Posted on 10/02/2006 1:28:40 AM PDT by Qwertrew
Mr. Hernandez is the first to tell you he's no saint. He's got a hefty juvenile record. He cursed and spit at police when they forced him wearing nothing but boxer shorts from his girlfriend's bed.
< snip >
Mr. Hernandez and hundreds of young men like him are casualties of Texas' zero-tolerance sex offender registration laws. Despite low-level sex offenses, they're cataloged as perverts, as monsters, by a system that paints most sex criminals with the same broad brush.
An 11-year-old who fondles a 10-year-old classmate could be forced to register as a sex offender for a decade. An 18-year-old who's more than three years older than his girlfriend could spend a lifetime on the registry for having consensual sex with her.
And once they're on the list, these young sex offenders are virtually boxed out of society unable to find jobs and housing, and trapped in a vicious cycle of evictions, registration violations and more jail time.
After years spent making Texas' sex offender registration laws some of the toughest in the nation, legislators acknowledge some unintended consequences. They're working to design better risk-level assessments to help police departments distinguish between sexual predators and high school boyfriends. And they've passed legislation to allow some young offenders with negligible recidivism rates, particularly those in consensual-sex scenarios, to be removed from the registry.
< snip >
In 2001, after a lobbying effort by parents of young sex offenders, the state added a so-called "Romeo" defense, one that gives sex offenders under 19 who had consensual sex with someone 13 or older the chance to seek deregistration from the state. If the "victim" doesn't agree the sex was consensual, or if the offender has more than one conviction or adjudication, then the offender must remain on the registry.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
While we are at it, I'd recrimminalize "homosexual" activity; what they do does not fit under term "sexual activity" (as there is only one sex present). Since they are mentally ill, they also cannot consent.
There must be a lot of femanists involved because by the new definition, all males are sex offenders. I played doctor with the girl next door when we were about 6 years old. Today I could easily be on the list, for life. So would every male I've ever known.
While visiting some friends in a remote area, I heard them complalin that a guy "next door" was a registered sex offender. They said he had an affair with an under-age girl some years back. They didn't know exactly when or the circumstances (ages) involved.
When I noted that he lived almost 800 yards next to the nearest house and lived miles from the city, I asked where that guy should live. What should be done?
If two 14-year-olds are having sex, why is it only the male who is a sex offender? The male was unable to consent as well, so BOTH should have the exact same punishment.
Of course, laws regulating sex based on consent are flawed anyway. Legality of sex should be on the simple basis of whether the couple is married or not.
To put it another way, risk is a virtue. Many parents see no sexual risk for younger adolescents, believing statutory rape laws will protect their child. Thus they let their children out unsupervised, hoping the threat of the law will save their daughter's virtue, when it is their responsibility to do so. But because they perceive the risks minimized due to statutory rape laws, some abdicate their responisibilities, handing matters over to the state for "after the fact" punishment.
Most people didn't read the whole story. 2 of the 3 persons in the story are repeat offenders, they should be treated like any other repeat offender.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.