I propose a dirty old man act. American Child Protection Act of 2007

American Child Protection Act of 2007:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the 'American Child Protection Act of 2007'

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Universal Age of Consent of Sexual Relations
Sec. 3. Sexually Explicit Communications With A Minor
Sec. 4. Bi-Partisan Citizens Oversight Commission

So that dirty old men or women can't fuck kids under the age of 18.

Section 3. prohibits sexually explicit communication with a minor, but only if the minor provides real age. So if a parent find their child cybering with someone Foley's age, the feds can prosecute them. This will help deter people from acting like those in the Dateline series. It won't be more than a year or so in jail or a $1,000 fine, but it will help deter people from taking advantage of kids.

Section 4. Establishes a citizens oversight commission that will follow up on reports of sexual abuse by those in our government. to prevent it from protecting members of either party, it will be made of equal numbers of people registered as democrats/republicans in their local jurisdiction.

I.e. it would be a CRIME for the 19 year old boyfriend to have sex with his 17 year old girlfriend (Even if they are married).

Age of consent has ALWAYS been a problem. When can someone consent to sex? Under the common Law that age was 12. Under Present Canon law that is 15, In most states it is some age between 14 and 18. It most countries it tends to be around age 14. Thus while your age of consent looks good, 18 has rarely been the age of consent to have sex (Ont he other hand 18 has been the age for nude dancing, sexually explicit posing i.e pictures and X-rated films).

My Home state of Pennsylvania has TWO ages of consent, 16 if the older person is more than four years older than the person he or she is having sex with, and 14 if the older person is less than 4 years older than the younger partner. It is an attempt to resolved the problem of sex.

Furthermore when you have sex you have babies. Children are entitled to support from BOTH parents. If the older parent is in Jail that means the child can gt NO support from the parent which puts the cost of raising the child on the younger parent. In fact you end up PUNISHING the victim (i.e. the younger parent) more than the prep (the older Parent) for the older parent will be getting three hots meals and a roof over his or her head (i.e. the Jail) while the Victim has ot find a job o pay for her or his child AND their own meals and housing.

IT is easy to say, "LETS JAIL THE PREP" but if a child is born to the relationship how can we make sure that the VICTIM is punished less than the prep? Just jailing them often means the victim is punished more than the prep. On the other hand getting the prep to work so he or she can pay for support for the child means more income for the child.

Now homosexual relationships don't produce children, but then you have the situation that Homosexuals would be punished more than heterosexuals when both do roughly the same sexual acts. This has been the trend for the last 100 years, treating Homosexual acts just like similar heterosexual acts under the law. Do e want to go back to a double standard? Thus even Homosexual acts must be treated like Heterosexual acts even through the later can produce children and the former can not (Please note I am commenting on the limitation on the ability of producing children by the ACT itself, not whether Homosexual can have Children or even adopt children). .

Thus I hate to say it but 18 is TO high an act for the age of consent. I do not want to be called a pervert but the older I get I like the act of 12. On the other hand if someone is under the Care, Control of influence of another (i.e. employers, parents, or as in this case Congressmen and other people of status who have access to young people and are in a semi-authoritarian position over such young people) than the rule should be 21 (Such young people need to know that if some professor their are talking or some Army Sergeants they are under ask them for sex, that superior can and will be punished on a strict liability standard). The best way would be to word a ban like this "It is a crime for any peron with the color of authority over someone else to have sex with that person". Notice I do not even put an age limit on it, 21 would be the lowest I would go if people demand a "Safe Harbor" but when does a person working under another really have free will as to deny having sex with that person?

My point here is this problem can not be done by a simple law banning sex with people under 18. You need to think in terms of younger ages at at the same time protect older people who can also be the victim of sexual extortion.

parents across the country are having to deal with this new problem in the internet age, they need tools to help, and we the Democrats will only be to happy to protect their children.

My husband and I had a long discussion about this on our way back from the beach yesterday...we decided that the term "Child Sexual Predator","Convicted Sexual Offender" or "Statutory Rape" should be rehashed:

Included in the laws:

1. Any church worker or volunteer who has sex with one under the age 18, or contacts with such with the intent to seduce or entice...
2. Any teacher or school employee who has sex with one under the age 18, or contacts with such with the intent to seduce or entice...
3. Any employer or designated supervisor thereof who has sex with an employee under the age 18, or contacts with such with the intent to seduce or entice...
4. Any local, state or federal official, including those elected who has sex with one under the age 18, or contacts with such with the intent to seduce or entice...
5.(and other categories we didn't think of because we were too hungover)
6. Provided that the age difference between the complainant and the defendant was more than 2, 3 or 5 years (we'd leave this up to the state and child development experts to determine what is appropriate). What we're trying to avoid is branding a 19 y.o. camp counselor having consensual sex with a 16 y.o. as a sexual predator, for example...

Additionally:

7. Any person 19 or older, have lewd or lascivious contact with a minor 14 or younger will be guilty and so labeled
8. Any person who forces non-consensual sexual or lewd acts on any other person, regardless of age


We're not lawmakers so the language would have to be prettied up...but the gist would be more about persons who are in positions of power over persons who are vulnerable because of their age. I agree that pedophilliacs are those who are attracted to prepubescent children. However, I think there is a need for laws to protect post-pubescent children from those in a position to exert power over them. A majority of sex crimes, not involving small children, are opportunistic and are about power...not sexual urges.