Are You an "A," an "RSO," a "MU," or "Other?"

And the Registered Sex Offender Circus continues...

(Please see earlier posts for disclaimer.)
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Part Five

...and another life is ruined. (Salon.com link; you'll have to watch a brief ad. The original article is here.)

Wednesday the Utah Supreme Court found itself in legal pickle, as it looked at a case in which a 13-year-old girl who'd gotten pregnant with her 12-year-old boyfriend as simultaneously a victim and a sex offender. Comparing the state's ill-conceived statutory rape laws with those concerning 19th century honor killings, Associate Chief Justice Michael Wilkins told the Salt Lake Tribune: "The only thing that comes close to this is dueling."

As a mother of two girls, I want age-of-consent laws to scare off creepy guys. And since some pedophile groups have made it their cause célèbre to fight for sexual rights, some part of me would like to set the planetary AoC around 28 and call it a day. On the other hand, I shudder to think of my girl getting "protected" by any law like Utah's. When it means treating a kid unfortunate enough to get pregnant at the tender age of 13 as a sex offender, there's something seriously twisted in Mayberry. No doubt after a notorious history as a breeding ground for polygamous megalomaniacal assholes who prey on young girls in hopes of siring the next messiah, Utah's eager not to look too flaccid when it comes to age of consent. (In fairness, megalomaniacal assholes reside in other states, too.)

But let's face it, these laws are a colander of legal worms. Yes, when grown men or women have sex with children, it's a serious crime, but drawing those lines isn't always easy. Given the variance among state laws, what's legal as a consensual act of love between two people in one location can become statutory rape a mile away. Many states try to make mitigate these laws by creating "close-in-age exceptions." For instance, Utah doesn't criminalize 16- and 17-year-old teens having sex with others in their own age group; even 14- or 15-year-olds who have sex with peers fewer than four years older are committing no more than a misdemeanor. Unfortunately, the 13-year-old falls into neither of these categories -- so in the eyes of the law, she's considered a full-fledged sex offender. (Utah's high court hasn't ruled on whether she can be prosecuted yet, but lower courts have held that she can, according to the SLTrib.)

(More below the fold)
This just goes to show (yet again) how bizarre these Age of Consent and "Registered Sex Offender" laws can be. Simultaneously cast as a victim and an offender, this girl is now branded with the RSO label for life, unless the judge in this case suddenly has an attack of common sense.

The Utah Court of Appeals last December upheld the judge's refusal to dismiss the allegation. At Tuesday's arguments, Matthew Bates, an assistant Utah attorney general, argued the prosecution of the girl was not unreasonable. He said the statute in question is designed to prevent sex with children who are 13 and younger, even if the other person is in the same age group. By passing that law, legislators were sending a message, Bates said: Sex with or among children is unacceptable. Randall Richards, the girl's attorney, argued that prosecuting children under a law meant to protect them is illogical.

Meanwhile, no one seems to be arguing that said sex was consensual. Look, I don't like the idea of 12 and 13-year-olds having sex either, but who is being "protected" in this case by registering this girl as a sex offender? (I'm assuming her boyfriend may also be prosecuted as such; as she is considered his "victim" in this case.) She's a few months away from an age when this act would be considered a misdemeanor (if not completely ignored), but now she'll be dogged for the rest of her life by the RSO Scarlet Letter. She's thirteen. How will this affect her getting into college? Into a good job later in life? Hell, what if her high school decides they don't want a "registered sex offender" in their halls? What if, some day, she wants to rent an apartment?

In an effort to protect children from sexual predators, legislation is being passed that not only won't protect them, but is also categorizing children who have sex as predators. The current laws simply aren't working; they do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. If anything, they are making it worse by making truly dangerous sex offenders more mobile, and more difficult to track. Fortunately, some people seem to be waking up, but it's too little, too late, for many people who carry the mark of the registered sex offender who may not necessarily be a horrific danger to the general public.

But hey, if it's broke, why not break it some more? (bolds mine)

Internet registries of rapists or pedophiles are available in every state, but a new breed of criminal now is experiencing the notoriety of being outed online — people convicted of making or selling methamphetamine.

"It lets the community know that there’s someone like this in their community, because the likelihood of them going back and doing it again is high," said Georgia state Rep. Mike Coan, who is spearheading meth registry legislation. "It’s no different, really, from the sex offender (registry). If there’s one living near me, I want to know it."

The idea of posting the names of meth offenders online is gaining momentum. Four states have put in place laws to create Internet meth offender registries, two are putting final touches on similar laws, and several other proposed bills are in limbo until the state legislatures start the new session.

But critics say the registries raise legal questions, do little to protect the public and may have unintended consequences.

"The problem with these registries is that we’re creating a class of untouchables within our society who cannot rent apartments or secure employment," said Jonathan Turley, a criminal defense attorney and law professor at George Washington University. “When you diminish the likelihood that ex-felons can live and work in society, you increase the chances that they will return to criminal behavior.”

Absolutely brilliant. Take an ineffective concept that amounts to nothing more than a forum for public humiliation of criminals, and apply it to another current "hot button topic." Don't pass any legislation to provide funds and assistance towards prevention, education or treatment; just create an online pillory.

“Unlike other drugs where it is really harmful to you and your family, meth is hazardous to all around you,” said Jennifer Johnson, public affairs officer at the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, which maintains the state's database. “… That’s why we don’t foresee a heroin or cocaine registry.”

Yet.

And how exactly are heroin and cocaine not hazardous to all around you? So, I should worry about the possibility of a meth lab exploding in my neighborhood, but I shouldn't worry about people selling coke on my street because it's not hazardous to me? I guess if there's a drug-related drive by shooting and bullets go stray, I needn't worry my pretty little head over it, as they have nothing to do with my family.

Yes, meth is very dangerous and is causing terrible problems all over the country, particularly in rural communities. But that doesn't diminish the impact of other drugs on the same communities. There's a very simple reason why we're seeing this new registry:

Property owners were the most forceful backers of legislation to create the meth registry, viewing it as a tool to screen prospective tenants.

But since the list does not include photographs, lists offenders by the location of their offense rather than their current addresses, and doesn't require them to notify authorities when they move, critics say it is little use to the general public.

"It's symbolic," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs at the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates reform of harsh drug laws. "It makes politicians who are really not doing anything look like they are."

Bingo.

I'm ashamed to see that my state is considering one of these registries. Apparently, they're still "working on the content;" considering if the offenders' addresses should be included on the website. Bad idea.

The American Civil Liberties Union questions the registries on the grounds that they amount to unconstitutional "double jeopardy" by imposing additional punishment on offenders after they have served their time.

A court challenge to sex offender registries on those grounds failed when the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that they were a legitimate way of protecting the public. But it is not clear that the threat posed by drug offenders will be deemed as serious, said Turley, the George Washington University professor.

He also warned that publicizing the whereabouts of former drug offenders after they are released from prison could put them at risk, including former gang members or others simply trying avoid getting sucked back into the drug lifestyle.

"The registry (with their addresses) would present a clear and present danger to them," he said.

That's not a frivolous concern.

In April this year, Ralph Marshall, a 20-year-old Canadian, found two sex offenders through Internet registries and gunned them down in their homes in Maine before killing himself.

The year before, in August, a Washington man posed as an FBI agent to enter the apartment of three registered sex offenders near Seattle and later killed two of them, authorities said.

But to many people, this kind of vigilante justice is A-OK.

Perhaps we'll start hearing some talk about re-working these draconian online criminal registries when they put together the online "White Collar Criminal Regsitration Database." Or the "Do-Nothing Politician Registration Database." Hey, a criminal's a criminal, right?

(Cross-posted, check it and see...)