping her because of the legal implications she would have never ended up like she did, he was actually fairly responsible.”

            If he cared for her that much, then he should have waited a couple years until she was 18 or 19 to have a sexual relationship with her. Instead he slept with her when she was 14. Nothing would have happened to the girl if their relationship was discovered, if I’m not mistaken. So the guy dumped her to save his own ass.

            If I dump my girlfriend for any reason and she pursues a dangerous man, I’m not responsible for her fate. Not legally, not ethically.

            You want minors to have consensual sex. I’m just wondering if girls that young should be allowed to consent, if they don’t have the capacity to make an informed decision.

            1. How exactly don’t they necessarily have the capacity to make an informed decision? The same could be said for many 20 year olds. There isn’t some magical age where you’re “informed enough”. Which arbitrary measure are you even using?

              He dumped her because her parents FORCED HIM into doing it with legal threats.

              Like you can somehow turn this around on him is fucking sick.

              She was actually typically the one to initiate sex as well. In fact I had been around when she was the one who initiated it and then I left so they could have their sex.

              Just because they didn’t wait until they were both 18 to have sex and that doesn’t fit into your own moral values doesn’t give you the right to tear their lives apart.

              This is YOU using the force of the law to enforce your own morals at the barrel of a gun onto people, just because you think you automatically know how to micro-manage other people’s consensual actions and their lives.

              1. If I was a parent and I found out my 15 year old was having sex with a high school senior, I would also make certain threats. What she was doing was still ILLEGAL.

                You don’t believe in an age of consent, which might be a defensible position. But it doesn’t explain your misguided anger. The bottom line is, SHE pursued a dangerous relationship. The boyfriend is free to end the relationship for whatever reason. The girl was free to either try to salvage to relationship or find someone else.

                If I broke up with my girlfriend because she got me hooked up on drugs, and she dated a serial rapist afterwards, is that really convincing a case for ending the drug war?

                Also, according your logic, the government should be allowed to use child geniuses for NSA purposes or draft 17 year olds for war – pending consent. I’ve seen preteens who are strong as an ox.

                1. Also, according your logic, the government should be allowed to use child geniuses for NSA purposes or draft 17 year olds for war – pending consent. I’ve seen preteens who are strong as an ox.

                  You must not have a very firm grasp of logic then. As this does not match my logic at all.

                  If I was a parent and I found out my 15 year old was having sex with a high school senior, I would also make certain threats. What she was doing was still ILLEGAL.

                  Well, I can’t help if you are such a piece of shit you’d automatically make legal threats like this.

                  If I broke up with my girlfriend because she got me hooked up on drugs, and she dated a serial rapist afterwards, is that really convincing a case for ending the drug war?

                  Hardly the same argument. Another just terrible “analogy” from you.

                  You don’t believe in an age of consent, which might be a defensible position.

                  I don’t believe in current AoC laws in general in regards to sexual relationships. To say this means I think the government should be able to send 14 year olds off to war is false and a totally different subject to boot.

                  1. (cont)
                    But it doesn’t explain your misguided anger. The bottom line is, SHE pursued a dangerous relationship. The boyfriend is free to end the relationship for whatever reason. The girl was free to either try to salvage to relationship or find someone else.

                    But you’ve said yourself you don’t believe it was her choice, how was she free to choose? As you said it’s just totally impossible for her to consent because she wasn’t 18 yet because it’s totally impossible for 100% of people under 18 to understand the implications of sex, right?

            2. You’re no better than any progtard looking to control other people’s lives through the threat of violence.

            3. I really don’t see any problem with sex between one 16 years old girl and a 22 years old guy : six years is not a big difference and at that age you are sexually mature.

              Actually I did it* and I really don’t see why I should be ashamed of it : it’s a perfectly casual thing in almost every country of the world !

              *in France it is perfectly legal, and her mother was aware of our relationship

        3. He was also absolutely devastated when she died in the car accident and said he regretted horribly having to dump her because of legal threats.

          He was trying to do the “responsible” thing.

          I’m sure he’s such a horrible person he needs to be put on a sex offender’s registry and have the rest of his life ruined.

          XM, did you eat lead paintchips when you were a kid?

          1. Or, he could have just maintained a normal friendship with the girl until she became of age, and then have sex. If the parents insisted on ending the relationship, then it’s out of his hand. Even if the age of consent didn’t exist, not many parents would want their 15 year old sleeping around with high school kids, and they have more authority over their children’s lives at that point.

            You’re really arguing (angrily) with yourself or a strawman. I’m merely wondering if girls as as 15 year old are qualified to give consent, considering their still developing minds and peer pressure they face. Nowhere did I say someone in the boyfriend’s situation should be stuck in the registry forever. I suggested a probational period in my original post, which seems like an acceptable compromise.

            Again, the girl dated a man who led to her death when she was OLDER. What makes you think she was qualified to consent to an adult relationship when she was 15? That the first boyfriend was a good guy is incidental.

            1. I suggested a probational period in my original post, which seems like an acceptable compromise.

              So you’re still using the threat of violence to enforce your own moral values onto someone. So I’m not sure which strawman I’m attacking? I disagree just as vehemently with your shit “compromise”.

              Again, the girl dated a man who led to her death when she was OLDER. What makes you think she was qualified to consent to an adult relationship when she was 15? That the first boyfriend was a good guy is incidental.

              People of all ages act emotionally, irrationally, and in seemingly immature ways. This doesn’t change the fact she was better off with her older previous boyfriend. It doesn’t change the fact the law fucked them both over. How can you justify such laws when they can just as easily backfire as they did in my example? The fact her first boyfriend was a good guy being incidental doesn’t change any of this and doesn’t discredit my argument at all.

              1. It’s also interesting you refer to her later high school aged boyfriend a “man”, but according to you she wasn’t enough of a woman to consent to sex.

              2. You seem to agree to the notion that consent is subjective. Maybe a 15 year is as mature as her 21 year old friend, or maybe she’s a modern day “Carrie” who doesn’t understand why women have period. Then you agree to the possibility that minors might not be capable of consenting adult relationships.

                The law did not “fuck” both of them over. At most, it ended one relationship. Afterwards, the girl was free to choose another relationship. She could found someone else just as good, and she’d still alive. SHE chose the boyfriend that ended her life. Her first boyfriend forced his own hand by breaking the law, which was ENTIRELY avoidable. If he waited.

                If I ended a relationship because my girlfriend wanted use drugs in our relationship, and her rebound beat her to death, is the drug war responsible for her death? You’re using the sort of logic that places the blame on someone’s suicide on the girlfriend because she broke his heart by dumping him.

                The girl hung out with a guy who ended up killing her. It’s fair to call into question her maturity at age 15. You can say “every situation is different”, but we know teens can be capricious.

                Your mind is made up. You just need to find a way to converse like a grown up. Go tell your coworkers, bosses, and family members that you want 12 year olds to have consensual sex. If they raise reasonable objections, throw a hissy fit and accuse them of “eating paint chips” whatever that is. See how they respond to you.

                1. You never answered my question.

                  Did you eat lead paint chips or not?

                  You never raised any reasonable objections about their relationship.

                  Just because I got angry and asked you if you ate lead paint chips as a kid, which I’m assuming you have, since you’re objecting so hard over a measly 6 year age difference that wouldn’t have mattered much of anything as they got older, doesn’t change the fact you never raised any reasonable objections to it or said anything to counter my argument.

                  Your whole argument is she wasn’t mature enough to consent, but I’m still confused how he raped her? I mean if you could really make an argument that she was raped I’d see your point, but you haven’t been able to explain how she was raped at all, just some arbitrary age limit you set. In some states 15 is legal. 14 used to be legal in Hawaii until a few years ago.

                  You just need to find a way to converse like a grown up. Go tell your coworkers, bosses, and family members that you want 12 year olds to have consensual sex. If they raise reasonable objections, throw a hissy fit and accuse them of “eating paint chips” whatever that is. See how they respond to you.

                  Wow, you really have a thing for analogies that just don’t fit, don’t you? Just how many of those lead paint chips did you eat?

  15. I live in Tulsa and emailed my councilor about this issue and received this response:

    Thanks for contacting me. I was one of two councilors who brought the idea forward. We understand that many of the people on sex offender registries don’t belong there, and we certainly do not want to violate their civil liberties. But at the same time, we don’t want to encourage relationships between those offenders who truly belong on the registries and children. At this point, we are just exploring what options we may or may not have. We are also looking to see what other cities have done. No ordinance has actually been proposed, and nobody’s voting anytime soon. There’s a lot of exploration to be done and that’s what we’re doing. I hope I answered your question. Please feel free to contact me with anything else that may be on your mind.

  16. Even if a person has a sex offense involving a child victim it does not mean the offender is necessarily a child molester for life, nor a pedophile. One thing that should be taken into consideration that is RARELY considered is the conviction date. Obviously if someone has reintegrated and is living normally, then they should not be defined by the crime committed for the rest of their lives. There are plenty of individuals who have been labeled as a Predator that are not deserving.

  17. Only seriously interested people will be warmly welcomed,Thanks?,,you have to work using a computer and internet.if you can do that and dedicate some time each day then you can do this with no problem. I have been working with this for a month and have made over $??????17,000 already. let me know if you need more here you go

    ??????????????????
    http://www.works23.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.