MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

19-Year-Old Girl Has Sex with Underage Teen; Years Later, She's a Mom and a Sex Offender for Life

Sex offender registries are cruel and unjust.

ShawnaScreenshot via UntouchableShawna is a 35-year-old woman who is legally prohibited from taking her kids to the park. That's because she's a sex offender.

Years earlier, on her 19th birthday, Shawna and her friends were drinking and celebrating. A teen boy expressed interest in her, and they slept together. He turned out to be 14 years old. His mother notified the authorities.

Now Shawna is spending the rest of her life on the sex offender registry, even though the mother of two is obviously no threat to children.

The Marshall Project recently released a short video interview with Shawna; it's part of Untouchable, a documentary by David Feige* about sex offender laws. I challenge anyone to watch the interview (embedded below) and not feel heartbroken for Shawna. This is a woman who made a mistake as a teenager—with another teenager—and will be paying for it the rest of her life. Employers have fired her when they learned about her status. She struggles to explain to her kids why their mother faces so many restrictions, and she must deal with the pariah status afforded to people who have been branded with "lewd or indecent proposals/acts to child" on a national online database.

Shawna's story is just one more example of why sex offender registries are cruel and unjust. For every truly dangerous predator on the list, there are countless others who carry the "sex offender" label because they sexted a fellow teen or failed to realize they were hooking up with someone on the wrong side of the age-of-consent line. These people are very unlikely to reoffend, so there's little practical reason to continue shaming them by maintaining a public list of their names.

*The spelling of the filmmaker's name has been corrected.

Photo Credit: Screenshot via Untouchable

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.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    it's part of Untouchable, a documentary by Paul Feige about sex offender laws

    The director's name is David Feige - Paul Feig directed Bridesmaids.

    Get it together, Soave.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You really pissed in my cheerios with that correction. I wanted to believe.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    You really pissed in my cheerios

    Crusty likes to pee, and that's a known fact.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    You forgot to switch your sock before posting. I am choosing to believe that over the horror of knowing you refer to yourself in the third person.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Crusty is horrors all the way down.

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    You're horrors all the way down!

  • sezuc||

    I've been working for this company online for 2 years, now i get paid 95$/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-say ,It's been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, . Visit following page for more information>> www.onlinereviewtech.com

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    You forgot to switch your sock before posting.

    Oh geez. Did Crusty pee in his socks again?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    The registry has not been invented that can contain Crusty.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These sexual registries and restrictions on prior sex offenders are unconstitutional. Not only is there zero authority in the Constitution for the federal government to have these law, state constitutions have ex post facto restrictions and I cannot think of a single state's constitution that allow punishment after a sentence is completed.

    After a person completes their probation, parole, or sentence the state should have zero power over the people being citizens with full rights.

    End sexual offender registries and prohibitions on ex-felons not being able to possess firearms, ammo, and bullet proof vests.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    and prohibitions on ex-felons not being able to possess firearms, ammo, and bullet proof vests.

    Forgot voting.

  • Deep Lurker||

    The 14th Amendment specifically allows the States to prohibit ex-felons from voting. It doesn't require it, and many States do in fact restore voting rights to ex-felons.

    Which shows just how worthless the right to vote is, compared to the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

  • BlueStarDragon||

    Not 100% true. The felony in questions has to be of treason or similar type of crime that is consider close to treason. Robbing a person at gun point is a felony, but after doing your time you can still vote. However if it's the post office or the president you tried armed or any kind of robbery of that nature. Then yes, you will lose your right to vote.

  • BlueStarDragon||

    Dear Reason will their be a day the we can edit are post?

    However if it's the post office or the president you tried armed or any kind of robbery of that nature

    Should read as

    However if it's the post office or the president you tried armed robbery with or a crime of that nature

  • Stephen54321||

    oveconstitution1789: "I cannot think of a single state's constitution that allow punishment after a sentence is completed."

    That characterisation is arguably wrong. You have presumably heard of the punishment called "life in prison". Once inside the pen your sentence doesn't end until you drop dead.

    Well, think of being put on the sex offender registry as the equivalent. Instead of being sentenced to life in a jail cell you are handed a sentence to life on the sex offenders' registry. You don't get off unless you drop dead.

    Meaning, that in the state's eyes people like Shawna have NOT finished serving their sentence--because they have been handed a life sentence.

    If legislators had confined the sex offender registries to rapists and child molesters few people would have much of an issue with them. The problem is that they haven't stopped there. Like Shawna, there are people on them who should never have been put on those registries in the first place. If that keeps on happening, then one day, like civil asset forfeiture, there will be a groundswell of opposition to end such registries altogether.

  • Malvolio||

    The courts have ruled again and again that the registry is NOT a punishment, it's just an administrative measure, and so can be imposed _post facto_.

  • Stephen54321||

    Which is an injustice in itself, implying as it does that there are no consequences beyond the administrative to being on such lists.

    Perhaps it's time some of those same judges spent a few years on one of those lists.

  • Penny_Worth||

    Couldn't agree more. This is where a little common sense and empathy could make a world of difference. One more reason that we need to return to trial by jury for some of these types of cases. With some logic , reason, and empathy, a jury is less likely to make these types of mistakes. I recognize I may be singing to the choir here, but aren't someone's rights to travel freely, raise their own children as long as they are not intentionally harming them, and property still worth a trial by jury?

  • Longtobefree||

    The court ruled that Shawna is a child molester, so she would still be on the registry.

  • You're Kidding||

    Good luck selling either of those to John Q Public.

    Gotta protect the children and all.

  • antiestablismentarianism||

    The best sell to John Q Public is showing that these registries not only are completely ineffective at protecting anyone, they actually make people less safe.

  • cookseancook||

    John Q here: that line is not persuasive.

  • antiestablismentarianism||

    I would also say to remove the exemption in the FCRA for background checks that reveal information past 10 years.

  • Ron||

    I hope she disowned her mother for telling on her

  • AZ Gunowner||

    It appears to be the teen boys mother that dropped the hammer on her.

    But that was reprehensible.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    This chick is hot. Can you just marine what she looked like at 19? I'll bet pounding that was a real E ticket ride. There is NOTHING sexually offensive about fucking a chick like that.

  • MikeTex||

    second that

  • LarryA||

    I'd bet that 16 years ago the boy's mother had no idea what the result of her call would be.

    Think about all the people even today who still think calling 911 is a good idea.

  • You're Kidding||

    In a pissing contest over a fence, neighbor called code enforcement to "force" me to move a motorhome out of my side yard so he could gain access to my yard and "work on that fence". I had told him to fuck off and do whatever he wanted on his side of the property line and to never, under any circumstances, enter my property.

    CE cited me and threatened $1,000/day fines if I didn't install concrete to park it there. - It was parked on gravel and dirt - So, I was forced to construct a fence in front of the motorhome so that the City could not claim to be able to see what surface it was parked on. This left my neighbor pissed.

    He did build a new fence on his side. But foolishly, he built the new fence without a permit and made it seven feet tall. A permit was required and six feet is the height limit.

    Vengeance is mine! All I have to do is call code enforcement and he's going to get fined and have to cut his new fence down to six feet tall.

    But, I haven't and probably won't do it. If code enforcement comes out to inspect his new fence, they are going to want to access my newly fenced in side yard and Lord knows what infractions the bastards will decide to cite me for at that time.

    Law enforcement, even simple code enforcement, is a dual edged sword. First they came for the Socialists....................

  • Flinch||

    There is some wisdom in solving your own problems and not foisting it off on police immediately. Some people miss the simple fact that tits and a smile have opened more doors than a gun and a badge ever will. The lesson there is... try asking [politely] for what you want: the success rate is rather alarming. Your neighbor is living proof that life's tougher when you're stupid. Take pictures of him fuming as that 7 foot fence comes down...

  • BearOdinson||

    FFS a 14 year old boy's mom told the "authorities"? And this was almost 16 years ago. My oldest son is 15. I can honestly say, without hesitation, if I found out he banged a 19yo (who by the way, looks quite doable), I would probably celebrate with him. I would tell him he better cut it out, because she is either crazy or desperate, but that is a different issue.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    "Son, if you stick your dick in crazy, that's on you."

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    He didn't use those exact words, but that's basically what my old man told me.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Quote of the Day; a genuine take home.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Wouldn't it be in her?

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    Whether it's on him depends more on how lazy he is.

  • Dan S.||

    And you know that she's half crazy, but that's why you want to be there...

    -Suzanne, Leonard Cohen

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I guess times have changed. My mother would never have gone to the cops over that. I'm sure she would have advised me of the trouble I could get myself into. And if she thought the girl was out of line she might have kicked her ass. But call the cops? Whatever for?

  • Juice||

    It would be incredibly creepy to me for my dad to want to high five me for having sex.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    When I was in high school:

    1) My mom told me I should get someone pregnant, because she had given up on my brothers making her a grandmother.

    2) My dad joined me to a trip to the doctors for an annual physical and suggested that I should get a prostate exam.

    Both incidents stunned me into silence. Come to think of it, my parents are kind of creepy.

  • Devastator||

    meh. My dad would have shook his head and smirked, and probably high fived me later. But I would have been weirded out if my mom did the sam ething.

  • PianoPrincessSara||

    You do realize that this woman raped a underaged child?

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    You do realize that this woman in no way raped a child?

  • AaKk||

    so your saying that an older man with a willing underage girl is ok then too? cause it wasn't forced so therefore not rape right?

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    Assuming she's 14 or older and there is no sign of intimidation or coercion, yep. The age of consent should be 14 or 15, IMO.

  • Wehms2||

    BUT.....that is not the Law....by the Law, she RAPED HIM!!! In some States....she could have even been passed out drunk and never even met the boy...., but the way some State Laws are written....she is still a child molestor!!!! Actually....even more than that....in MOST States, the boy should ALSO be prosecuted as a Sex Offender because he intentionally and knowingly had sex when he was not legally able to consent.....MAKING HIM GUILTY AS WELL!!!! Yes, yes....I know it sounds insane....but fact is, we should all start DEMANDING that these "Laws" be upheld and put literally hundreds and even thousands of CHILDREN on these Sex Offender Registries because...they ARE BREAKING THE LAW!!! Truly, the only way idiotic Laws will ever be corrected is to enforce them to the point that any slightly intelligent person can realize that "they" have gone too far......

  • Wehms2||

    Honestly in some States, "they" would have taken her child away at birth and she possibly might be never, ever allowed to see him/her again......."Proper" thing to do? Hell no....but that's the way things are!!! Seriously, there are a TON of people.....that's not right....ten 200lb guys make a ton....there are hundreds at the very least in each and wvery Staye that are registered FOR LIFE in many cases for merely urinating behing a tree or a dumpster with a kids nearby that says; "Look Mama....that man is peeing!!!" I am NOT KIDDING!!! That is all it takes to "create" a slomy, disgusting pervert placed on Registries FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES because they did not even know some little brat was noticing......

  • Joe Blowski||

    in no state would they take a newborn from a mother because of the circumstances of conception.

  • Devastator||

    All caps makes you look like a dweeb.

  • MJBinAL||

    Dear Sara,

    Rape, means it is nonconsensual. The only reason this is questionable is because the boy was 14 and she was 19. Of course, if he had screwed another 14 year old, then it would have been consensual you see. And of course, it is clear to all that if he shot someone, the Prosecutor would immediately decide he was an adult and prosecute him as a adult. But, since he screwed a pretty girl instead of killing her, he is a child and she is a sexual predator.

    This is not rape, and you are an idiot.

  • Vastlyamused||

    Well said, MJB

  • AaKk||

    Dear MJBinAL

    statutory rape is still rape, and you are an idiot.

  • Robbzilla||

    And a lightning bug is made of lightning?

  • Wehms2||

    MJB.....how old are you? (NOT to be demeaning....you are probably near my age...MAYBE older...maybe 8-15 years younger) The "word" (or I should say, Legal definition of the word) rape has been changed to "sexual assault" & EXPANDED to include.....well, really unbelievable $hit such as....even trying to discreetly hide behind a tree in a park or whatever to take a leak (as used to be "man's" God-given Right

  • Dadlobby||

    A 14 year old by law (I assume in OK, it is in NY) is NOT capable of giving consent so sex with a 19 year old (considered an adult) is sex without consent on his part and as such rape. Those advocating the "Lucky Stud" excuse, would you feel the same if it was a 14 year old male and a 19 year old male? And if the roles were reversed do you think she would have gotten more or less punishment than a male given the "female impunity" we give to females in sentencing. It is a simple fact that the law needs to be changed (EQUALLY for men and women) in these no consent due to age cases. Two 14 year olds can neither give or get consent so it should not be charged as an adult crime, although I am sure I can find cases where underage males are charged for acts between two underage couples.

  • MJBinAL||

    Would it be ok if an over-aged child was raped? You for example?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    If the chick in the picture wanted to rape me, I would be ok with that. And I'll bet she looked even better at 19.

  • MikeTex||

    Oh bullshit ...grow up.
    It was consensual and the kid loved every minute of it but he was an idiot and couldn't keep his mouth shut

  • AaKk||

    would you still be saying that if she had gotten pregnant and then come after your 15 year old son for child support for the next 18 years?

    would you still be saying that if your son contracted an incurable STD from her?

    would you still be saying that if it was a good looking 19 year old boy having sex with your 15 year old daughter?

  • Arn0||

    There is quite easy things to do in order to avoid being pregnant or contracting STD when having sexual intercourse.

    "would you still be saying that if it was a good looking 19 year old boy having sex with your 15 year old daughter?" It is fully legal* in my country (age of consent is 15 in France*) and we have a teen pregnancy / std rates lower than the USA.

    It's not just that it should not be illegal : I really don't understand what is the moral or practical problem with two teens having sex with each other.

    *It is illegal for an adult over 18 years old to have sex with a minor under 15. But i don't think that a 19 years old girl (and even boy) risk anything more than a warning for having sex with a 14 years old.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Men and women are different. Normally, men are not the 9es being penetrated during heterosexual sex, and men have a distinct size and strength advantage over females. At 14, any female I would actually be 8nterested in banging would not have the physical power to control me, with the 3xceotikn if Rhonda Rousey. But then I would have the distinction of be8ng the kid who banged Rhonda Rousey. Which would make me the coolest kid in town anyway.

  • Robbzilla||

    What does someone's age have to do with any part of that?

  • Vitae Drinker||

    Would.

  • Seanumich||

    So lets look specifically at this womans case.
    SHe was drunk, therefore could NOT consent to sex. The 14 year old BOY could be charged with RAPE. Since tpeople under the influence can NOT give consent. She committed no crime,. since she could not LEGALLY consent to sex.
    This in a nutshell is how screwed up our system is. That 14 year old can be tried as an adult due to the rape because he is "old enough to know right from wrong", but in the next breath he is "protected" from the boogie man that is sex.

  • ||

    the boogie man that is sex

    Did the article reference Steve Smith by name?

  • SIV||

    Rape's a myth, retard. Try to keep up.

  • Dan S.||

    So they each raped the other? That would seem to be what the law would say today. But the "can't consent if drunk" rule wasn't in effect when this happened. Wait, wasn't there a recent decision that said it's not even in effect now... except on college campuses?

  • AaKk||

    >SHe was drunk, therefore could NOT consent to sex.

    really? and if she is pulled over for DWI is she also not responsible because she was drunk? of course not... she chose to drink, she is responsible for her actions. trying to pretend women are suddenly incapable of making any choices while drunk is ridiculous, especially when men are held accountable even when both are drunk. why is it a man is somehow able to consent and thus guilty of rape when the woman is not? how about stop acting like women are incapable of any free thought or agency of their own. you university SJW snowflake training doesn't apply in the real world, and it never has! she is guilty of statutory rape!

  • You're Kidding||

    Chivalry is dead!

  • Dadlobby||

    Actually the way the law works is an intoxicated person can NOT give consent for sex and so it is classified as rape (which is BS) unlike DWI where we hold you accountable if you get drunk and drive. It's the guvmint, you want equality, justice, and common sense? If two adults are drunk and have sex we charge the male, more of that "guvmint equality" thing. You know, seem pigs are more equal than others.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: 19-Year-Old Girl Has Sex with Underage Teen; Years Later, She's a Mom and a Sex Offender for Life
    Sex offender registries are cruel and unjust.

    You would think the states would have a statute of limitations regarding sex registries.
    I don't think a 70 year old citizen should have to be on that list.

  • SchillMcGuffin||

    Well, there are geriatric sexual predators. Go look up Albert Fish for a particularly horrifying and murderous one.

    That said, its certainly absurd that a lot of these self-justified and narrow-range statutory cases involve registries at all, and that they can stretch on for decades merely adds layers of stupid.

  • LarryA||

    There have been instances where bedridden geriatric patients have had to switch nursing homes after the city builds a park or school bus stop near them.

  • Mitsima||

    Land of the fhahaha, home of the brahaha. OMG, I can't even breath ...

  • Cynical Asshole||

    MILF.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    -alicious.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Believe it or not, she got off light because of her sex.

    Reverse the sexes, and the guy gets five years in the slammer plus lifetime on the registry.

    I know this because it happened to one of my kids' childhood friends. The only difference was that he was 18 at the time of his offense. The result: Five years in prison. They don't call promiscuous teenage girls "jailbait" for nothing.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Bingo. I was 19 for most of my college sophmore year. If I'd been caught banging an 8th grade chick, I imagine the consequences would have been more severe than being on a registry.

    That being said, facts and circumstances are such that putting her on the registry is just plain stupid.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It's not the same. A fourteen year old boy usually can't be physically intimidated or controlled by most females. Especially a hot little piece of ass like this chick. Plus. Lost boys that age are massive horndogs. At 14 I would have low crawled through a football field covered with shattered glass to bang the 19 year old version of her.

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    Wearing a cup, of course.

    Not much point in getting to her, if you're not.

  • Jickerson||

    It is the same. Who says they can't be intimidated by an adult? You even resorted to the tired 'horny teenage boy' defense.

    How about this: If a rape is suspected, you investigate the case on an individual basis to see if there was an actual rape that took place. You know, like you would if an adult was accused of raping another adult. Instead of making it illegal for a person above a certain age to have sex with a person below a certain age, how about handling the issue rationally?

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    It CAN be rape. But it is less likely to be, because irrespective of the possibility of "social intimidation", a 19-year-old girl *cannot* physically overwhelm a 14-year-old boy unless she's a lacrosse champion and he's a nebbish. And given that this girl thought he was overage, I'm inclined to doubt that. Whereas a 19-year-old boy is almost always going to be able to "loom over" a 14-year-old girl.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    "...a 19-year-old girl *cannot* physically overwhelm a 14-year-old boy..."

    Just stop. You've gone off the rails already and it doesn't matter how you're planning to finish that sentence. The idea of women being unable to overpower men has been used for way too long to excuse female violence as negligible. Not just rape, but domestic violence and other assaults. Even though men are on average stronger than women, the distributions are close enough that this should never be considered when examining individual cases. Individual women are frequently stronger than individual men. A woman may know how to fight better than a man. A woman may choose to use a weapon. A woman has the advantage of knowing that if the cops are called, the man will be the one arrested. A woman may be 19 years old, essentially an adult, and dealing with a 14-year-old adolescent.

    The original point of this thread was that women get off lighter than men when charged with the same crimes, and behold! A couple of guys show up to argue that that's as it should be. No. Individual cases should be investigated individually, and not prejudged. Men and women should be treated equally under the law.

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    Chill! I wasn't making a blanket statement. "less likely to be", remember?

    Nothing in my comment said that girls can't incapacitate boys EVER, just that it is rare. And it IS rare. Most rape is male-on-female. Because males are significantly larger on average, and perhaps more importantly, are raised to be more aggressive on average.

    Any physical disparity can fairly be taken into account when one is determining whether intimidation took place. And I'd be willing to bet that the boy in this case was visibly as strong or stronger than the girl. Whereas an AVERAGE 14-yr-old girl is likely to be physically intimidated by a 19-yr-old boy. A jury can fairly take that into account.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    "Nothing in my comment said that girls can't incapacitate boys EVER, just that it is rare. And it IS rare. Most rape is male-on-female."

    Absolute lies. It's only believed to be rare because the studies of such things have always been biased. In the most frequently cited study by the CDC on sexual violence, they didn't even define it as rape if a man was forced to have sex with a woman. They categorized that as "made to penetrate" under "other sexual violence". In studies that don't operate with those kind of gendered assumptions, you find roughly similar numbers of male and female victims, and nearly all of the male victims report female attackers.

    And I just find it baffling that you think the average 14-year-old-boy would look as strong or stronger than the average 19-year-old-girl. Or that she would be incapable of intimidating him.

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    They aren't "absolute lies" if the person saying (or posting) them (eg me) believes they are truths. There is no reason to imply I am deliberately being false; if you think I am "absolutely incorrect", then say THAT.

    My assertion about physical disparities was based on personal anecdotal experience of 14- and 19-year-olds' respective sizes. A 19-year-old girl should be about as tall and strong as she's going to get (about 5' 4", according to a Google search I just did). Meanwhile, according to Google search #2, an average US 14-year-old boy is about... 5' 4". Add in the greater upper body mass of males, and societal conditioning, and the 14-year-old boy and 19-year-old girl should be either on equal physical footing, or on a footing favorable to the male. Whereas with the ages reversed, the male has a pronounced and nigh-unassailable size and weight advantage.

    Meanwhile, I have no idea about the validity of popular assumptions about the gender of the average rapist or victim, but I find it exceedingly difficult to believe they are that balanced. I don't recall ever hearing of a "female street rapist", certainly.

  • You're Kidding||

    O.K.

    Now you guys are just getting me all hot and bothered here by throwing in these physical hypothesis and my thinking of what could be. :-(

  • 10mm||

    " Individual women are frequently stronger than individual men. A woman may know how to fight better than a man. A woman may choose to use a weapon."

    No.
    No.
    And yes.

    And if you're a man that got a yes for one of the first two, you probably deserve a beat down anyway.

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    The only person who deserves a beatdown is the person who started a fight. A small or unskilled man doesn't deserve to be punished for those qualities; my point was simply that such individuals are rarer, and so a woman is more likely to be intimidated by a man than the reverse.

    Ultimately, a jury should look at whoever is larger than the other, who is in a position of authority, and who is intoxicated. Shawna passes all 3, unless this guy is like 5'2". Physical presence matters.

  • Devastator||

    You're the one going off into the weeds. It's a lot easier to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that a man raped a woman rather than the reverse. and then you go off babbling about domestic violence. Did you wife beat you up or something? Just like I tell my friends "leave her ass and tell her you'll see her in court". Bunch of pussies keep trying to "make it work".

  • Elias Fakaname||

    'You even resorted to the tired 'horny teenage boy' defense.'

    Yes, because it's true.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Indeed, both application of the law and public perception are heavily skewed depending on male or female, aside from most of the other Constitutionally-dubious, ineffective aspects of the laws.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Shawna's story is just one more example of why sex offender registries are cruel and unjust.

    First I note that a shapely woman in a tank top should not be immune from the consequences of her crimes.

    But even if we grant that *this* example is disproportionate, that hardly invalidates the concept of a sex registry generally.

    Reason likes to complain, but what is their alternative? Would that alternative not be equally subject to "cruel and unjust" anecdotal outcomes?

    Child rape is cruel and unjust. What is your alternative?

  • JohnTheRevelator||

    Well, we could limit these registries to people whose crimes fit with what most of us think of when we think of rape. At a first cut, we could do that by leaving all statutory rape convicts off the list, since almost all of them seem to be cases similar to this one.

  • SchillMcGuffin||

    Or at least by ruling out all those statutory rape cases where the victim is over 12 and the age difference is less than 6 years or so. As well as all those other ridiculous categories of registry cases -- juveniles charged for taking naked selfies; "indecent exposure" cases generally, or at least those based on public urination or nude sunbathing or something other than "flashing"; etc.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    One of the homeless men in my town made a point of urinating in public for a year as a social protest. Most of the guys who supported his actions would be quick to condemn anyone on a sex offender list. That reminds me, I didn't get to he him at last week's church dinner.

  • Jickerson||

    Why 6 years? That's just ridiculous. Investigate each situation on a case-by-case basis like you would if an adult accused another adult of rape. Will you get all the Bad Guys this way? No, but our system is not supposed to do that.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    19yo fucking a 14yo is statutory rape, and you're going to find very few who think it doesn't count as rape.

    And if you're saying it's different because the perpetrator was a woman, go fuck yourself.

  • Jickerson||

    19yo fucking a 14yo is statutory rape, and you're going to find very few who think it doesn't count as rape.

    Well, most of the population is retarded, so that's not much of a surprise.

    The question isn't whether or not it is legally considered statutory rape; the question is whether or not it is actually rape. Laws are often wrong and can be changed, after all.

    I do not think a 19 year old having sex with a 14 year old is necessarily rape, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. I have no idea how anyone could conceivably make such an insane generalization. In order to figure out if an actual rape took place, you need to investigate each situation on a case-by-case basis.

  • Hank Phillips||

    You will find very few internet sockpuppets capable of long division or differentiating a constant. The facts say more about the sockpuppets than about methods of arriving at useful and accurate conclusions.

  • JohnTheRevelator||

    FTR, no I'm not saying it's different because she's a woman. However, you are right that it would strike most people, myself included, a bit different if the genders were reversed. That's human nature--it's why we have brains to think about things beyond just our feelz.

    What I am saying is that this case is ridiculous either way. The facts, which are not apparently in dispute, are that she had a drunken hookup at a party, and her partner later turned out to be underage. That's just one of the reasons drunken hookups are a bad idea whether you're male, female, invader xim, etc.

    I can't think of any frame where it's reasonable to force someone into a lifetime of poverty and near-homelessness over that. Not hers, nor ours, if our goal is to rehabilitate criminals into productive citizens.

    But again, the thing that's going on here is that she's being lumped into a category with people whose crimes and natures are very different from hers. Teachers who groom students and then molest them, violent back-alley rapists, Brock Turner etc. Does that make sense?

    And offender registries cause other problems even aside from that. They're often out of date, but don't warn you of that when you search them and see some house two streets over show up, as happened in my neighborhood. It caused a panic and some talk of violence until people figured out the address was out of date and the people living there weren't even related to the offender.

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    Well, repealing the Bank Robber registry that prevented convicted hold-up men from walking within 500 feet of a bank DID cause a massive increase in bank robberies IIRC, so I guess you're right.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    No fucking kidding. The sexism here is appalling. If this were a 19 year old guy who had fucked a 14 year old girl Reason wouldn't have touched the story with a ten foot pole.

    The STD risk is about the same either way, and the pregnancy risk to a 14 yo girl (which can be quickly "fixed" in the ways Reason celebrates) is more than balanced by the 14 yo boy's risk of being on the hook for child support for 18-21 years, or longer if the offspring is handicapped.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Reason has actually treated those cases the same way. Elizabeth Nolan Brown has written many good pieces about male subjects.

  • LarryA||

    Reason likes to complain, but what is their alternative?

    The stated purpose of the SOR is to keep track of people who are a danger to children. Shawna, by any stretch of the imagination, isn't a danger to children. So she shouldn't be on the list.

    Because if she is, the list doesn't work.

    The problem with including her, and hundreds of thousands like her, on the list is that there's no way to adequately monitor that many people. She's one of the (at last count) 747,408 straws in a huge haystack with very few needles. In most cities there are more registered offenders than there are sworn city law enforcement officers.

    Even if you believe Shawna should be punished for life, removing all of the non-predators would make the list a more effective tool for monitoring the remaining, dangerous people left on it.

  • Wizard4169||

    Who says we need an "alternative"? Is there any evidence that these registries have any actual benefit for public safety? If a guy goes to prison for robbing a convenience store, we don't put him on a "robbery registry" and forbid him to live within 1000 yards of a convenience store for the rest of his life. Popular myths to the contrary, there's no evidence that "sex offenders" are any more likely to re-offend than other criminals. So, we're spending lots of money and imposing sometimes major hardships on people merely to provide the illusion of safety, with no proof that we're actually making anyone any safer.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Alternative: I vote Libertarian.

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    Can I get a hat-tip here?

  • You're Kidding||

    Although recidivism among dangerous sexual offenders is generally reported to be low, clinical experience suggests otherwise. In order to assess the actual recidivism rate of offenders who commit sexual as saults, we administered to a sample of eighty-three convicted rapists and fifty-four convicted child molesters an anonymous questionnaire in which they were asked a series of questions pertaining to their his tory of sexual offenses. The results indicate that the majority of the offenders had been convicted more than once for a sexual assault. Furthermore, on average, they admitted to having committed two to five times as many sex crimes for which they were not apprehended. This study suggests that dangerous sex offenders usually commit their first sexual assault during adolescence, and that they persist in this criminal behavior, but that the offense has low visibility. For this reason recidivism, as judged by rearrests, is not a dependable measure of rehabilitation of the sexual offender.

    A. Nicholas Groth, Robert E. Longo, J. Bradley McFadin
    First Published July 1, 1982 Research Article

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    Then keep them locked up. The registry in no way interferes with the ability of those placed on it to rape people.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Even worse, regarding the more pathological, actually dangerous sexual offenders, the laws make even less sense, and plausibly *create* more risk, by releasing the individual back into the public, placing them in a highly stressful situation, and pushing them out of mind and out of sight, into the dark where we can't see them. That's an awful idea.

    Makes no sense whatsoever, and the rationale for the law has zero consistency, because if an individual is as dangerous as they describe, why have they been released in the first place?

    That's what happens when an extremely wide array of offenses are essentially viewed through the same lens, instead of a case-by-case basis. Again, we've tied the hands of judges (and experts) to not properly do their job.

    If there's a registry, it would make far more sense to have one that was limited to law enforcement and contained those who are actual risks to the public. Some need to be separated from society, of course, but the current approach is insane and doesn't even acknowledge reality.

  • Devastator||

    16 years is a tad bit long to be under what amounts to house arrest.

  • NewWorldDan||

    I think the problem is more abstract than sex offender registry laws. When the application of law produces a really stupid result, there's no reasonable procedure to correct it. Courts are more interested in the finality of their decisions than the correctness.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Indeed. That boy wasn't raped. He was incredibly lucky.

  • AaKk||

    there is no stupid result here... she committed statutory rape, she was convicted and sentenced. part of her sentence is a life sentence on the sex offender registry. she is still serving that sentence.

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    Translated from "Authoritarian" to "Libertarian":

    there is *a very* stupid result here... she *engaged in arbitrarily prohibited sex with a consenting young adult*, she was convicted and sentenced. part of her sentence is a life sentence *of humiliation, harassment and isolation to no societal end except the momentary diversion of Umbridge-worshipping twats like AaKk*. she is still serving that sentence.

  • AaKk||

    the only stupid part here is your argument. first off, I'm neither authoritarian nor libertarian... trying to label people certain ways because you disagree with them is simply childish.

    second off, she got off easy! if it had been a man with an underage girl, he would be in prison right now. why is that different just because the genders are reversed? girls like sex too... trying to pretend girls are totally innocent until some man corrupts them is really stupid.

    and last but not least... she broke the law. whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant and does not negate the fact that it is a law. do you feel all the men on the sex offender registry for similar crimes should be removed? how about the men that didn't even commit a sexual crime but are on the sex offender registry anyway because someone decided to twist the meaning of the law to fit their specific case?

  • Procyon Rotor||

    "first off, I'm neither authoritarian nor libertarian... trying to label people certain ways because you disagree with them is simply childish."

    Authoritarian is as authoritarian does.

    "second off, she got off easy! if it had been a man with an underage girl, he would be in prison right now."

    Also unjust.

    "and last but not least... she broke the law. whether you agree with the law or not is irrelevant and does not negate the fact that it is a law."

    You're arguing this in a crowd of libertarians? You're wasting your breath. There are lots of laws I think people should never be punished for breaking. Drug laws for example. If I ever end up on a jury, and I think that the defendant's "crime" was not truly wrong, I'll nullify. Acquittal every time. Doesn't matter how well the prosecution proves the defendant violated the law.

    "do you feel all the men on the sex offender registry for similar crimes should be removed? how about the men that didn't even commit a sexual crime but are on the sex offender registry anyway because someone decided to twist the meaning of the law to fit their specific case?"

    Yes. Eliminate the registry altogether. Next question.

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    I have nothing to add to Procyon's response, except to note that you are absolutely an authoritarian. Thinking that punishing a woman for her entire life for a drunken consensual encounter is great because "THE LAW SAYS SO" is as clean an example of Statism as may be found. You are everything wrong with the world.

  • DaveSs||

    second off, she got off easy!

    Lifetime placement on a list that functions as a means of public humiliation, opens her up to vigilantism, prevents her from holding virtually any jobs, requires notifying or getting permission any time she wants to leave a certain area, forbids her from being able to take her own children to public recreation areas, and lastly because she cannot hold a job for longer than it takes the employer or a customer to find out, her only chance of not living in poverty is by marrying someone who can support the family on a single income.

    Does that REALLY sound like getting off easy?

    Bottom line is, justice is not being served in any way by doing any more to her than the six months jail she got, and a limited time on probation. The felony conviction alone is already going to make living the rest of her life hard. The same is true for many other people on these lists.

  • Robert||

    How does this compare to treatment in most other countries?

  • Sports Reporter Charles Manson||

    The question is about proportionality - given that she committed statutory rape, when should the punishment end?

    Oh, I forgot - being put on a registry isn't punishment. /sarc

    Imagine she'd gotten drunk and disorderly and destroyed some property, or shoplifted some jewelry. After doing her time, should she be on a list for life?

  • Sports Reporter Charles Manson||

    As in, not being allowed to enter stores or bars, etc?

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    Well, as I mentioned above, eliminating the Bank Robber Registry directly led to the explosion of armed robberies in the 1960s, so of course.

  • PianoPrincessSara||

    The titled needs to be changed. This woman is a rapist. She deserves to be on the sex offenders list.

  • Telcontar the (Obama) Birther||

    The only person who deserves to be put on a list is you.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    A hot chick like her can't possibly rape a non gay 14 year old boy.

  • LarryA||

    Regardless of what you think she "deserves," keeping people like Shawna on the SOR prevents it from protecting children, as I explained above.

  • Jickerson||

    Another ridiculous moron who thinks that a person is necessarily a rapist because they were above an arbitrary age and had sex with a person who was below some arbitrary age, huh? That is statutory rape under the law, but the law is wrong.

  • Devastator||

    Let's not get all pro NAMBLA up in here. That's why there are judges, to apply laws fairly.

  • MJBinAL||

    No she does not.

    And the sex offenders list, if we have one, should include those considered a risk to children.

  • J Mann||

    OK, I agree that sex offender registry at 35 is ridiculous in this case, but it's worth pointing out that:

    1) Robby's description that the kid "tuned out to be fourteen years old" implies that Shawna didn't know he was underaged. Shawna's open letter, which Reason published this January, makes it pretty clear that Shawna knew how young he was. (Not that lack of knowledge is a defense in Florida - Jeffrey Edelstein was convicted, IMHO justifiably, even though the girls he slept with told him they were 18).

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/01.....x-offender

    2) I'm a little confused. I thought that Milo Yiannopolis was beyond disgusting for saying that he personally had sex with older men as a teen and felt that he was personally capable of consent. It might help if Reason published its official position. Punishment but not sex registry? No punishment up to 22 year olds?

  • Hank Phillips||

    That's the thing about political parties that elect mystical bigots. Soon we get George Bush demanding the death sentence for burning the wrong kind of leaves. Teens that survive the Inquisition are legally scarred in ways that contrive to infringe Second Amendment and other rights for another fifty years. Many would vote Libertarian, but the teevee networks claim that once branded a "felon," you can never again vote. How convenient for the Democrat and Republican parties to look as though they have the sanction of their victims!

  • BlueStarDragon||

    The problem with the sex offense registry is the type of people who can be put on it.
    Such things are the following.

    Peeing on a tree or the bushes
    Being a prostitute
    Soliciting a prostitute
    Being naked in public even if it is the privacy of your own home, such as when pagans go sky clad for their rituals.
    Being at or having an orgy even in the privacy of your own home.
    Being a teenager who has sex with another teenager of the same age.

    None of these types of people should be on the sex offender registry but they can be there.
    The only people that should be on the sex offender registry are rapists and child molesters.

    As for not be able to give sexual consent when drunk, is to ignore over 10,000 years of human history.
    Most people tend to go to bars and parties for one reason, to get drunk and screw. It should be recognized
    by any adult, that if you go to a bar with the intent to get drunk.
    That sex with a complete stranger that otherwise you will not have sex with while sober could be a possible outcome.
    In addition, if you do not like that outcome do not go into that situation or get drunk in the first place.

    Yet another flaw in the law is that a person can give permission for sex while sober. Then get drunk and forget that they gave permission why they were sober.

  • Lester224||

    I don't excuse those who have sex with passed-out drunk people. That's a disgusting and criminal thing to do. It's assault if nothing else. What if you passed out drunk and someone stuck things in your various holes during that time? Don't you think that should be an assault? Don't you think it should be discouraged with penalties?

    Statutory rape between people with narrow age differences is still statutory rape and should be penalized. However, a life-sentence for it on a sex offender registry is totally unjust.

  • BlueStarDragon||

    "I don't excuse those who have sex with passed-out drunk people. That's a disgusting and criminal thing to do. It's assault if nothing else. What if you passed out drunk and someone stuck things in your various holes during that time? Don't you think that should be an assault? Don't you think it should be discouraged with penalties?"

    Giving permission while drunk is not the same as forcing one self on a person who's passed out.
    For the record the law does not discouraged crimes. The law only serves as two purposes, One to lets us know when we may use force against others and two what price we may pay for such and act. While the price may discouraged some, Others just don't care about the bill.

    "Statutory rape between people with narrow age differences is still statutory rape and should be penalized. However, a life-sentence for it on a sex offender registry is totally unjust."

    That depends on State to State plus if their married as well. In Colorado as long as the age difference is within two years then sex is legal, or at least it was when I was a teenager.

    In this lady case it looked like their was a person of 31 at the time. Who got both teenagers drunk and encourage them to have sex.

  • Joec578||

    What I find interesting is that it tends to be Christians that most strongly push for these type of laws. How quickly they forget that Mary was about 13 when she was knocked her up with baby Jesus. Shoud god be on the sex registry list?

  • MikeTex||

    Well put

  • junsukiu||

    Wonderful post!!! Genuinely loved this kind of post. Although I want much more information on like precious subject matter. happy wheels

  • Flinch||

    Odd dichotomy: we pay judges primarily to gauge intent and degree of any particular conviction in applying the law... and then throw that investment out with a one size fits all registry? We should at least apply some degree here, say level 3 being a nightmare rapist that used a weapon, kidnapped, or beat the victim for sport and level 1 being the statutory goof described in this story. As a parent looking outside in, it's not funny regardless of circumstances: the possibility of pregnancy [however it may occur] is the most serious business in the world - there is no timeout, and no do-over.
    At a minimum, you have to inform your child about statutory problems that sweep aside the feelings of any individual not having reached the age of majority. I bet the boys parents did not. And no, you can't leave the country and start over: your police report will nix any application you make [outside of tourism]. Business or immigration? Not likely . Very serious business, that probably deserves a visit by the supreme court so we protect the innocent without turning the nation into a gulag. The list of things that might even trip kids up too is stupid: a 4 year old playing peekaboo in a public restroom, or even the proverbial 'show me yours, I'll show you mine' that may have happened in kindergarten or early grade school years [a time when blazing ignorance rules the day in young minds]. Judgement requires... thought.

  • Wehms2||

    Awww Flinch....that aounds so aweet....."we pay our Judges"........what?... to do the right thing(?) sure....I grew up on "andy Griffith" and thought the World had some sense of decency and integrity and "honor" to it.......what f**$ing joke!! They are "bound" by rules and "minimum sentences" and garbage.....they have very little "discretion" in maki g most rulings nowadays......

    Honestly.....by Law, the boys parents should have been charged with "reckless endangerment" for allowing their "child" to run off to a drinking and sex party....Hell-fire, they should be on the Registry as sex offenders BY LAW them-damned-selves......well, after they got out of PRISON!!!

  • Flinch||

    The point about mandatory minimums is a good point, but is its own discussion and may or may not be relevant here. You missed my basic premise: our system is schizophrenic. If all we needed was administrative actions by bureaucrats, there would be no Judicial branch of government, and we would officially be a banana republic. I remain disappointed in the collective stupidity of the public swallowing a whole lot of bilge in our post Nixon world... that began by addressing a social problem with legalism in our so called 'war on drugs'. Impatience in the executive is not a virtue.

  • Wehms2||

    Awww Flinch....that aounds so aweet....."we pay our Judges"........what?... to do the right thing(?) sure....I grew up on "andy Griffith" and thought the World had some sense of decency and integrity and "honor" to it.......what f**$ing joke!! They are "bound" by rules and "minimum sentences" and garbage.....they have very little "discretion" in maki g most rulings nowadays......

    Honestly.....by Law, the boys parents should have been charged with "reckless endangerment" for allowing their "child" to run off to a drinking and sex party....Hell-fire, they should be on the Registry as sex offenders BY LAW them-damned-selves......well, after they got out of PRISON!!!

  • Wehms2||

    This story is so wrong and soooo badly written in so many respects......Okay, to begin with.....she.."made a mistake(?)" SHE RAPED A CHILD!!!! Now....do I believe that? NO!!! BUT....the "Law IS the Law!!" AND....the boy too should probably be charged and tried, too!!! If he did not claim that he was "raped" then he "consensually(?)" had sex wwhen he was not legally capable of consenting!!! THAT makes him GUILTY under the Laws of most States!! Stupid? Hell yes!!! BUT....that is the way a bunch of Legidlators and many, many parents.....(like this boys) WANT the Law to read......it's a matter of "parental control" or some such garbage.....and when it comes right down to it....THE BOYS parents should be charged for "recklessly endangering a child!!" Why the Hell were they not aware they had allowed their child to run off to a "drinking and sex party?" Technically.....that would make them Sex Offenders, too!!!

    Seriously....all of these things that the "Authorities overlooked" for whatever Political or moral (or LACK of moral) reasoning they used......the people that are on the "Registries" even for serious crap that they may (or may NOT have done.....have been denied "equal protection (& punishment) under the Law!!!!"

  • socialismisevil||

    HE would probably be considered "too young" to make that call

    but I am not in (total) disagreement with you

  • balvinders||

    its very aching for me to listen about her story. she was also teenager at that time and she could not think like a mature person. so for life time sex offender tag is not good. A one mistake can not give a person for life time tag. she regrated and she should deserve another chance.
    http://uanepfologin.in/uan-login-portal/

  • socialismisevil||

    yeah but then there are a lot of males who are not given this consideration and in fact this all does feed into the

    se xist attitudes we have had in the country

  • socialismisevil||

    So IFFFF SHE OR ANYONE IS SOMEHOW AN EXCEPTION TO A RULE
    Act on it

    But how is she "not a threat" any more than lets say a not as well built male ?

    Sure 19 yo and 17 yo WHO ARE CONSENTING IS ONE THING

    BUT 19 AND 14?

    ITS NOT ABOUT THE "5 " YEARS ITS ABOUT THE LEVEL THEY ARE AT

    Having said that I / we would have to be privy to more FACTS ABOUT THIS CASE

    AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED

  • socialismisevil||

    "its not about the "5" years its the level they are at"

    but its the law that their actual age IS A /OR THE DETERMINING FACTOR

    MORE SO THAN THE "LEVEL" THEY ARE AT

  • mpercy||

    Why isn't there a parole board for the registry?

    If nothing else, cases should be reviewed periodically for removal from the list. Some guy who peed behind a dumpster? Is he likely to snatch a child for sale as a sex slave? No? Get him off the list. This chick? Is she likely to bang another 14-year old? No? Get her off the list. Guy raped a 4-year old Down's girl? Twice? Keep him on the rolls and in jail.

    And revise the laws for indecency to allow for someone who takes a leak in an alley from having to go on a sex offender's list with peppered with kiddie porn producers.

  • Pancho DVII||

    I thought this mess was mostly attributable to the right-wing. Have I been wrong all this time?

    Our legislators are over-represented by right-leaning millionaires and our judiciary is likewise skewed by conservatives. As a leftie I just assumed the opposition was the 'usual suspects'. If this isn't the case, then I need to be a lot more vocal about my opposition, because this area of the law has needed a radical redo for many years now.

    Hoping severe punishment will curb questionable behavior has a long history of abject failure, and pushing for it is mostly something the right likes to do.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    We have a flood of people just coming out of prison and off probation who were guilty of unknowingly sharing child pornography, following the advent of Napster and Limewire and all those other garbage file sharing services. Things have cleaned up a little bit now that torrents have become a mainstay, but the people who thought that they were only engaging in copyright infringement by downloading copies of Avatar and other terrible movies but really were disseminating child porn were caught up in this whole fear factory.

    For these cases, it's a double-whammy for libertarians. Many libertarians believe that that copyright infringement is manufactured by the state and has no basis in property rights (see Stephen Kinsella's paper, for example). But not only was the state using surveillance and tons of resources to identify the people downloading movies illegally, but they were also knowingly prosecuting them for sharing child pornography when they knew the motives of the perpetrators were MUCH different. It's an unfortunate marriage between the surveillance state, the IP police, and an incarceration culture that's simply amplified by this notion of sexual predatory behavior -- even when there's virtually no evidence to prove sexual predatory behavior.

  • Darr247||

    She's obviously a dangerous commie liberal paedophile. Her life should be ruined forever just like all the other perverts... just think how that poor 14 year old boy has suffered all these years! He was probably so traumatized by it he voted for trumpilstiltskin.

  • Rich Dobbs||

    The weird thing is that she could have killed him, and had less long term consequences. Assumption: She gets a plea deal for manslaughter in the second degree. The most minimal punishment is a fine of only one thousand dollars! Or a day in a county jail!

  • MikeTex||

    I just cannot understand these stupid young boys and their equally stupid parents.
    If I could have had sex with a 19 year old when I was 14, I would have kept my mouth shut and kept banging her forever or until she broke up with me. I would have been the envy of all my friends.
    What an idiot for telling his mother

  • Dadlobby||

    I'm sure that Reason couldn't find a MALE who this has happened to? So I call sexist BS on Reason (again). One need look no further than today's news and you'll find an ADULT FEMALE (usually in a position of authority over the male youth) who commits RAPE (due to age of consent) and it is passed off with Abuse Excuse of "she had issues" followed up by the "lucky stud" myth that he got lucky to be raped by an adult woman. I wouldn't agree that a 19 year old should be charged with felony crimes for consensual sex with a 14 year old, but it is sexist bias to find one female this has occurred to when there are easily 100 males out there for each female in the same boat.

  • Lester224||

    The registries are ineffective and constitute additional punishment after state penalization is complete.

  • jbsnc||

    Getting harder and harder to vote for ANY politician. These stupid laws stink. But helped get some turkey politicians elected or reelected.

  • sebobavehi||

    I bought brand new BMW 7 series by working Online work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can't believe. But when i start this job i have to believed her,,Now i am also making 5800$/weekly if you want to try just check this out...
    OnlineCareer10.com

  • katiewong454||

    I found a great site that focuses on stay at home mom's complete guide to gaining a serious amount of money in very little time. While being able to earn an passive income staying home with your kids. If you are someone who needs more money and has some spare time, this site is perfect for you. Take a look at...

    …..★★★◕◡◕◕◡◕◕◡◕

    Trump"s New Opprunuties See Here

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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