Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Name That Hood | Goths Are the Devil's Children »

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Feeling Sorry For Sex Offenders

posted by on January 16 at 14:48 PM

I have no sympathy for sex offenders—real sex offenders, the kind of fuckers that leap to mind when you hear the term “sex offender.” Men that kidnap and rape women, pedophiles that sexually abuse children—you know, people like that. But between voyeuristic crap like “To Catch a Pedophile”—a disgusting television “news” program that makes titillating theater out of the entrapment of sick dumbfucks (and smug furies out of viewers)—and the ongoing efforts to define “sex offender” status down, well, I’m actually starting to feel sorry for sex offenders.

Check out this story out in today’s Chicago Tribune.

If a state law enacted last year is upheld, [a] 17-year-old’s name and photograph could soon appear on the state’s public registry, available to anyone on the Internet—marking him as a sexual offender until he’s 24.

An increasing number of states are requiring that those who commit sex crimes as juveniles be added to public sex offender lists, a move that has stirred juvenile-offender and victim advocates alike. Under the law, some juveniles could be placed on the public lists for the rest of their lives and others for many years, depending on their crime.

What was this 17 year-old’s crime? When he was a 13 boy he rang a doorbell and grabbed the boobs of a 13-year-old girl that lived in that house. He agreed to plead guilty to home invasion and sexual abuse—in part because his family was assured that he would not have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Oh, he had a register as a sex offender—but only for 10 years (!), and only on a restricted sex offender list available “only” to cops, schools, and day care centers. But the law has since been changed, and now this poor kid may have to register on adult sex offender lists with rapists and child molesters. For the rest of his life..

So because this boy groped a 13 year-old when he was a 13 year-old his life is going to be ruined—the “sex offender” tag will make it all but impossible for him to go to school, get a job, or find a place to live. Why don’t we just take him out and shoot him?

Knowing that the term “sex offender” gets slapped on 13 year-old boys that grope 13 year-old girls renders the term all but meaningless. What does the term tell us, what does it communicate, if it lumps a serial rapist in with this kid?

And, fuck, I’m glad I’m adult now and not a teenager, since I’m pretty sure me and all friends, gay and straight, would qualify for the “sex offender” label. Still, I seriously worry for my eight-year old kid. What are we going to do when he’s a horny teenager? Besides, yes, urging him not to rape anyone, date rape anyone, grope anyone, or do anything to anyone that could in any way be construed as non-consensual touch. We’re going to have to terrorize him, basically, all through puberty with the horrible, life-long consequences of even a momentary lapse in judgment. Fuck, maybe we’ll move to Europe when he turns 12, just to be safe.

From the Trib:

For victim advocates, publicizing juvenile sex offender records is necessary to protect the community. But juvenile-justice leaders say laws like Illinois’ lump those guilty of “youthful indiscretions” with serious sexual offenders.

I’m with the juvenile-justice crowd on this. I’m starting to think that “victims advocates” are creating as many victims as they’re helping.

RSS icon Comments

1

You started a thought: "I assume the 13 year-old girl"...but didn't finish it. I'm curious where that was going?

This is very troubling - inappropriate and unconsented to groping happens among teenagers all the time - it's something both genders engage in to some degree, and it's the sexual version of putting your hand on a hot stove. (valuable lessons are learned when you find yourself with a burned hand) Kids do some amazingly stupid things. The conservative "tough on crime" obsession has taken us so far down this road of (any) crime = (full) punishment, that you do fear for your child making any misstep, no matter how slight or serious, because our society now seems bent on erasing the future of anyone who crosses our behavioral boundaries.

Well, I supposed I should head off to Ricks where I can look at boobies to my heart's content (as long as they give room for the puritan between us!).

Posted by switzerblog | January 16, 2007 3:31 PM
2

Haven't they sold the Tribune yet? Dear gawd...

Hope you're enjoing your visit home.

Posted by Boomer | January 16, 2007 3:31 PM
3

Yup. The hysteria over child abuse has gone a little too far, where politicians desperately fishing for votes will routinely just think of some new way to humiliate sex offenders - even ones which really aren't dangerous, like some guy who banged a perfectly willing 17-year-old once and pissed off her dad - and no one will say "Um, I'm not sure that's constitutional/appropriate/necessary/etc.".
Because, after all, who wants to be known as the guy who defended kiddie-rapers?

This is about the point where I'm probably supposed to be saying "Let me qualify that I don't support child abuse", of course. But the fact that I'm even expected to put some disclaimer like that if I make a statement that maybe, just maybe, there exist some indignities which really aren't appropriate to toss on some/all sex offenders - that is itself evidence of the mania. Rational debate just isn't possible.

Posted by tsm | January 16, 2007 3:45 PM
4

For those intereested in how we stack up: Here in WA, a 17-year-old who commits forcible rape has to register for 10 years (no picture on the web).

Posted by JTR | January 16, 2007 3:50 PM
5

Christ, a 13 year old groping a 13 year old is now rape????? I wonder what would have happened when the high school varsity basketball player nailed me? Would the cops call him a rapist since he was the top? Or would I be the rapist for leading him on? Guess I was lucky nothing happened since it was a small town in Montana....

Posted by Andrew | January 16, 2007 3:51 PM
6

It's been really weird over the last six years watching the population of the US descend into a permanent state of fear, hysteria and paranoia.

Fear of sex, fear of dark skinned people, fear of non-Christians, Q13's All Fear Olympics, and of course CNN's Nancy Grace's repellent 'Here's What You Should Be Afraid of Tonight' Show.

In the immortal words of Peaches, "are the motherfuckers ready for the fatherfuckers?"

No.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 16, 2007 4:05 PM
7

Andrew @ 5 -
No, groping isn't "rape" under Illinois or any other state's law. Some states have specific laws prohibiting unwanted touching or assault for the purposes of sexual gratification. Here in Washington, it would be called Indecent Liberties (a quaint, almost Victorian name). It should be called what it is: groping.

Posted by JTR | January 16, 2007 4:16 PM
8

Nancy Grace should be given a slow, painful, agonizing death.

Posted by Dave Coffman | January 16, 2007 4:17 PM
9

I like your idea Dave Coffman, and I'm sure Nancy Grace will be happy to publish your manifesto in detail on her website.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 16, 2007 4:25 PM
10

Yeah, the sex registry is getting way out of control. You also have cities passing ordinances that state a sex offender can't live within 1000' of a park, school, yada yada. May sound reasonable until you realize there's no residential area they can live, and they've basically been run out of town.

But the kid should feel lucky he was caught. Two more boob grabbings and that would be Three Strikes, life in prison. Now that he's a pariah, it might be harder for him to accomplish that (since he can't even cross city limits before his tracking chip notifies the cops).

Posted by him | January 16, 2007 4:28 PM
11

hell, even skinny-dipping will get you listed as a sex offender if ya do it in the wrong place (e.g. US parks)

Posted by gnossos | January 16, 2007 4:40 PM
12

wow...i'm old enough to remember when it wasn't that unusual for socially retarded young 20ish males to date 14, 15, 16 yr old females...sure, the guys were dorks but no one tagged them as 'child molesters' simply because a 14 year old isn't a child...there's a world of difference between wanting to bang pubescent teens and molest pre-pubescent children...

Posted by michael strangeways | January 16, 2007 5:02 PM
13

on a different but related note: sexual predator laws helped pave the way for "enemy combatant" law because they pioneered the legal classification of citizens who can be subject to indefinite detention when their prison terms have technically expired. some sexual predators are basically evil and some crimes should result in the loss of rights/ long prison terms. but to degree that a legal system deprives sexual predators of their due process rights, it opens up a pandora's box that is easily manipulated and expanded to fit any convenient definition of "evil doers."

Posted by wf | January 16, 2007 5:29 PM
14

What do you think about this Dan? http://www.justice4matt.com

Posted by xx | January 16, 2007 6:39 PM
15

What the fuck is up with parents these days? In the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY event that I would have grabbed a girl's boobs when I was 13 (assuming the girl didn't want them grabbed) The sequence of events would have been as follows:

1.) The girl would have slugged/slapped me.

2.) The girl's parent's would be bought into the picture, with the potential of more non-lethal violence.

3.) A call would have been made to MY parents.

4.) I would have caugh 1,453,949 shades of Holy Hell.

Why were the cops even bought into this?

Posted by catalina vel-duray | January 16, 2007 6:43 PM
16

#7, I e-mailed Nancy Grace's show with your claim it is not considered rape. I will let you know what she thinks along with the others who are pushing the politics of fear. And news flash, the law in the United States is interpeted by polictically motivated judges and prosecutors.

Posted by Andrew | January 16, 2007 7:20 PM
17

We go way to far with what can get a person landed on one of these registries... I recently read a news article about a person being listed as a sex offender for "molesting" a mannequin. No joke.

Posted by Silvertail | January 16, 2007 8:31 PM
18

#7: As fond as I am of plain Saxon words, doesn't "indecent liberties" encompass more infractions than just groping? I think it would be like changing the name of assault to "punching".

Posted by Neil | January 16, 2007 8:39 PM
19

wf @ #13 - do your homework. Post-sentencing detention for sexually violent predators is with quite a bit of due process. it's an entirely new trial, all over again, with a very high burden of proof. Picture the rape victim coming back 7 years later to testify, again, under oath and cross-examination, about something nobody wants to ever discuss in public. There are plenty of reasons to object to it, but lack of consitutional due process is not one of them.

And Silvertail @ #17, you're absolutely, utterly, ridiculously full of shit.

Posted by JTR | January 16, 2007 11:31 PM
20

I agree with cat (#15). I think that people should lay off the cops, and just beat their children more. I would have done way less stupid things as a child if I had known that, if I messed up, I would get my hide tanned off.

Posted by Dan | January 16, 2007 11:53 PM
21

I recently read a news article about a person being listed as a sex offender for "molesting" a mannequin. No joke.

From what I can tell, he's getting life in prison because he's a habitual offender who keeps breaking and entering to grope manequins. So the crime is the continual forced entry, not the groping itself.

Posted by Aexia | January 16, 2007 11:55 PM
22

Unless you're thinking of a different case I just found on google. Wow. Lots of mannequin gropers.

The case you're probably referring to, as far as I can tell, he got charged with indescent exposure which *may* result in him getting sex offender status. Don't see anything about the actual outcome of the case yet...

Posted by Aexia | January 16, 2007 11:58 PM
23

I mostly agree with Catalina with the caveat that I'm not sure I trust all parents to do anything about it. Too many parents refuse to believe that their precious baby could ever do anything wrong, or try to justify/dismiss it. There's also some benefit in putting the fear of God into a kid by having the cops swing by his house -- with the assumption that he's not going to wind up on the sex offender list.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 17, 2007 12:49 AM
24

We seem to be moving ever faster towards a world of 1984. Isolated, afraid people, with lots and lots of thought-crime.

Posted by treacle | January 17, 2007 1:18 AM
25

My old hairdresser and his boyfriend would have these stupid violent arguements where one would call the cops on the other. They didn't hit each other, they'd just bust up things in their apartment. They were both ridiculously inmature, and they regarded the police as their relationship counselor.

I'm not trivalizing domestic violence - these guys were undoubtedly the exception to the rule. But it was a waste of the cop's time, just as calling the police when your kid cops an unwanted feel is.

And, just to be clear, I'm not advocating beating children. I was never beaten, just browbeaten, and I usually deserved it (like the time I almost started the wildfire) There are ways to discipline without physical contact. Adults should be mature enough to handle minor problems without calling in law enforcement.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | January 17, 2007 7:10 AM
26

Yes, Dan, come 2 Europe - or even better, come 2 Slovenia.
Here is a much better place for a child to grow up, since you have some serious fuckers massing up your lives!

Posted by Marta L. | January 17, 2007 9:08 AM
27

Juvenile delinquency has undergone a major shift in the U.S. over the past twenty years. People are afraid of teenagers (Jacksonville, Columbine, etc), so there is a push to treat children and teenagers as adults with legal action. Actions that used to fall within the purvue of parental responsibility are now considered criminal activity. Many parents lack the skills to manage their children when they are young - a problem that becomes exponentially worse as children grow up. Therefore they look to the government to deal with misbehavior.

Playground fights are now considered assault. Formerly "normal" teenage sexual exploration is now considered actionable sexual abuse/harrassment/assault. This, of course, is excellent fodder for politicians. Everyone wants to be tough on crime, right?

Unfortunately, criminalized youth make for very poor adults. Juvenile detention and halfway houses fail to impart good lifeskills on their residents - especially in a culture that prefers retribution and recrimination rather than restitution and rehabilitation.

Posted by dewsterling | January 17, 2007 10:01 AM
28

I'm sure the 13 year old situation is an anomoly. It should never have gone down that way and somebody with some common sense could have stepped in along the way. As a father of three and five year old girls, I'd rather err of the side of caution. While I sympathize with this 13 year old, I'd rather be a little hard nosed on this issue. Too many of the violent ones are repeat offenders - that just kills me. Lines have to be drawn.

Posted by ChiefWahoo | January 17, 2007 1:42 PM
29

13 on 13 gets 10. This was an issue for their parents. Parents sometimes act like children. Hence the police, court system and now a public scarlet letter has been placed on this young man, who was never taught boundaries by his adults.
I work with many organizations that deal with child sexual abuse on a daily basis. Bottom line it is an adult's job to prevent, recognize and act responsibly in regard to this issue. It sounds like none of the adults involved did so, all the way through the court system.
Having said all of that there is a new trend happening via the internet. Pedophiles are now grooming their potential victim by showing them underage children performing sex. This trend is disturbing on many levels the most being that it hard wires children's minds with that thought that performing sex is okay. This beings me back to the parents; whose job it is to educate their children about sex, relationships, boundaries and their bodies. Too many adults with children are children when it comes to sexuality; uninformed, afraid of communication about the subject and undereducated.
If you are an adult, with children or working in an environment with children I suggest going to darkness2light.org and take their online training program "Stewards of Children" for $15 you will get an education that will help prevent CSA and assist you in communicating with your children about sex .
On a final note; registries are all well and good if the offender registers. Unfortunately we have come to a point in our society where habitual abusers need to be "chipped" so that when an a child goes missing there can be a quicker response time in capturing the child fuckers.

Posted by Uncle Zoloft | January 18, 2007 3:16 AM
30

It's unreal how many people's lives have been ruined by this law. I never really thought about it until I watched "To Catch a Predator". I think trying to have sex with a 13 year old is sick, but man, these guys were just horny men who need therapy, not jail. Going through high school and college, every guy I know would probably fall under the label "sex offender". These people who pretend to be 13 year olds are the sick people. They get a power trip ruining guys lives. Taking advantage of the male biology that predisposes them to like younger looking females. They entrap them and pretend to fall in love with these guys, manipulate them with the true mind of a 25 year old but pretending to be 13. Soldiers back from Iraq, husbands with kids, professionals, hard workers, etc... all lives ruined. These losers pretend to be children for a living, and our society rewards them rather than the hard workers. These guys made a simple mistake. Jail will simply turn these guys into true criminals once they are released. And then they will be a truely serious danger to society. Most will have considered suicide since most people who go to jail consider suicide. They have a lot less to live for, who knows what can happen. And bam they're labeled a sex offender and stigmatized the rest of their life. This show reveals how stupid and sick our society has become. America definitely has an over obsession with this. Soon the sexual offender label will mean nothing... I can go on and on. I used to consider myself tough on crime, victims rights etc.. But after watching this show and realizing that a vast majority of the population in jail really aren't bad people at all, my opinion has changed. We must repeal the 3 strikes law and repeal the sex offender label. Slowly, our rights are being eroded in this country. Let's bring America back to what it once was, lets prove Orwell Wrong. Liberal or Conservative, we need unity.

Posted by Jack | January 22, 2007 2:37 AM
31

I send you again links to publications about my case.
I was forced to confess to the
possession of internet digital pictures of porn in deleted clusters of
my computer hard drive. My browser was hijacked while I was browsing
the web. I was redirected to illegal sites against my will. Some
illegal pictures were found on my hard drive, recovering in
unallocated clusters, without dates of file creation/download.

I do not know how courts can widely press these charges on people to
convict them, while the whole Internet is a mess.

This is my story in inquisition21.com. There is all
information about case written by Irish writer Brian
Rothery. You can see a lot of violations of law by police

http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~7~page_num~3.html

This is publication in Wired news

http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,63391,00.html

Posted by Fima Fimovich | January 24, 2007 1:20 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).