Court : Making juvenile sex offender register is unconstitutional

[Bozita]

Source: Detroit Free Press

POSTED: 10 A.M. NOV. 4, 2009
Court : Making juvenile sex offender register is unconstitutional
BY DAWSON BELL
FREE PRESS LANSING BUREAU


Requiring a youthful offender convicted for having sexual relations with an underage girl in a Romeo and Juliet relationship to register as a sex offender is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment, a state Court of Appeals panel has decided.

The three-judge panel, in a unanimous ruling released this morning, said forcing the youth to comply with Michigan’s sex offender registry act even after he completed probation and his criminal record was expunged is unduly harsh and did not serve the interest of protecting the public.

The Muskegon area defendant was 18 in 2004 when he was convicted of attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct for having relations with his then 15-year-old girlfriend. After completing probation, he was required to register as a sex offender for 10 years, a condition which the defendant said made it virtually impossible for him to find work.

The court noted that the Legislature changed Michigan law on Oct. 1, 2004, to lift the sex offender registry requirement from those involved in youthful, consensual relationships.

Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20091104/NEWS06/91104025/1001/NEWS/Court--Making-juvenile-sex-offender-register-is-unconstitutional

[Kerrytravelers]

1. I've often wondered about how this law works.

If an 18 year old has sex with his/her consenting 17 year old boyfriend/girlfriend, are they really a sexual offender? Are they really the same as the offender who targets children in elementary school? I think the film The Rainmaker had a mention of such a thing (which seems remarkably similiar to this particular case, including a later marriage.) It seems to me that there might need to be varying levels of offenders. I wouldn't fear a teenager who had sex with their consenting teenage boy/girlfriend. I would fear a serial rapist next door.

Am I way off here? Is there more to the law than I understand?

[Gedankenaustausch]

3. you wouldn't fear a teen

who had sex with their consenting teenage boy/friend? The Sexting plague that sent our nation spirialing out of control proved that teens having sex are more dangerous than the serial rapist next door! I haven't seen fear in Wolf Blitzer's eyes like that since someone tried to give him his spine back. I'm surprised no one has linked sexting and teens having sex to the financial crisis. I'm sure it will all come out one day.

[Piewhacket]

6. No. you understand - politics and the mob, ignorance and insanity.

There are bad actors whenever these laws are passed.
Politics, ignorance, apathy, greed, blind hate and bigotry

There is no disagreement that sexual assault is a serious
crime, and child molestation is especially intolerable.

But by making ALL sexually related offenses subject to
the same harsh penalties imposed AFTER the normal sentence
is served, the injustice of the entire system is exposed

For the accused is not merely subjet to law but is also
subject to harsh and unjust treatment BEFORE conviction
by media circus disinformation campaign intended to inflame
the public - whatever the truth - for profit.

then WE create by law system of special legal procedures
assaulting due process for the accused, procedures under
various pretextual guises but which are really intended
and do actually debilitate the ability to defend against the
accusations -- and the laws even have the further
perverse effect of coercing false pleas to lesser offenses
to avoid life in prison, even for the innocent.

then finally, in the most perverse of all, by imposing laws
that are intended to stigmatize and debilitate and punish
AFTER defendants serve harsh terms, as the registration
laws do the thinly veiled guise of "protecting the public",

It is a 'reign of terror' of injustice, for it fails miserably to
insure people are convicted only of the crimes they commit, that the real
perpetrator is found, and that punishment is proportional to the offense.

To heap injustice on injustice it further conclusively
presumes future dangerousness after the sentence is served, with no
(meaningful) exception, assuring the complete destruction of the
remaining life of the guilty, the innocent, or the in-between, alike.

Its time people in this country started realizing that the courts are
not really going to save society from the abusive and improper
laws they pass, nor from the unintended and unjust consequences of them.
It is time to quit letting the media and the politicians and
whackjobs run you, and that it is YOUR responsibility to assure that
only proper laws are passed, and that these are not perverse with unintended
injustice.

The system is broken. Someone broke it over my vigorous protest.

[placton]

10. many of the offenders on MI's list are now married

to their "victims"

[Ter]

12. In most states 17 is legal to have sex with

Even if you're 60.

[Kerrytravelers]

13. Well, whatever that age is. A 16 year old with a 17 year old. A 15 with a 16.

My point wasn't the exact legal age, but one where the two people are within that same peer group, both parties are consenting, and yet a parent can accuse one of raping the other and now, we have a "sexual offender."

I'm not advocating teenagers have wild orgies, but do we really want to call two consenting teenagers having sex the making of a "sexual offender"? That is quite different than a 37 year old with a 7 year old.

And, clearly, if one of those teenagers in the hypothetical situation above isn't consenting, then, of course, it is rape. If you're mature enough to have sex, you need to be responsible when someone else says "no."

[TexasObserver]

24. It seems there should have to be more than 3 years difference in age.

At least once the person is 15 years old.

I think it's important that we, as a society, learn to accept the reality of teen conduct and refuse to criminalize conduct that is ordinary. We are far too harsh with teens now when it comes to holding them criminally responsible for everything from smoking weed, to drinking, to smoking cigarettes, to ditching school, to minor vandalism, to having sex with class mates.

Teens need structure, but they also need acceptance. They screw up. They do things they shouldn't and end up puking drunk, or wrecked and in the ditch, or pregnant.

We need more common sense in handling teens. Every kid with an attitude doesn't need to be sent to Juvie and tagged as such. It's as likely to a problem with bad parenting as with a bad kid, and we should be addressing that. If mom is a bad example and her daughter starts dating and having sex at age 12, the root cause is mom's bad example and bad parenting. If dad is a bad example and hits his wife or girlfriend, he's the reason his son does it. These are family problems rooted in bad parenting that goes back generations.

[merwin]

18. Not true at all.

Technically it may be legal under age of consent laws, but in many states if the parent wants to bring charges you could be charged with something like contributing to the delinquency of a minor as well as even harsher charges. There are a fair amount of "immoral behavior" statutes left. While not often prosecuted, I wouldn't push your luck on it because it only takes one determined parent with a good lawyer to make your life a living hell :)

For example, in Washington it's illegal to communicate with a minor for immoral purposes even though the age of consent is 16. So, you can have sex with them, but you can't communicate with them before, during, or after having sex.

RCW 9.68A.090
Communication with minor for immoral purposes — Penalties.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes, or a person who communicates with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

(2) A person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW if the person has previously been convicted under this section or of a felony sexual offense under chapter 9.68A, 9A.44, or 9A.64 RCW or of any other felony sexual offense in this or any other state or if the person communicates with a minor or with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes through the sending of an electronic communication.

[paulsby]

20. depends on the state

in some states, the age of consent is 16. in hawaii, when i lived there, it was 14.

i really think distinctions need to be made, though. unfortunately, in many states, such cases would make one a sex offender. in some states, people arrested for streaking have been deemed sex offenders. that's absurd

[murray hill farm]

2. Good for Michigan!

Some common sense. When I lived in Georgia, there was a young man...about 20, who had sex with his girlfriend and she became pregnant. Her parents pushed the charge of statitory rape because she was just barely underaged. Later, the married and had two children....then divorced. She giving him the two children. Being a "registered sex offender", he and the children could only live in places where "sex offenders" could live....so they lived in a trailer park where serious sex offenders lived. After a couple of years, one of the children was taken...and then killed by one of the other "sex offenders" living in the park. So, good for Michigan! Maybe will save some kids in the future. I would like to see some revision of the laws to a more common sense and reasoable level.

[Hansel]

14. I had a female friend when I was a teenager who was dating

a boy when they were both 17 yrs old and she got pregnant. Because she was a couple of months older then him, she ended up turning 18 before they broke up while he was still 17. His parents went to court and successfully argued that he should not have to pay child support because she had engaged in statutory rape of a minor. That was in the 70's. If today's sex offenders law where in place back then, she not only would be left holding the bag completely for supporting the child, she would have had to register as a sex offender. His parents had money and, as you might have guessed, hers not so much.

It's about time they started showing some common sense on this.

[CoffeeCat]

4. Something needs to be done...

...about these Romeo and Juliet cases. The law must treat differently these Romeo and Juliet
situations.

It is insane that the repercussions of a 35-year old man molesting a 10 year old are the same
for an 18-year old male having sex with his 16-year old girlfriend.

When male adults and females have any sexual contact with children, the results are completely
debilitating for the survivors. I have met so many survivors in my support groups and the
trauma and suffering is literally lifelong. I know survivors who hang on by their fingernails--
until their next therapy appointment. Eating disorders, suicide attempts, depression, inability
to function, relationship difficulties were commonplace.

By grouping these "Romeo and Juliet" situations with sexual molestation of children by adults--
the crimes and the consequences of child molestation are minimized. The horror of these crimes
and the seriousness of these crimes gets muddied.

Frankly, I'm tired of this because these Romeo and Juliet scenarios are often used to cast a shadow
of doubt on sexual crimes against children. Pedophiles engage in EXTREME rationalization and denial
about their sexual behavior with children. They deny that damage is done and they twist reality
to make their sexual activity with children "ok" in their own minds. Sometimes they point to these
Romeo and Juliet cases as examples of why pedophiles are persecuted and that the law is wrong.

I really would like to see legislation that treats Romeo and Juliet cases very differently--so no one
can minimize actual child molestation cases and so people who engage in sexual activity with children
understand that they are not victims of bad law. A clear legal distinction needs to be made--between a situation involving
two teenagers and situations involving adults and children.

[Piewhacket]

11. A bandaid? You want to bandaid a spurting hemmorage?

If the law was correct in the first place
it wouldn't be necessary for proponents to
distance themselves in mock dismay as
the monsters they create wreak injustice.

But I wonder if people have any idea how bad a law
has to be before it actually violates (in what
passes for Scalia's mind) the 8th amendment ?

This ruling sends out a shock wave, for sure,
but I figure it will not stand. Courageous though,
I'll hand the judge that.

[merwin]

19. How about a 35 year old with a 14 to 16 year old girlfriend?

Provided it's not sexual molestation, is that acceptable?

Emotionally, most would say it's not. Logically, is there really a difference in a teenager's ability to consent to sexual activity whether the other party is 16 or 35? While I personally think it's quite gross, I have a hard time rationalizing in my mind that being illegal. If the person in question is legally able to consent to sexual activity with someone 3-4 years older than them, should they not also be legally able to consent to sexual activity with someone 20 years older?

I would argue that a 17 year old is just as likely to be able to convince a 14 year old to have consensual sex with them as a 35 year old is, maybe even more so... yet, one is considered more acceptable than the other. I personally think it falls under social taboo more than anything else.

Just to be clear, I'm not in any way attempting to make a case for pedophilia (recognized as age 13 or below), which is absolutely unacceptable in any case, however old the other party is.

[CoffeeCat]

27. a 35 year old man with a 14 or 16 year old---Hebephilia--illegal and revolting.

There is a word for men (or women) who are attracted to minors who have gone through puberty. It's called Hebephilia, which
makes the distinction between men (or women) who are pedophiles and attracted to prepubescent children.

A 35 year old man and a girl who is 16--are not in the same peer group. Teens are vulnerable, immature, naive and there is a power
disparity in any relationship like that. Many teens that age seem mature, but from a cognitive and developmental level--their brains
are still developing and they lack adult awareness and life skills/knowledge--that the 35 year old would have. Therein lies the
power disparity.

Hebephiliacs who desire these types of relationships are operating from positions of weakness. They are often very insecure
people who have been damaged themselves. They crave relationships with teens who will be in awe of them and who may be
intimidated by them. The key here is that these people want power. It's not just about physical attraction. They feel
fumbling when it comes to relating to their peers. So, they seek out people who are easily manipulated by them.

This is not healthy.

Another thing to remember, is that most sexual abuse is perpetrated by a person well known to the victim. That usually
translates to a father, stepfather, uncle, etc. Stranger abductions and random 35-year olds wanting to date a 15-year
old are rare, but these stories make the headlines, not the incest and family sexual abuse situations--that happen to one
in seven girls in this country. It really is an epidemic.

If we didn't have these laws, children would be even more vulnerable to intra-family sexual abuse. If we look at
35/16 sexual behavior as only "taboo" or naughty, then we're on a slippery slope. That attitude allows the sex abuser
to further rationalize that his behavior is ok and they are not doing anything wrong--it's society that has the problem.

I don't think anyone wants to enable a sex abuser.

That's why laws against having sex with minors are so critical. Fathers, stepfathers, uncles and grandfathers who think it's
just fine to molest their daughters, granddaughters, nieces, etc--need not only legal barriers, but they also need society
abhorring their actions. When people rationalize adults having sex with teenagers, that only helps these incest perpetrators
to rationalize their own behaviors--which are crimes.

Believe me, I've met hundreds of survivors of sexual abuse. Many of them were sexually abused as prepubescent children and
also as teens. These girls were told that they wanted the sex to happen. They were intimidated. They were threatened. They
were shamed. They are traumatized into going along. Of course, the perpetrator, who is the adult--has all of the power. The
perpetrator is also the person providing food, safety, shelter and emotional needs. Children,or even teens, are easily manipulated
and shut up. That's why these people choose young teens and children--because you can't get away with these crimes as an adult.
Children and teens are vulnerable. These perps often pick vulnerable children with mothers who were also sexually abused or damaged.
They know no one will believe them or help them.

So, a 35/15 relationship is more than taboo. There is a great deal of dysfunction behind a man who would do something like this.
It's one thing to think a 15 year old is pretty or attractive. It's another to enter into a sexual relationship with that teen.

Because sexual abuse inside the family is so common--the laws, in effect, end up protecting those vulnerable and inside the family
who are victims of incest. Of course, Hebephiles don't follow the law. However, society must never accept or look at these
crimes as "taboo" because that only enables the Hebephiles--who do such great damage to their victims.

And I know you aren't advocating pedophilia, nor incest--but I think it's important to point out the reasons why these behavior
are illegal--and why society must continue to thoroughly reject that these crimes are just "taboo" or cultural decisions. The
damage is so deep and usually lifelong. Many never recover.

[rd_kent]

5. I think MANY of those rrquired to register as "sex offenders" are not "sex offenders"

This is another example of a good idea gone bad.

[Piewhacket]

8. more like a bad idea gone whackout

people, for the most part, haven't got a clue
what these laws really do.

I have been to meetings where judges discuss the
problems and cases they have had... virtually
puking as they describe rulings they have had to make.
"Save me!" they seem to be saying.

I mean, can you even IMAGINE what it takes to puke a judge?
I almost can't.

[No Elephants]

7. One fact missing from the story: If the Legislature had already changed the law, why

did the court have to go to the Constitution?

What if he hadn't married the girl later?

What if the girl is 11 and the guy is 18?

What if the girl had been just under 16 and the guy just over 19, instead of 18?

Tough lines to draw rationally.

[ieoeja]

15. Laws do not apply retroactively (except in Georgia).

If we decriminalized all drugs today, those already convicted would remain in jail unless a law was passed to let them out. Same thing here. When they changed the legislation, they apparently failed to do anything about those already convicted under the old law.

[paulsby]

21. they apply retroactively often ...

but not in regards to CRIMINAL sanctions.


example of retroactive law.
when the Violence against women act was passed, it made people who had been convicted of a dv crime, ineligible to possess firearms.

that was applied RETROACTIVELY.

even police officers, who had pled guilty to DV offenses years ago, were now stripped of their right to carry firearms.

the courts ruled that this was not a CRIMINAL sanction, and therefore the retroactive application was okey dokey

[izquierdista]

16. That's why judges are paid well

And a good judge should be able to look at the law and the facts and come to a defensible conclusion. But then again, Antonin Scalia is considered a "judge".

[placton]

9. sadly

our Supreme Court, the worst in the nation, will likely overturn. There are still 4 Engler-ites on the court, tho we knocked off a 5th last year. Another (to quote the lady from BLAZING SADDLES) chief asshole in our state is up in '10 - we can only pray he will be tossed to the curb (and peed and shat upon there).

[Vidar]

17. Good.

[Tim01]

22. Stupid to lump them all together like this.

I have a friend, he is in his 70s now. He was 14 and his girlfriend was 13 when they were married. It was scandalous, but it was treated with some common sense. His girlfriend was pregnant and they wanted to get married. The marriage lasted 20 years.

[TexasObserver]

23. This is where sex registration has gone too far.

It's supposed to identify people we should fear. I don't fear 18 year olds who have otherwise consensual sex with 15 year olds. Call it bad judgment. Call it unfair advantage. Call it despicable on the part of the guy. But many 15 year old girls are as mature emotionally as the 18 year old boys they have sex with. Denying this is not logical or useful.

It is very ordinary for boys in high school to have a girlfriend two years younger. Three is a bit much, but it's still present.

It's not the couples having sex in high school that troubles me. It's the acceptance by many that sex with girls who are impaired is OK. It's the attitude that girls should have to put out, or that demanding sex is OK.

I hate to see law enforcement and the justice system involved in 18/15 year old relationships. Fifteen year olds have been married and sexually active throughout human history.

[Odin2005]

25. When I turned 18 my GF at the time was 15 for another month.

So I agree, it's BS. Go after the actual rapists and child molesters, not teens that run afoul of some legal technicality.

[TexasObserver]

26. My first serious girl friend was 17 and I was 15.

We went together a year, and it's always been a year of fond memories.

I want to see society focus on identifying known sex criminals, putting them in prison, and never letting them out until they've served their full sentence. I can never understand the early release of sexual predators. Beyond that, there's date rape or acquittance rape to deal with, as well as sexual assault inside relationships. Each of those is a crime and should be dealt with as a crime.

Sex crimes are not all the same, and we should focus most strongly on identifying those who are clearly a general threat, and doing what it takes to keep them properly incarcerated. I'm generally an opponent of incarceration, but not when it comes to violent criminals. When they have shown they will hurt others physically by rape or assault, they deserve to separated from everyone else and kept away. I don't mean inhumane treatment. But I do mean full sentences served.

[mule_train]

28. a teacher in her 20s had to register for having a fling with an 18 year old high school senior

not saying she should have done it, but an army recruiter could have recruited him into the army, sent him to an unnecessary war in iraq, have him come home paralized, severely brain damaged or in a box, and nobody would have said a word

such a f--ked up society we live in

[Piewhacket]

29. the 'fling' must have been non-consentual.

[24601]

30. When you change the conditions to add a teacher-student affair

then you introduce a new element. Schools (and the teachers) act as in loco parentis (fill-in parents) and in a position of authority have a duty toward students that a woman in her 20s on the street (or in a bar or at a party, etc) just doesn't have. It's the older female teacher with the male student that grabs the headlines. People snicker and say "Lucky student - why didn't I get a teacher like that." However, when it's a male teacher and a female student, it's handled very differently. The first presumption is that it was forcable rape or use of a date-rape drug. Then the mere seriousness of the allegation is usually sufficient for a pre-emptive castration and 20-year imprisonment while awaiting trial.