Students, parents often kept in dark about young sex offenders

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/211934_sexaggside14.html


There are about 1,800 juvenile sex offenders attending school in Washington, but most students would never know that the boy or girl sitting next to them in math class may have served time for molesting a child.

While higher-risk teens must register with law enforcement upon release from a state institution, local police -- who are required to notify neighbors -- do not always inform educators. And those principals who do know of sexually criminal pasts within their student population generally say nothing to parents.

Debra DeJohn of Shoreline learned this inadvertently when a co-worker living near a group home for young sex offenders received a flier explaining that a resident 19-year-old female, incarcerated at age 17 as a Level II sex offender, was now a special education student at Shorecrest High School.

"If a sex offender moves into your neighborhood, local law enforcement officials are required to notify you," he said. "However, no method exists to know whether your children are in the same classroom with a registered sex offender. This legislation would provide another tool for parents to keep their children safe."

definition of a sex offender is very different among states.

If you are 16, are you a sex offender if you have sex w/ a 13 year old?

That's something else to chew on, the term "sex offender" depends on what state you're in.

Even if both parties do it consensually. Personally, I think criminalizing sex (one of the key tenets of being a living, breathing Eukaryote) in sexually 'mature' people whose hormones are raging is both ludicrous and futile. If we want to keep people from raping each other, criminalize rape and keep it at that. Rape is rape is rape, there is no need for tacking on extra legislation defining WHEN a person can legally have sex. People are on their own maturity clocks and they will fuck when they think they are damn good and ready for it. Government should have no role in it whatsoever, save for providing adequate sexual education to minimize the potential harms.

:toast:

Consensual or non-consensual sex can result in felony charges w/ any "victim" under the age of 14. Penal Code section 288 et seq. I'm sorry. Do you have a problem with branding minors who have sex w/ children as dangerous? I don't. It's usually a very strong indicator of who they're going to be attracted to when they're adults. THAT is a very dangerous situation. 288s are also "strikes" for sentencing enhancement when they reoffend.

Gyre

"usually a very strong indicator"? How do you know this?

And, further, as a 16yo boy I had attractions to some 13 year old girls. Girls develop earlier than boys. They looked my age. If a 13yo girl had told me she was 15, and I had sexual relations with her, I obviously would have been labeled a sex offender in CA. Is that right?

Also, why do you quote "victim" if you truly believe a crime has been committed?

A teenager who molests pre-teens, or a 19 year old who goes for a 13 year old, is a sex offender. A 13 year old and a 15 year old having consentual sex are two hormonally driven teens who can't/won't restrain themselves. It's very foolhardy to classify anyone who has sex before they're 18 as a 'sex offender', for many reasons. One, it's a label that could cause them no end of grief later in their life. Two, it promotes panic stories like this one. Three, people need to be able to look at the phrase 'sex offender' and know that it means exactly that, not that it's the result of two horny teenagers having fun in the back of a Volvo getting a visit by the police.

We're not allowed. A principal can be sued PERSONALLY for revealing that very information. So what are we supposed to do?

Wouldn't revealing the kids' criminal records be a privacy violation?

If a 16- or 17-year old teenager is molesting young children, that is one thing.

However, if younger teenagers or middle-school students are molesting children--then these young offenders may be "acting out sexually"--something that victims of sexual abuse often do.

I am a volunteer support-group leader for adults who are healing from sexual abuse. The majority of them acted out sexually as children. Many times, the children don't even realize what they are doing. A nine-year old who is molested, will copy the behavior perpetrated on them--sometimes trying to make sense out of it; sometimes out of sheer ignorance.

I hope the system is recognizing the difference between these two types of "sex offenders."

There are no easy answers to the multitude of dilemmas that sexual abuse creates. Until society comes out of denial and treats sexual abuse as the full-blown epidemic that it is--we will continue to churn out predators who create more predators.

Sad.

Sex offender laws are designed under the pre-conceived notion that an offender has no possibility of recovery. While I know that recovery is difficult and repeat offenders are dangerous, I believe it is inhuman to brand someone with a Scarlet S for the rest of their lives. Kids who are in their teens become branded for life because of their mistakes. Granted, the mistake may be large; but to assume that there will never be a recovery right from the beginning could easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't have a good solution, so I usually keep my trap shut about this. Sex offenders are a dangerous menace to society. But branding teenagers as lifetime registered sex offenders might possibly be causing more harm than good.

somebody else gets fucked up psychologically for the rest of their lives. In the absence of good evidence that sex offenders are not recidivists (and I don't believe there is much), society errs on the side of assuming the worst case scenario for the safey of a largely-naieve and unsuspecting public.

There are always personal exceptions to the rule. Problem is that society cannot cannot have a functioning set of rules of conduct and built in many exceptions into the statutes. It would lead to chaos and unconstitutionality in the use of "selective enforcement". It also creates problems re: "notice". If somebody thinks they're a special type of sex-offender and there's some sort of special defense, other than insanity, they'll just tailor their crimes to wiggle around the statute and the public safey is again compromised.

If certain offenders have mitigating circumstances, DA's sometimes factor that in, Judges and probation officers are forced to consider them by statute (and do so willingly) in sentencing. In my experience (prosecutor for 10 years), people don't usually get tagged with sex-offender registration requirements unless committed a serious offense and they're a demonstrable dangerous and bad actor.

Gyre

You have a lot of experience! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

are these "sex offenders?" . . .

First Graders Charged With Sexual Misconduct

http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=2931302

(snip)

Browning has two children at Hanson Elementary where Kentucky State Police are investigating recent sexual activity between three second graders during school hours.

Earlington Police Chief Craig Patterson would like to think that this is an isolated incident, but he knows it is not. He's investigating a similar situation at Earlington Elementary School where police say two first graders were found in the bathroom performing sexual acts. Both are now charged with first degree sodomy. Patterson says, "We've got to be concerned that something like this could happen in a place like that."

- more . . .

http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=2931302

they need treatment.

It used to be completely ignored pre-McMartin, even the butt of jokes. Now it's the worst crime in our society.

We may not have found the best method of dealing with the offenders, but we have come a long way in a very short time in recognizing the problem.

When I was 8, two brothers aged 11 and 14 coerced me into performing sex acts with them. They had me conviced that it was a "secret", that should I tell my parents, they would want to "get rid of me". So, as much as I tried to avoid these boys, they cornered me into many, many sessions for TWO YEARS. By then I was willing to tell anyone to make it stop and so I told them to stop what they were doing to me or else I'd speak out. I unknowingly was calling their bluff, and they stopped. By then I was 10, and they were 13 and 16.
I was just glad that what they were doing to me was over. I blocked the whole memory out. I told no one for many years. I did not know that what they had done was a serious crime, and had dmaged me in a big way. (This was the early 70's, BTW. Awareness about this kind of thing was NOTHING compared to today.)
Years after, my mother and brother died not knowing what happened to me, and my father only found out a few years ago, which was very painful for him. I still refused to tell him who did it. I was afraid what my dad might do if he knew.
I really do regret that I did not report what happened because these boys could have likely gone on to hurt others.
I have had therapy for my experiences. These boys took away my innocence and my inner belief that I was okay. It took years for me to try to heal.
Bottom line, each situation has to be assessed. Children who are curious and "playing doctor" is normal. A 13 year-old having a 15 year-old boyfriend/girlfriend could be considered normal but requires a watchful eye of parents. But ANY situation among minors where the balance of power is lopsided or where a child is sexualized before puberty, is a serious, serious thing.

I am so sorry for what you experienced. My heart goes out to you.

I think most laws take into account the relative difference in ages, but yours is a serious case of a non-consensual situation.