Thread: Gov. Rick Snyder Of Michigan Changes Sex Offender Laws

Wow... I'm impressed. Two Republicans supported this. I figured Democrats would be more likely to support the liberalization of sex laws.

I would agree that this sort of change has long been needed in our system.

We still have a lot of room for improvement, but this is a very positive first step.

Originally Posted by Golden Cabal

Full story here:

Gov. Rick Snyder signs law that takes teen lovers off Michigan sex offender registry | MLive.com

This is a great thing. I don't see why when it's consensual that an 18 year old boy should go to jail for having consensual sex with a seventeen year old girl and then be forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. That's the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. Under those conditions, when the sex is completely consensual, nobody should be punished or go to jail.

So a boy who is 18 and fucks a 10 yr old girl and they both say it was completely consensual that's OK with you. And this is your 10 yr daughter.

Originally Posted by Forplay

So a boy who is 18 and fucks a 10 yr old girl and they both say it was completely consensual that's OK with you. And this is your 10 yr daughter.

You clearly didn't read the law.

I guess I am a little on the fence regarding this sort of change but understand that some reason needs to come to sex offender laws as well as the registry. I can see how in some of these cases there is an injustice. How does everyone feel about the ages involved (say 13 and 17 as an example?)

... would not be listed offenses if the victim was least 13 years old but younger than 16, and if the violator was not more than four years older.

The ages listed make sense. North Carolina has a similar law for this with, I believe, the same ages and age gap.

States that don't have a sliding scale are open to a lot of abuse.

Take the story of Genarlow Wilson...

The 17-year-old jailed for having sex with a 15-year-old - Americas, World - The Independent

In short, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that Wilson was prosecuted because of his race rather than because of genuine concern by the parents of the 15 year old he had sexual relations with.

So, when you have a system in place that leaves open the possibility for selective enforcement of the law by the discretion of parents, it can manifest in all sorts of ugly prejudices.

Putting forth a solid "by the numbers" law that allows for realistic expectations concerning teenagers is much harder for people with side agendas to abuse.

Originally Posted by Forplay

So a boy who is 18 and fucks a 10 yr old girl and they both say it was completely consensual that's OK with you. And this is your 10 yr daughter.

MI merely added what's called a 'Romeo and Juliet' provision to its Megan's Law statute. It will now have the following exemption: a person will not be registered as a sex offender if the victim was least 13 years old but younger than 16, and if the violator was not more than four years older. 'Romeo and Juliet' provisions are a coined legal term of art for provisions that make full or partial exemptions where the actors are within close proximity of age in an age of consent issue under sexual offender laws.

Originally Posted by Forplay

So a boy who is 18 and fucks a 10 yr old girl and they both say it was completely consensual that's OK with you. And this is your 10 yr daughter.

Boy you love peddling BS strawman arguments don't you.

I never said such a thing. You didn't bold the first three words of that sentence, which is "Under those circumstances", meaning I was referring to the 18 and 17 year old. Any honest person would've recognized that and not make such an absurd strawman nor peddle such BS.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

The ages listed make sense. North Carolina has a similar law for this with, I believe, the same ages and age gap.

States that don't have a sliding scale are open to a lot of abuse.

Take the story of Genarlow Wilson...

The 17-year-old jailed for having sex with a 15-year-old - Americas, World - The Independent

In short, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that Wilson was prosecuted because of his race rather than because of genuine concern by the parents of the 15 year old he had sexual relations with.

So, when you have a system in place that leaves open the possibility for selective enforcement of the law by the discretion of parents, it can manifest in all sorts of ugly prejudices.

Putting forth a solid "by the numbers" law that allows for realistic expectations concerning teenagers is much harder for people with side agendas to abuse.

I do agree with this as I recall this case well, made a great deal of local media at the time. I also recall the mess that came out regarding the potential that this case was entirely race based. I tend to agree that a little expectation with the law in terms of how to deal with cases like this example is a good thing. I guess we will see how this plays out in who all applies under this law to be removed from the registry.

Originally Posted by Forplay

So a boy who is 18 and fucks a 10 yr old girl and they both say it was completely consensual that's OK with you. And this is your 10 yr daughter.

Nothing in the law permits that...

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

The ages listed make sense. North Carolina has a similar law for this with, I believe, the same ages and age gap.

States that don't have a sliding scale are open to a lot of abuse.

Take the story of Genarlow Wilson...

The 17-year-old jailed for having sex with a 15-year-old - Americas, World - The Independent

In short, there's a lot of evidence to suggest that Wilson was prosecuted because of his race rather than because of genuine concern by the parents of the 15 year old he had sexual relations with.

So, when you have a system in place that leaves open the possibility for selective enforcement of the law by the discretion of parents, it can manifest in all sorts of ugly prejudices.

Putting forth a solid "by the numbers" law that allows for realistic expectations concerning teenagers is much harder for people with side agendas to abuse.

I support 'Romeo and Juliet' exceptions within reasonable age parameters. This amendment makes sense to me; however, MI doesn't win high marks for me yet. As the article in the OP states:

. . .

The legislation, sponsored by Sens. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, and Phil Pavlov, R-St. Clair, says that certain violations -- sodomy, gross indecency or CSC with a minor -- would not be listed offenses if the victim was least 13 years old but younger than 16, and if the violator was not more than four years older.

The bills allow Michigan to avoid losses in federal funding, a penalty for states that fail to comply with a federal effort to have uniform sex offender registry standards.

“These changes make sure the registry is used to better identify and protect the public from dangerous predators,” Snyder said while exempting those “who should be living their lives and don’t pose a risk to the public.”

Jones said, “we’re narrowing the list to make it tougher on the child predator, but were fixing the Romeo and Juliet problem. Typically, 17-year-old boy, 15-year-old girl in high school, boyfriend-girlfriend, it’s still illegal but they will never again be on the sex offender list.”

Those on the list now who fall under that category will be able to petition the court after the July 1 effective date of the law to have their name removed.

“If you’re on that list as a young man, you can’t get in the Army, you can’t get a good job,” Jones said.

(bolding added)

Gov. Rick Snyder signs law that takes teen lovers off Michigan sex offender registry | MLive.com

They did it for the federal financing more than the common sense, or, should I say, the money finally motivated them to exercise common sense and rectify an ongoing injustice--and they did not address the issue of keeping such conduct illegal with reasonable 'Romeo and Juliet' provisions.

PA has the same issue. If a high school guy has sex on his 18th birthday with his high school sweetheart just a day younger, that 18 year old birthday person just committed Corruption of Minors under PA criminal law, a serious first degree misdemeanor (just one degree below a felony) with a maximum penalty of five years in prison. Let's say they are both 17 year old high school seniors...they are BOTH guilty of Corruption of Minors. In PA, Corruption of Minors receives a charge appendix to it indicating whether or not it is of a sexual nature or not. Adding to the absurdity, the age of consent in PA is 16. Felony statutory rape charges start with people under that age, so a person who has sex with someone between 16 and 18 is not committing statutory rape but is committing corruption of minors. Therefore a person between 16-18 can't consent even though they are over the age of consent.

Likewise, a person with a Corruption of Minors conviction is not added to PA's Megan's Law registry. However, beyond the relief of not having a neighbour google you on Megan's Law and dealing with its conditions, the person is ultimately still permanently damaged.

In the two 17 year old couple's cases, they will likely get a juvenile disposition in court, but it's still going to create a record of limited accessibility and where certain agencies, like law enforcement, the military, etc, can access it. For someone who turns 18 and thereafter, they are adults and they will be charged in adult proceedings and have a permanent publicly accessible Corruption of Minors 'of a sexual nature' conviction tattooed to them. As for the military, naturally they will see that. Try applying to jobs with that, or keeping your reputation good, etc.

I certainly want genuine paedophiles and child molesters given the harshest punishments with sex offender registry. I also recognise there are legitimate governmental concerns regarding juveniles having sex (teenage pregnancy, diseases, maturity issues, etc) and even cases of juveniles who might have concerning predilections such a fondling children, etc. I think these kinds of cases are likely better resolved in the civil aspect of the government arm if any advice or intervention is warranted, such as agencies for children's welfare and troubled youths, etc.

I deleted my previous response, because I misread what you posted.

So, basically, what you're saying is that federal pressure is the only thing that forced their hand?

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

I deleted my previous response, because I misread what you posted.

So, basically, what you're saying is that federal pressure is the only thing that forced their hand?

Correct.

It's kind of a sad thought that money would be the only way to convince them of the wisdom of being reasonable....

I get the impression that sex laws are often very badly designed precisely because of how irrationally most people approach the subject in general.