We need to change the sex offender laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our priority as a society is to protect children. A 19 year old is an adult and a 14 year old is a child. A 14 year old is incapable of giving legal consent. We protect children by making it illegal for adults to have sex with them because children cannot give consent.

I am completely for protecting children through age of consent laws.

I don't think people disagree that we need to protect children. But when a 14 yr old lies about her age, and possibly has a fake license (in this case, I don't think she did), then what? Should the guy demand a birth certificate? Talk to the parent to verify her age?

The law should look at the circumstance. Maybe people just shouldn't have sex unless they are either married or both parties have lots of wrinkles and grey pube hairs which may prove they are over the age of 18.

It doesn't matter what the 14 year old does because he or she is a child in the eyes of the law and incapable of legal consent. It is probably a good idea to avoid having sex with someone one just met that evening. Having sex with a person one does not know opens one up to all kinds of problems including violating the age of consent laws.

And yes, I think calling the parent would be a great idea. I can hear it now:

"Good evening, Mrs. Smith, I'm here in a bar with your daughter and plan to take her someplace where we can have sex. She says she's 17. Is that true?"

So, what about the second date, 3rd? If the girl is lying, she's not going to all of a sudden tell the truth after that one meeting.

At 14 she may not be able to legally consent, but she sure as hell knows she's lying and should know right from wrong.

IN MD that is not true a 14-16 year old can consent, but can not have sex with someone more than 4 years older.

This case did not take place in Maryland. A young man crossed state lines to another state in which he broke the law of that state.

I think it's crazy that different states have different laws about such things. I feel sorry for people who move or foreign visitors who visit multiple states.

So, MD has ^ law, and MI has a different law. It's arbitrary and goes to show that this type of situation is complex and shouldn't be a black/white case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

don't be obtuse. Never did I say it was ok to have sex with a 14 yr old. I stated that if a 14 yr old lies about her age, and certainly looks older, then an 18 yr old shouldn't be labeled a sex offender.

So it should still be illegal for a 19-year-old to have sex with a 14-year-old, it's just that it shouldn't be a sex offense.

Um.

I think the laws need to be changed so that this type of one-off case doesn't label a person a sex offender for the rest of his life. The girl looked 18 and told him she was 18. He believed her to be 18. How does that make him a sex offender?

I think it has to do with the fact that he had sex with a child who was legally incapable of giving consent.

But in MD apparently, 14 yr olds are legally capable of consent in this scenario. yea, I know this case didn't happen in MD. So, it just goes to show, these kinds of laws are arbitrary, and there is no clear consensus on what really a 14 yr old can legally consent to.

[Anonymous]

Romeo & Juliet Laws in Michigan

There is one possible exception to the requirement of public registration as a sex offender for a conviction of statutory rape that falls under the “Romeo & Juliet” law which took effect in Michigan on July 1, 2011.

A person found guilty of statutory rape of a minor may be exempt from having his or her name registered publicly as a sex offender if the following legal requirements are met:

The alleged victim was between the ages of 13 and 16; and

There was no more than four years of age difference between the partners; and

The sex act was consensual by the minor.

http://www.michigan-sex-offense.com/sex-crimes-against-minors.html


But the judge decided not to use the "Romeo/Juliet".. but he could have. It will be appealed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Romeo & Juliet Laws in Michigan

There is one possible exception to the requirement of public registration as a sex offender for a conviction of statutory rape that falls under the “Romeo & Juliet” law which took effect in Michigan on July 1, 2011.

A person found guilty of statutory rape of a minor may be exempt from having his or her name registered publicly as a sex offender if the following legal requirements are met:

The alleged victim was between the ages of 13 and 16; and

There was no more than four years of age difference between the partners; and

The sex act was consensual by the minor.

http://www.michigan-sex-offense.com/sex-crimes-against-minors.html


But the judge decided not to use the "Romeo/Juliet".. but he could have. It will be appealed.

Also, Michigan does think a 14 yo can consent in some situation... actually they think a 13 yo can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Romeo & Juliet Laws in Michigan

There is one possible exception to the requirement of public registration as a sex offender for a conviction of statutory rape that falls under the “Romeo & Juliet” law which took effect in Michigan on July 1, 2011.

A person found guilty of statutory rape of a minor may be exempt from having his or her name registered publicly as a sex offender if the following legal requirements are met:

The alleged victim was between the ages of 13 and 16; and

There was no more than four years of age difference between the partners; and

The sex act was consensual by the minor.

http://www.michigan-sex-offense.com/sex-crimes-against-minors.html


But the judge decided not to use the "Romeo/Juliet".. but he could have. It will be appealed.

Very interesting! Thanks PP for digging that up. What reason did that judge give for not using this law? I'm not a lawyer, but the appeal seems to be a sure in, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Romeo & Juliet Laws in Michigan

There is one possible exception to the requirement of public registration as a sex offender for a conviction of statutory rape that falls under the “Romeo & Juliet” law which took effect in Michigan on July 1, 2011.

A person found guilty of statutory rape of a minor may be exempt from having his or her name registered publicly as a sex offender if the following legal requirements are met:

The alleged victim was between the ages of 13 and 16; and

There was no more than four years of age difference between the partners; and

The sex act was consensual by the minor.

http://www.michigan-sex-offense.com/sex-crimes-against-minors.html


But the judge decided not to use the "Romeo/Juliet".. but he could have. It will be appealed.

It looks like that exception does not apply here. This young man was 19 and the girl was 14. That is five years difference, so over the four which is the max for the exception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romeo & Juliet Laws in Michigan

There is one possible exception to the requirement of public registration as a sex offender for a conviction of statutory rape that falls under the “Romeo & Juliet” law which took effect in Michigan on July 1, 2011.

A person found guilty of statutory rape of a minor may be exempt from having his or her name registered publicly as a sex offender if the following legal requirements are met:

The alleged victim was between the ages of 13 and 16; and

There was no more than four years of age difference between the partners; and

The sex act was consensual by the minor.

http://www.michigan-sex-offense.com/sex-crimes-against-minors.html


But the judge decided not to use the "Romeo/Juliet".. but he could have. It will be appealed.

It looks like that exception does not apply here. This young man was 19 and the girl was 14. That is five years difference, so over the four which is the max for the exception.

Also, Romeo and Juliet exceptions tend to apply when there is an ongoing romantic relationship. This was a one time meetup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't matter what the 14 year old does because he or she is a child in the eyes of the law and incapable of legal consent. It is probably a good idea to avoid having sex with someone one just met that evening. Having sex with a person one does not know opens one up to all kinds of problems including violating the age of consent laws.

And yes, I think calling the parent would be a great idea. I can hear it now:

"Good evening, Mrs. Smith, I'm here in a bar with your daughter and plan to take her someplace where we can have sex. She says she's 17. Is that true?"

I love this idea.

And what do you think her reply might be? And what if Mr. Smith answered the phone instead of Mrs. Smith?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't matter what the 14 year old does because he or she is a child in the eyes of the law and incapable of legal consent. It is probably a good idea to avoid having sex with someone one just met that evening. Having sex with a person one does not know opens one up to all kinds of problems including violating the age of consent laws.

And yes, I think calling the parent would be a great idea. I can hear it now:

"Good evening, Mrs. Smith, I'm here in a bar with your daughter and plan to take her someplace where we can have sex. She says she's 17. Is that true?"

I love this idea.

And what do you think her reply might be? And what if Mr. Smith answered the phone instead of Mrs. Smith?

"yes, it's true. Make sure she's home in time for dinner."

"no, it's not and you'd better run and hide cuz I'm gettin' my shotgun and comin' after you."

[Anonymous]

In the old days these types of relationships were common. They occurred on my side of the family and my husband's. As a matter of fact, that case Loving vs VA about the interracial marriage. She was 11 and he was 18 when they started dating!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romeo & Juliet Laws in Michigan

There is one possible exception to the requirement of public registration as a sex offender for a conviction of statutory rape that falls under the “Romeo & Juliet” law which took effect in Michigan on July 1, 2011.

A person found guilty of statutory rape of a minor may be exempt from having his or her name registered publicly as a sex offender if the following legal requirements are met:

The alleged victim was between the ages of 13 and 16; and

There was no more than four years of age difference between the partners; and

The sex act was consensual by the minor.

http://www.michigan-sex-offense.com/sex-crimes-against-minors.html


But the judge decided not to use the "Romeo/Juliet".. but he could have. It will be appealed.

It looks like that exception does not apply here. This young man was 19 and the girl was 14. That is five years difference, so over the four which is the max for the exception.

Also, Romeo and Juliet exceptions tend to apply when there is an ongoing romantic relationship. This was a one time meetup.

That is not true. The Romeo and Juliet law is applied to consensual sex like this case, it has nothing to do with "relationships".

Also,

The judge is just old... he said...

“You went online, to use a fisherman’s expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with,” he told Anderson. “That seems to be part of our culture now — meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever.”


Also Michigan has . But the state Holmes Youthful Trainee Act allows first-time offenders to avoid the registry and have their convictions erased after serving probation.

Holmes Youthful Trainee Act - State law allows a judge to place a youth between 17 and 20 who is alleged to have committed a crime and who has pleaded guilty to that crime to be placed in prison or on probation without a conviction to avoid a criminal record. Excluded from this program are youth who are charged with a felony for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment, a major controlled substance offense or a traffic offense. This action protects the privacy of the offender while on trainee status. If the youth successfully completes the program, there is no criminal record. Imprisonment or probation cannot exceed three years.

http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/1,1607,7-119-1441_1519---,00.html

He also chose not to use this.

Sad thing is... Michigan has done some due diligence to "change the sex offender laws" but this judge ignored them.

[Anonymous]

^ I hope the appellate court overrules that old judge's ruling. So, the guy was trolling (no condoning at all), but so was the girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romeo & Juliet Laws in Michigan

There is one possible exception to the requirement of public registration as a sex offender for a conviction of statutory rape that falls under the “Romeo & Juliet” law which took effect in Michigan on July 1, 2011.

A person found guilty of statutory rape of a minor may be exempt from having his or her name registered publicly as a sex offender if the following legal requirements are met:

The alleged victim was between the ages of 13 and 16; and

There was no more than four years of age difference between the partners; and

The sex act was consensual by the minor.

http://www.michigan-sex-offense.com/sex-crimes-against-minors.html


But the judge decided not to use the "Romeo/Juliet".. but he could have. It will be appealed.

It looks like that exception does not apply here. This young man was 19 and the girl was 14. That is five years difference, so over the four which is the max for the exception.

Also, Romeo and Juliet exceptions tend to apply when there is an ongoing romantic relationship. This was a one time meetup.

That is not true. The Romeo and Juliet law is applied to consensual sex like this case, it has nothing to do with "relationships".

Also,

The judge is just old... he said...

“You went online, to use a fisherman’s expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with,” he told Anderson. “That seems to be part of our culture now — meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever.”


Also Michigan has . But the state Holmes Youthful Trainee Act allows first-time offenders to avoid the registry and have their convictions erased after serving probation.

Holmes Youthful Trainee Act - State law allows a judge to place a youth between 17 and 20 who is alleged to have committed a crime and who has pleaded guilty to that crime to be placed in prison or on probation without a conviction to avoid a criminal record. Excluded from this program are youth who are charged with a felony for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment, a major controlled substance offense or a traffic offense. This action protects the privacy of the offender while on trainee status. If the youth successfully completes the program, there is no criminal record. Imprisonment or probation cannot exceed three years.

http://www.michigan.gov/corrections/1,1607,7-119-1441_1519---,00.html

He also chose not to use this.

Sad thing is... Michigan has done some due diligence to "change the sex offender laws" but this judge ignored them.

Oh, the judge was old! What would an old person with years of experience know about applying the law?

[Anonymous]

These laws are written to protect the younger person. If you have sex with a person who is younger than the age stated by the law, and you are older than the age stated by the law, then you have committed rape. That's it. It does not matter what the younger person did, it is the fact that the person is below a stated age that makes the act rape.

This is the law and if you break it and are caught, you can be convicted of and punished for rape. This guy crossed state lines to have sex with this girl. Sorry, if you break the law as it stands, you have to deal with the consequences.

This is covered in high school civics classes and young people talk about these laws when they get to that age. I can't imagine someone who lived so close to the state border not being aware of the laws in the two states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they need an age limit. A 50 year old having sex with a 16 year old is not the same thing as an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old.

I've also known of women who won't report their child's fathers for being sex offenders because then the father would lose his job and not be able to pay child support or help support the kid.

Most age of consent laws have protections for ages in close proximity.

And in states where the age of consent is 16, would a 50 year old be in trouble?

http://www.ageofconsent.us/