8 ms·

America's unjust sex laws

118 points by MikeCapone 17y ago

mquander 17y ago
Extremely harsh laws branding and shaming sex offenders for life seem very easy for politicans to pass, and wildly popular. Once they're passed, as the article noted, it's hard to imagine anyone mustering the political willpower to strike them down. From the perspective of someone pretty young - why are these laws being instituted now, instead of, say, a hundred years ago? What's changed? Is it simply a matter of finally having enough central organization to actually effectively track and monitor them?
- MikeCapone 17y ago
  Is it possible that one thing that has changed is the media/entertainment world? Most of what people know about people who commit sex crimes comes from movies and the evening news, and is not representative of the vast majority (90%+ ?) of people who end up on these lists. Same with people in prison. People imagine that it's a bunch of murderers and career criminals, while it's mostly pot smokers and non-violent offenders.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    It's not just that the media has changed, there's much, much more of it. The problem with 24-hour news channels is they are 24 hours. Even if there's no real news to report, they have to talk about something. Hence they go in an entertainment direction, or harp on things that people have an emotional response to that is not in balance with the actual risk - such as child molesters.
    - pyre 17y ago
      The number of children that are sexually abused/kidnapped/murdered by complete strangers PALES in comparison to the number of children that are abused/kidnapped/murdered by family members/close friends/teachers/etc. Yet people go all ga-ga about guy in the beat-up car trolling through residential neighborhoods to entice kids into his car with promises of candy. This image is largely a modern-day boogie-man. It does happen, and it is a tragedy. But there are MORE children that are raped by a parent/sibling/babysitter than there are by complete strangers.
      - scott_s 17y ago
        Yes, that's what I was referring to.
      - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        Which is fine if you're considering general law making - the thing is that it doesn't matter one hoot to a parent, Ms. Dugar's mother say, that the chance of a car stopping at the side of the road and snatching your child is vanishingly small. If it happens at all it happens too often. It's no comfort to know if you've been incarcerated for years with the threat of sexual abuse, torture or death hanging over you that very few people get kidnapped really.
        scott_s 17y ago
        It does matter to a parent, because parents (and people in general) should worry about things in proportion to their likelihood to happen and their impact. But we are irrational creatures, and we don't.
  - cellis 17y ago
    Mostly pot smokers and non-violent offenders. Citation needed. My father works in a medium-security prison, and it is exactly as "people imagine".
    - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
      Put pot smokers and non-violent offenders into prison, and they turn into hardened criminals.
      - zach 17y ago
        Citation needed. Here, let me Google "prison recidivism non-violent" for you -- a 1997 study which suggests that only about 15% of nonviolent offenders are returned to prison within three years for violent offenses [PDF]: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pnoesp.pdf http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pnoesp.pdf
        sho 17y ago
        You're proving the parent's point?
        zach 17y ago
        Isn't 15% is about what you would expect if they were randomly convicted first of a nonviolent offense?
        radu_floricica 17y ago
        Maybe in America. In my corner of the world it would be way under 1%.
        zach 17y ago
        I wouldn't be surprised if it were lower, but I would love to see some real statistics in play.
  - adrinavarro 17y ago
    Media is not the key. In fact, we can't change the media/entertainment world, but change perception of things in our society. For example, a guy which has once visited a prostitute in his life is not a sexual offender. At least for me. That said, it's a priority to set levels of "punishment" (like appearing on a public list that after becomes an iPhone app, and after all your neighbors know that you appear in a sexual offender list, when it's just some stupidity you did some day). On another side, I find that the consensual sex ages may be a bit high. For example, 'we' (DISCLAIMER: I'm a 15y guy) do it around 14-16, not 16-18. And, why consider that like a crime, or something bad? (hey, we do have fun in secure ways, just avoid any unneeded intervention in it)
    - jsteele 17y ago
      "Media is not the key. In fact, we can't change the media/entertainment world, but change perception of things in our society." Where do you think "perception of things in our society" comes from?
      - pyre 17y ago
        We need to get people to stop believing that 'tv == realism.' Watching "Law & Order" doesn't make you a legal expert. Watching "The Sopranos" doesn't mean that you know all about the mob. There are people that believe this though. Statements like, "the revolution will not be televised" are a reflection of this tendency in our society.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    That is a major factor; our communications technology does not immunize us from moral panics - if anything it can amplify them. I wouldn't say 'most' prisoners are pot smokers or non-violent, although I think too many of the former are in prison. In California I think the rate of imprisonment for drug violations is about 20% - don't have time to looking up the stats now. That's not as high as people imagine, and of course many of those people are gangbangers or suchlike rather than hippies who were smoking peacefully on a mountaintop and suddenly got arrested. But you have to factor in 3 strikes and so on as well. Unfortunately more people will vote for 'throw away the key!' than 'study and rehabilitiate!', and California has a very powerful prison officer's union which always heavily supports law-and-order legislation and ballot initiatives. Although I too found this article very interesting, I do have to question if it really passes the HN smell test...the kind of policy questions under discussion here are not really amenable to technical solutions. No flag, but I urge you to be a bit more selective.
  - thismat 17y ago
    As a father, I can say that if someone moves in near me and they're a registered sex offender, I hope to know about it. I don't care how minuscule the crime is, the possibility of repeat offenses or misbehavior is too high to risk it. "Is the punishment too harsh" is purely subjective, sometimes yes, sometimes no, but any inappropriate behavior around children (impressionable, gullible, naive) should be punished. If a person shows that kind of poor judgment they should suffer the consequences of their actions. EDIT: A lot of this has to do with parenting practices and their responsibility in all of this as well. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but not trusting people until they've earned it has kept me out of more situations than the hassle it might have caused. It's depressing we don't value our youth more honestly. This is also not really related to HN, I expect to find this on digg/reddit/slash., but here? EDIT: To the reply about the 15 year old giving a blowjob to a classmate, read the subjective part again, sometimes the punishment doesn't fit the crime, especially when you consider two minors, I'm addressing the adult indecent behavior, not the minors with minors, that's a parenting problem in my eyes.
    - jdbeast00 17y ago
      so the girl in the article who gave a blowjob when she was 15 to a guy in her class...you think its appropriate now that she is 30 that everywhere she moves she has to announce that she's a sex offender? come on, that's ridiculous. If we are putting sex offender registries online, lets put all criminal registries online as well. I should know if I live next to people with drug habits, right?
      - nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
        "Hi, I'm legally obligated to tell you that I'm a registered drug offender." "No way! Me too!!" "Duuuude..."
    - MikeCapone 17y ago
      There is a longer piece here that I encourage you to read: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 Major points: -A lot of the people on these registers are not considered dangerous (people who had consensual sex as teenagers) -There's no evidence that these public registers reduce the risk. -They ruin the lives of many people.
- sho 17y ago
  What's changed? Easy, people are too rich and lazy and now democracy doesn't work any more. I hope the answer isn't too upsetting but you know it's true.
chrischen 17y ago
Because a hundred years ago 40 year old men married 12 year old girls.
- astine 17y ago
  Not in America, they didn't. 200 years there were some youthful betrothals happening, but marriage has kind of always been reserved for those that could make legally binding decisions.
  - byrneseyeview 17y ago
    I'm not sure that's entirely true: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODM4MzkyNzVmMjhhYWM0NWM2OWRkNDE5OGVhMmJhYTc= http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODM4MzkyNzVmMjhhYWM0NWM... One of the first media sensations ever to impinge upon my consciousness was the visit to Britain by rock star Jerry Lee Lewis in May 1958, four months before Lolita’s American debut. This was supposed to be a concert tour, but 22-year-old Jerry had brought his wife Myra along, and the British press got wind of the fact that Myra was only 13. This wasn’t an unusual thing in the south of that time; Jerry himself had first been wed at 15 (when he already had a drinking problem). Myra was his third wife, and also his second cousin once removed. Back then country people grew up fast and close to their kin. Neither Jerry nor Myra could understand what the fuss was about. He: “I plumb married the girl, didn’t I?” She: “Back home you can marry at 10, if you can find a husband.” (This was not true, even in the south, though Myra likely believed it. She also, according to the British press, believed in Santa Claus.) It didn’t help that Jerry’s new record was titled High School Confidential.
  - swombat 17y ago
    Actually, even today there are some US states that allow marriage between minors who are under the age of consent, so long as they have parental approval. See the last paragraph of this interesting article: http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html
  - helveticaman 17y ago
    The parents of the youthfully betrothed, in this case.
dusklight 17y ago
Why is this hacker news?
- cturner 17y ago
  It's definitely taken a dive recently. There wasn't even enough momentum to bin the kennedy story the other day, and there were people even defending the post! The signal-to-noise ratio is the most important factor of a system like this, and there is zero value in the site if it degenerates into the same gray goo that has consumed everything else.
  - sh1mmer 17y ago
    To point out, as someone always does, hacker news is news that is interesting to hackers. The best hackers tend to have a wide range of interests, including current affairs.
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      Scope creep on relevant topics + widening and increasing userbase = digg/reddit clone.
    - alex_c 17y ago
      This is neither news, nor current affairs. It is a political trend that has been going on for many years, and is unlikely to change any time soon. What's even less likely is that the discussion here will produce any new insights or solutions. Sure, the story itself or some of the arguments in the comments might be news to SOMEONE, but I'm not convinced that's a good enough justification. This is precisely the kind of conversation - emotional, low barrier of entry, "common sense" outrage, the same points being endlessly echoed - that makes Reddit what it is.
      - davidw 17y ago
        http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=790361 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=790361 Compare the comment ratio here ...
jacquesm 17y ago
It wasn't until too long ago that rape within the marriage 'did not exist' in America. With 'did not exist' I don't mean to say it didn't happen, just that since you could not call it rape there was no way to do anything about it. Fortunately that has changed now, but still, in a large number of US states this is considered a 'lesser crime' according to this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_rape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_rape
- pyre 17y ago
  The problem is that stuff like this can arise from 'domestic disputes.' Maybe it wasn't rape, but the other spouse just wants to 'get revenge' for losing an argument or something. Not to say we should ignore it, but the courts hate dealing with these sort of issues because they can be so messy.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I think that the courts have their ways of dealing with frivolous lawsuits. People that lie to the court are found out - most of the time, not all of the time - and that's one situation you really don't want to find yourself in. Lying under oath is generally not a good idea.
    - pyre 17y ago
      Really? I was under the impression -- at least in the US at the local/state level -- that perjury was not a highly prosecuted crime. In most cases, it was just a charge that was brandied about to force a confession or something similar. It might be different if you're the star witness in a big case, or you're the one that's actually bringing the charges... In most domestic disputes, things really end up in a 'he said/she said' situation where there aren't many facts to back things up. Which is why the courts hate dealing with this. You end up having to just listen to both sides and try and make a decision about which person is more believable...
semiquaver 17y ago
As with many of their headline articles, the economist also did a much more in-depth "Briefing" about this topic in the same issue: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614
elai 17y ago
If i was a politician, I could spin it as "Catching Real Sex Offenders Act" where I would refocus the list towards the "scary types" and put the the frivolous ones on a second tier (drunk guy pissing on a wall, kids doing stupid things) or forgiven; and viciously attack politicians who want to distract and waste our police's time & money bothering with a guy who drunkenly pissed on a wall 20 years ago and go after the Real Bad Guys who parents are actually scared of.
- sh1mmer 17y ago
  The problem is your opponents would still slap up a bunch of ads saying "elai would let monsters take your children". Most people aren't following the debate they are being sensationalized by 30second editorials.
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    Not if you sell it right. In fact, I'd argue it isn't even that hard a case to make if you push the right points. Put it this way: If 10 people are marked as sex offenders in your area but only one of them is actually guilty of a violent sex crime than the 9 other guys wrongfully on the list only serve to make your children less safe. Because they end up distracting you from the real danger and making it so you only pay 1/10th of the attention you should to the one guy who is actually dangerous. Follow that up with a bunch of real life stories about 17 year olds put on the list for having sex with 16 years olds and you'll be set. Because you'll have proven the current laws make children less safe while themselves harming innocent people. That's not hard to understand and I don't think it's hard to sell to the American public.
    - jonknee 17y ago
      Don't doubt the power of spin. Living wills = death panels in a sizable percentage of the population. You're right, but the truth doesn't matter very much.
      - TomOfTTB 17y ago
keltecp11 17y ago
There is no bright line law here... every state is different. We once had a developer working for us who in 1992 had a server that was unsecure and someone was sending kiddy-porn via it. Of course he is now considered a 'sex offender' and his life is well... over. But what can we do? Everyday you hear a story about a kidnapping and American's are scared, protective, etc... I do agree that something needs to be done. In fact, I wrote my Thesis on 'The Illegalities of The TV Show To Catch a Predator" I think some of you will enjoy it: http://stalemelon.blogspot.com/2009/04/to-catch-predator-invasion-of-privacy.html http://stalemelon.blogspot.com/2009/04/to-catch-predator-inv... -P
- pyre 17y ago
  Ignoring any illegalities of 'To Catch a Predator,' there is the moral issue that they are fueling this mass hysteria over 'oh noes my child!' that is largely the product of less fact than fiction. They are blowing the dangers of the 'lone child raping stranger that will kidnap my child' out of proportion just to get ratings. They are playing on some of the same human viciousness that the Roman Colosseum played on (getting people to watch slaves fight for their life/to the death).
ccc3 17y ago
Making laws bigger instead of stronger seems to be an increasingly common problem (At least in the US. not sure if the same is true of other countries). It seems to be the result of an imperfection in our political system. In certain communities, any legislation that would increase the scope of sex offender laws, no matter how senseless, will be met with support. And given the nature of sound-byte journalism these days, it's politically impossible to oppose one of these laws and still be reelected. I think drunk driving is another example of the same pattern. We've ratcheted down the blood alcohol content limit to 0.08% in most places (generally equivalent to a couple of drinks) yet there are habitual offenders still on the road. I had a friend get hit head on by a drunk driver with 8 DUI's. In both cases the focus should be on dealing with the serious offenders swiftly and severely and not on maximizing the number of infractions.
- thismat 17y ago
  I can agree, the public freaks out and band together without really thinking about what should be considered a serious offense or not. And I can definitely see it doing more harm than good. Really, though, every issue these days seems to be driven on fear and panic, which leads to people wanting to see more action, not refined action.
  - pyre 17y ago
    Reminds me of a dilbert-esque quote that I heard (on Digg or /.) a few years back... It was a 'call to action' by a manager, "We need to do something even if it isn't the right thing"
kennu 17y ago
It was a good article 3 weeks ago when it was featured on other sites. I dislike reading (slightly) old stuff in Hacker News.
- p_h 17y ago
  Here here, how did this get to the top of HackerNews? Maybe the whole California kidnapper put this back in peoples minds.
p_h 17y ago
I don't think sex offenders are being punished too much, it's just America's definition of sex offender that goes too far.
geebee 17y ago
These laws are a product of a very toxic combination of factors. Unfortunately, I think these factors are especially prevalent in the United States, though they also exist elsewhere. The first ingredient is intensely sympathetic and aggrieved victims. Mothers who have lost children to drunk drivers or sex predators, are not a group anyone wants to ignore. Not just for political reasons, but because we (society, politicians) really are profoundly disturbed by the crimes and want to bring justice and do something about it. The second is a bad set of laws that don't protect the innocent (at first) Laws that allow a convicted child rapist to live in a neighborhood without notifying the neighbors, laws that allow a guy who makes a habit of drinking 15 beers and driving home to say "sorry, I didn't mean to cause that horrifying accident". These things motivate society to form and back up organizations that lobby for strict laws. The third is "lobbying as therapy." When you lose a child, you are so full of grief, and for many, fighting against the wicked is the only way to get over the grief. The problem is, what do you do when the basic legislation that should have always been there is put into place? When drunk driving is illegal and punished. When genuine, dangerous sex offenders are identified and barred from activities where they would come into contact with potential victims? This leads to the fourth ingredient: the inertia of organizations. Interestingly, when organizations achieve their goals, they don't go away. They set new goals. Got the BAC illegal at 12%? Go for 10%. 10%? Go for 8%. Raise the drinking age to 21. Raise the jail time from one week to two. Eventually, the good and righteous work (and I'm not being sarcastic here, the early work on drunk driving and sex offenders was absolutely the right thing to do) is gone, but the organizations have funding, positions to fill, calls to make. They don't just go away. The fifth ingredient - and this is more endemic to the US, I think - is a puritanical society that has always secretly hoped to criminalize certain types of "immoral" behavior. Prohibition didn't work, but there are still a lot of Americans who, for whatever reason, want to criminalize the demon rum. Drunk driving laws are an outlet for them. Many US states still have enforced laws that make selling a vibrator illegal (seriously). Sex offender laws may be an outlet for these folks. The problem is the same as above - what do you do when the good laws are now in place? You go for laws that are stricter, and stricter, and stricter... Until it becomes counter productive, which is especially tragic. There's an article on SF gate today about a 29 year old woman who was abducted when she was 11 years old. She was kept in a compound by a convicted sex offender, the kind nobody, and I mean nobody, would ever defend, the kind who should without question be on these lists. The police went to his house. He was on the registry. They just didn't find the girl for 18 years. The laws didn't protect her at all. This is the only hope for reasonable laws - when we can explain how diverting resources to monitoring someone who peed against a wall is the same as diverting them away from monitoring the truly evil and dangerous. It's a hard sell, though. People understand how getting strict on crime can reduce it, but it's harder to connect with how being more lenient on minor offenses can, in some cases, reduce really serious crime. The human tragedy of some of these stories is pretty serious too, and may some day help unravel the mess this has created.
sup7rstar 17y ago
Sex laws are really crazy in this country. Even politicians get in trouble after having certain affairs. You can't even have a private life anymore... where are our liberties going?
january 17y ago
goatse'd by the economist?! http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...
nazgulnarsil 17y ago
this isn't just a problem with sex offenders, that's just the most egregious example. our entire legal system revolves around a puritanical, deontological justification rather than a rational, consequentialist distribution of resources where it will help prevent the most harm.

118 points by MikeCapone 17y ago

Extremely harsh laws branding and shaming sex offenders for life seem very easy for politicans to pass, and wildly popular. Once they're passed, as the article noted, it's hard to imagine anyone mustering the political willpower to strike them down. From the perspective of someone pretty young - why are these laws being instituted now, instead of, say, a hundred years ago? What's changed? Is it simply a matter of finally having enough central organization to actually effectively track and monitor them?

MikeCapone 17y ago
Is it possible that one thing that has changed is the media/entertainment world? Most of what people know about people who commit sex crimes comes from movies and the evening news, and is not representative of the vast majority (90%+ ?) of people who end up on these lists. Same with people in prison. People imagine that it's a bunch of murderers and career criminals, while it's mostly pot smokers and non-violent offenders.
- scott_s 17y ago
  It's not just that the media has changed, there's much, much more of it. The problem with 24-hour news channels is they are 24 hours. Even if there's no real news to report, they have to talk about something. Hence they go in an entertainment direction, or harp on things that people have an emotional response to that is not in balance with the actual risk - such as child molesters.
  - pyre 17y ago
    The number of children that are sexually abused/kidnapped/murdered by complete strangers PALES in comparison to the number of children that are abused/kidnapped/murdered by family members/close friends/teachers/etc. Yet people go all ga-ga about guy in the beat-up car trolling through residential neighborhoods to entice kids into his car with promises of candy. This image is largely a modern-day boogie-man. It does happen, and it is a tragedy. But there are MORE children that are raped by a parent/sibling/babysitter than there are by complete strangers.
    - scott_s 17y ago
      Yes, that's what I was referring to.
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      Which is fine if you're considering general law making - the thing is that it doesn't matter one hoot to a parent, Ms. Dugar's mother say, that the chance of a car stopping at the side of the road and snatching your child is vanishingly small. If it happens at all it happens too often. It's no comfort to know if you've been incarcerated for years with the threat of sexual abuse, torture or death hanging over you that very few people get kidnapped really.
      - scott_s 17y ago
        It does matter to a parent, because parents (and people in general) should worry about things in proportion to their likelihood to happen and their impact. But we are irrational creatures, and we don't.
- cellis 17y ago
  Mostly pot smokers and non-violent offenders. Citation needed. My father works in a medium-security prison, and it is exactly as "people imagine".
  - RyanMcGreal 17y ago
    Put pot smokers and non-violent offenders into prison, and they turn into hardened criminals.
    - zach 17y ago
      Citation needed. Here, let me Google "prison recidivism non-violent" for you -- a 1997 study which suggests that only about 15% of nonviolent offenders are returned to prison within three years for violent offenses [PDF]: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pnoesp.pdf http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pnoesp.pdf
      - sho 17y ago
        You're proving the parent's point?
        zach 17y ago
        Isn't 15% is about what you would expect if they were randomly convicted first of a nonviolent offense?
        radu_floricica 17y ago
        Maybe in America. In my corner of the world it would be way under 1%.
        zach 17y ago
        I wouldn't be surprised if it were lower, but I would love to see some real statistics in play.
- adrinavarro 17y ago
  Media is not the key. In fact, we can't change the media/entertainment world, but change perception of things in our society. For example, a guy which has once visited a prostitute in his life is not a sexual offender. At least for me. That said, it's a priority to set levels of "punishment" (like appearing on a public list that after becomes an iPhone app, and after all your neighbors know that you appear in a sexual offender list, when it's just some stupidity you did some day). On another side, I find that the consensual sex ages may be a bit high. For example, 'we' (DISCLAIMER: I'm a 15y guy) do it around 14-16, not 16-18. And, why consider that like a crime, or something bad? (hey, we do have fun in secure ways, just avoid any unneeded intervention in it)
  - jsteele 17y ago
    "Media is not the key. In fact, we can't change the media/entertainment world, but change perception of things in our society." Where do you think "perception of things in our society" comes from?
    - pyre 17y ago
      We need to get people to stop believing that 'tv == realism.' Watching "Law & Order" doesn't make you a legal expert. Watching "The Sopranos" doesn't mean that you know all about the mob. There are people that believe this though. Statements like, "the revolution will not be televised" are a reflection of this tendency in our society.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  That is a major factor; our communications technology does not immunize us from moral panics - if anything it can amplify them. I wouldn't say 'most' prisoners are pot smokers or non-violent, although I think too many of the former are in prison. In California I think the rate of imprisonment for drug violations is about 20% - don't have time to looking up the stats now. That's not as high as people imagine, and of course many of those people are gangbangers or suchlike rather than hippies who were smoking peacefully on a mountaintop and suddenly got arrested. But you have to factor in 3 strikes and so on as well. Unfortunately more people will vote for 'throw away the key!' than 'study and rehabilitiate!', and California has a very powerful prison officer's union which always heavily supports law-and-order legislation and ballot initiatives. Although I too found this article very interesting, I do have to question if it really passes the HN smell test...the kind of policy questions under discussion here are not really amenable to technical solutions. No flag, but I urge you to be a bit more selective.
- thismat 17y ago
  As a father, I can say that if someone moves in near me and they're a registered sex offender, I hope to know about it. I don't care how minuscule the crime is, the possibility of repeat offenses or misbehavior is too high to risk it. "Is the punishment too harsh" is purely subjective, sometimes yes, sometimes no, but any inappropriate behavior around children (impressionable, gullible, naive) should be punished. If a person shows that kind of poor judgment they should suffer the consequences of their actions. EDIT: A lot of this has to do with parenting practices and their responsibility in all of this as well. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but not trusting people until they've earned it has kept me out of more situations than the hassle it might have caused. It's depressing we don't value our youth more honestly. This is also not really related to HN, I expect to find this on digg/reddit/slash., but here? EDIT: To the reply about the 15 year old giving a blowjob to a classmate, read the subjective part again, sometimes the punishment doesn't fit the crime, especially when you consider two minors, I'm addressing the adult indecent behavior, not the minors with minors, that's a parenting problem in my eyes.
  - jdbeast00 17y ago
    so the girl in the article who gave a blowjob when she was 15 to a guy in her class...you think its appropriate now that she is 30 that everywhere she moves she has to announce that she's a sex offender? come on, that's ridiculous. If we are putting sex offender registries online, lets put all criminal registries online as well. I should know if I live next to people with drug habits, right?
    - nuclear_eclipse 17y ago
      "Hi, I'm legally obligated to tell you that I'm a registered drug offender." "No way! Me too!!" "Duuuude..."
  - MikeCapone 17y ago
    There is a longer piece here that I encourage you to read: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 Major points: -A lot of the people on these registers are not considered dangerous (people who had consensual sex as teenagers) -There's no evidence that these public registers reduce the risk. -They ruin the lives of many people.
sho 17y ago
What's changed? Easy, people are too rich and lazy and now democracy doesn't work any more. I hope the answer isn't too upsetting but you know it's true.

chrischen 17y ago

Because a hundred years ago 40 year old men married 12 year old girls.

astine 17y ago
Not in America, they didn't. 200 years there were some youthful betrothals happening, but marriage has kind of always been reserved for those that could make legally binding decisions.
- byrneseyeview 17y ago
  I'm not sure that's entirely true: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODM4MzkyNzVmMjhhYWM0NWM2OWRkNDE5OGVhMmJhYTc= http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODM4MzkyNzVmMjhhYWM0NWM... One of the first media sensations ever to impinge upon my consciousness was the visit to Britain by rock star Jerry Lee Lewis in May 1958, four months before Lolita’s American debut. This was supposed to be a concert tour, but 22-year-old Jerry had brought his wife Myra along, and the British press got wind of the fact that Myra was only 13. This wasn’t an unusual thing in the south of that time; Jerry himself had first been wed at 15 (when he already had a drinking problem). Myra was his third wife, and also his second cousin once removed. Back then country people grew up fast and close to their kin. Neither Jerry nor Myra could understand what the fuss was about. He: “I plumb married the girl, didn’t I?” She: “Back home you can marry at 10, if you can find a husband.” (This was not true, even in the south, though Myra likely believed it. She also, according to the British press, believed in Santa Claus.) It didn’t help that Jerry’s new record was titled High School Confidential.
- swombat 17y ago
  Actually, even today there are some US states that allow marriage between minors who are under the age of consent, so long as they have parental approval. See the last paragraph of this interesting article: http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html http://www.faqs.org/childhood/A-Ar/Age-of-Consent.html
- helveticaman 17y ago
  The parents of the youthfully betrothed, in this case.

dusklight 17y ago

Why is this hacker news?

cturner 17y ago
It's definitely taken a dive recently. There wasn't even enough momentum to bin the kennedy story the other day, and there were people even defending the post! The signal-to-noise ratio is the most important factor of a system like this, and there is zero value in the site if it degenerates into the same gray goo that has consumed everything else.
- sh1mmer 17y ago
  To point out, as someone always does, hacker news is news that is interesting to hackers. The best hackers tend to have a wide range of interests, including current affairs.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    Scope creep on relevant topics + widening and increasing userbase = digg/reddit clone.
  - alex_c 17y ago
    This is neither news, nor current affairs. It is a political trend that has been going on for many years, and is unlikely to change any time soon. What's even less likely is that the discussion here will produce any new insights or solutions. Sure, the story itself or some of the arguments in the comments might be news to SOMEONE, but I'm not convinced that's a good enough justification. This is precisely the kind of conversation - emotional, low barrier of entry, "common sense" outrage, the same points being endlessly echoed - that makes Reddit what it is.
    - davidw 17y ago
      http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=790361 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=790361 Compare the comment ratio here ...

jacquesm 17y ago

It wasn't until too long ago that rape within the marriage 'did not exist' in America. With 'did not exist' I don't mean to say it didn't happen, just that since you could not call it rape there was no way to do anything about it. Fortunately that has changed now, but still, in a large number of US states this is considered a 'lesser crime' according to this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_rape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_rape

pyre 17y ago
The problem is that stuff like this can arise from 'domestic disputes.' Maybe it wasn't rape, but the other spouse just wants to 'get revenge' for losing an argument or something. Not to say we should ignore it, but the courts hate dealing with these sort of issues because they can be so messy.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I think that the courts have their ways of dealing with frivolous lawsuits. People that lie to the court are found out - most of the time, not all of the time - and that's one situation you really don't want to find yourself in. Lying under oath is generally not a good idea.
  - pyre 17y ago
    Really? I was under the impression -- at least in the US at the local/state level -- that perjury was not a highly prosecuted crime. In most cases, it was just a charge that was brandied about to force a confession or something similar. It might be different if you're the star witness in a big case, or you're the one that's actually bringing the charges... In most domestic disputes, things really end up in a 'he said/she said' situation where there aren't many facts to back things up. Which is why the courts hate dealing with this. You end up having to just listen to both sides and try and make a decision about which person is more believable...

semiquaver 17y ago

As with many of their headline articles, the economist also did a much more in-depth "Briefing" about this topic in the same issue: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614

elai 17y ago

If i was a politician, I could spin it as "Catching Real Sex Offenders Act" where I would refocus the list towards the "scary types" and put the the frivolous ones on a second tier (drunk guy pissing on a wall, kids doing stupid things) or forgiven; and viciously attack politicians who want to distract and waste our police's time & money bothering with a guy who drunkenly pissed on a wall 20 years ago and go after the Real Bad Guys who parents are actually scared of.

sh1mmer 17y ago
The problem is your opponents would still slap up a bunch of ads saying "elai would let monsters take your children". Most people aren't following the debate they are being sensationalized by 30second editorials.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  Not if you sell it right. In fact, I'd argue it isn't even that hard a case to make if you push the right points. Put it this way: If 10 people are marked as sex offenders in your area but only one of them is actually guilty of a violent sex crime than the 9 other guys wrongfully on the list only serve to make your children less safe. Because they end up distracting you from the real danger and making it so you only pay 1/10th of the attention you should to the one guy who is actually dangerous. Follow that up with a bunch of real life stories about 17 year olds put on the list for having sex with 16 years olds and you'll be set. Because you'll have proven the current laws make children less safe while themselves harming innocent people. That's not hard to understand and I don't think it's hard to sell to the American public.
  - jonknee 17y ago
    Don't doubt the power of spin. Living wills = death panels in a sizable percentage of the population. You're right, but the truth doesn't matter very much.
    - TomOfTTB 17y ago

keltecp11 17y ago

There is no bright line law here... every state is different. We once had a developer working for us who in 1992 had a server that was unsecure and someone was sending kiddy-porn via it. Of course he is now considered a 'sex offender' and his life is well... over. But what can we do? Everyday you hear a story about a kidnapping and American's are scared, protective, etc... I do agree that something needs to be done. In fact, I wrote my Thesis on 'The Illegalities of The TV Show To Catch a Predator" I think some of you will enjoy it: http://stalemelon.blogspot.com/2009/04/to-catch-predator-invasion-of-privacy.html http://stalemelon.blogspot.com/2009/04/to-catch-predator-inv... -P

pyre 17y ago
Ignoring any illegalities of 'To Catch a Predator,' there is the moral issue that they are fueling this mass hysteria over 'oh noes my child!' that is largely the product of less fact than fiction. They are blowing the dangers of the 'lone child raping stranger that will kidnap my child' out of proportion just to get ratings. They are playing on some of the same human viciousness that the Roman Colosseum played on (getting people to watch slaves fight for their life/to the death).

ccc3 17y ago

Making laws bigger instead of stronger seems to be an increasingly common problem (At least in the US. not sure if the same is true of other countries). It seems to be the result of an imperfection in our political system. In certain communities, any legislation that would increase the scope of sex offender laws, no matter how senseless, will be met with support. And given the nature of sound-byte journalism these days, it's politically impossible to oppose one of these laws and still be reelected. I think drunk driving is another example of the same pattern. We've ratcheted down the blood alcohol content limit to 0.08% in most places (generally equivalent to a couple of drinks) yet there are habitual offenders still on the road. I had a friend get hit head on by a drunk driver with 8 DUI's. In both cases the focus should be on dealing with the serious offenders swiftly and severely and not on maximizing the number of infractions.

thismat 17y ago
I can agree, the public freaks out and band together without really thinking about what should be considered a serious offense or not. And I can definitely see it doing more harm than good. Really, though, every issue these days seems to be driven on fear and panic, which leads to people wanting to see more action, not refined action.
- pyre 17y ago
  Reminds me of a dilbert-esque quote that I heard (on Digg or /.) a few years back... It was a 'call to action' by a manager, "We need to do something even if it isn't the right thing"

kennu 17y ago

It was a good article 3 weeks ago when it was featured on other sites. I dislike reading (slightly) old stuff in Hacker News.

p_h 17y ago
Here here, how did this get to the top of HackerNews? Maybe the whole California kidnapper put this back in peoples minds.

p_h 17y ago

I don't think sex offenders are being punished too much, it's just America's definition of sex offender that goes too far.

geebee 17y ago

These laws are a product of a very toxic combination of factors. Unfortunately, I think these factors are especially prevalent in the United States, though they also exist elsewhere. The first ingredient is intensely sympathetic and aggrieved victims. Mothers who have lost children to drunk drivers or sex predators, are not a group anyone wants to ignore. Not just for political reasons, but because we (society, politicians) really are profoundly disturbed by the crimes and want to bring justice and do something about it. The second is a bad set of laws that don't protect the innocent (at first) Laws that allow a convicted child rapist to live in a neighborhood without notifying the neighbors, laws that allow a guy who makes a habit of drinking 15 beers and driving home to say "sorry, I didn't mean to cause that horrifying accident". These things motivate society to form and back up organizations that lobby for strict laws. The third is "lobbying as therapy." When you lose a child, you are so full of grief, and for many, fighting against the wicked is the only way to get over the grief. The problem is, what do you do when the basic legislation that should have always been there is put into place? When drunk driving is illegal and punished. When genuine, dangerous sex offenders are identified and barred from activities where they would come into contact with potential victims? This leads to the fourth ingredient: the inertia of organizations. Interestingly, when organizations achieve their goals, they don't go away. They set new goals. Got the BAC illegal at 12%? Go for 10%. 10%? Go for 8%. Raise the drinking age to 21. Raise the jail time from one week to two. Eventually, the good and righteous work (and I'm not being sarcastic here, the early work on drunk driving and sex offenders was absolutely the right thing to do) is gone, but the organizations have funding, positions to fill, calls to make. They don't just go away. The fifth ingredient - and this is more endemic to the US, I think - is a puritanical society that has always secretly hoped to criminalize certain types of "immoral" behavior. Prohibition didn't work, but there are still a lot of Americans who, for whatever reason, want to criminalize the demon rum. Drunk driving laws are an outlet for them. Many US states still have enforced laws that make selling a vibrator illegal (seriously). Sex offender laws may be an outlet for these folks. The problem is the same as above - what do you do when the good laws are now in place? You go for laws that are stricter, and stricter, and stricter... Until it becomes counter productive, which is especially tragic. There's an article on SF gate today about a 29 year old woman who was abducted when she was 11 years old. She was kept in a compound by a convicted sex offender, the kind nobody, and I mean nobody, would ever defend, the kind who should without question be on these lists. The police went to his house. He was on the registry. They just didn't find the girl for 18 years. The laws didn't protect her at all. This is the only hope for reasonable laws - when we can explain how diverting resources to monitoring someone who peed against a wall is the same as diverting them away from monitoring the truly evil and dangerous. It's a hard sell, though. People understand how getting strict on crime can reduce it, but it's harder to connect with how being more lenient on minor offenses can, in some cases, reduce really serious crime. The human tragedy of some of these stories is pretty serious too, and may some day help unravel the mess this has created.

sup7rstar 17y ago

Sex laws are really crazy in this country. Even politicians get in trouble after having certain affairs. You can't even have a private life anymore... where are our liberties going?

january 17y ago

goatse'd by the economist?! http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14164614 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

this isn't just a problem with sex offenders, that's just the most egregious example. our entire legal system revolves around a puritanical, deontological justification rather than a rational, consequentialist distribution of resources where it will help prevent the most harm.