thanks

dr.e

As a tragic result, there is now an alarming increase in the number of prosecutions across the U.S. where, but for their age, an otherwise innocent boy/teen/young man faces a life of ruin and potential life-time registration as a sex offender (Commonwealth vs Bernardo B.). Then, adding insult to injury, there are no legal consequences for the girls and/or girl’s parents for their equally illegal acts and heinous character assassinating complaints, even when the allegations are proven false (Commonwealth vs. Jeffrey Witham and State of Tennessee vs. Corey Dehart).

This reverse gender bias is neither new nor unknown to the highest courts in our country as many states have commissioned studies to recommend corrective action to this unlawful gender biased practice. Throughout these numerous reports the workings of bias are illustrated in statistical data, expert testimony, and first-hand accounts (Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts, 1998).

The Massachusetts report stated “Gender bias exists in many forms throughout the court system. Sexist language and behavior are still common, despite an increased understanding that these practices are wrong. Beyond these overt signs of bias, many practices and procedures exist that may not appear motivated by bias but nonetheless produce biased results.”

An article published in the May/June 2009 Boston Bar Journal included a lengthy discussion of two gender biased cases recently decided in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the United States Supreme Court. The article states these decisions, “permit some assessment of the extent to which judicial decisions today reflect a conscious and sophisticated consideration of societal assumptions about gender on the application of the law.”

At least in Bernardo B. the SJC majority demonstrated some sense of reasonableness. However, the fact that juvenile boys are being charged in consensual sex cases and not the girls, is a clear gender based discrimination and a failure of the legal system to protect the boys’ constitutional rights and provide equal justice.
How many of our young boys and teens will we allow to be incarcerated, subjected to barbaric and abusive treatment (see Plethysmographs, Masturbatory Satiation, Arousal Reconditioning, Cognitive Restructuring of juveniles) and then forced to register as Sex Offenders for the rest of their lives before we bring an end to this insanity?

The current and potential legislation regarding this entire subject is seriously lacking any real protection of our children from violent predatory sex offenders. In fact more and more underage children are the ones who are being prosecuted and convicted at an alarming rate under the very laws enacted to 'protect them.' “

Thanks fima.

dr.e
Assistant Editor, The Moderate Voice

http://estrinyefim.newsvine.com

Researching Fed & most major states' case law, there is nothing I found quickly that was directly on point…contesting termination of employment based on sex offender status, but the above case does impact employment or employability…admittedly within a unique context.

dr.e

To your point though: 1) most sex offenders would not sue over a firing because of the embarassment and jury bias they would face, 2) there is a substantial difference between union jobs, government jobs, jobs for large corporations, and the kind of jobs many registered sex offenders would seek like the local gas station, car wash, sales position or the like, and 3) in “at will” employment, the employer need not give the reason for the firing.

Now, on to the slavish assignment of trying to find a published case on the issue.

The sub-point to your observation is that state laws are locally enforced. That includes local police and local prosecutors. There is considerable discretion at that level. The local officer, in a minor case, has the discretion to arrest or cite for, say, disorderly conduct, not carrying sex offender status, or for an offense that carries sex offender status. Similarly the local prosecutor can indict or charge in many different ways, and, surprisingly, in some jurisdictions prosecutors can cut pleas where a person pleads to a sexually related offense pursuant to an agreement that he/she will not be required to register as a sex offender.

It is a sad comment, but the truth is that it is often the poor, the culturally oppressed and the poorly represented (or unrepresented) who are most likely to be hit the hardest on this score in the legal system. As an example, what is the likely difference between the reaction to, and treatment of, an affluent Anglo urinating on a public golf course and a Latino laborer urinating in a park?

I entirely agree with your comments on parental responsibility laws and variances in community standards.

dr.e

I agree with you that petty matters among teens ought not be given colossal consequences. And, in discussion, I think, legally one also has to add in, accdg to each state/ jurisdiction, what parental rights exist for the underage, and what parental duty to protect laws are written.

It seems that moderating such laws (which would likely have to change parental repsonsibilities re colluding with underage anything currently outside the law… could not easily occur w states' rights intact, and 'community' input varying so very much in this world…

Seems it would have to be a state by state, even city by city issue.

dr.e

It is political suicide.

When I was a teenager, a kid down the street was convicted of rape because he had sex with his girlfriend…it was the situation that tidbits mentioned. He had to put a sign in his front yard, actually his parents, stating that a sex offender lived in the home. The guy was only a senior in highschool.

Terrible situation…..that will happen again….and no one will change the law.

I am at a loss for words. A fair, reasonable reply that states your position, acknowledges our differences, and does not denigrate mine.

Thank you.

btw – the argument you put forth, IMO, supports calling sexting unwise, and that indeed it is, as is any method of distributing nude photos to a wider audience than the individuals.

But sexting itself cannot be self-debasing, unless you are of the opinion that any nude photography is self-debasing, and is done only by those who are not really comfortable with it. After all, the term goes to the state of mind of the individual. Perhaps simply debasing describes your opinion, as that references your state of mind about that action, not the participant.

Food for thought.

We do have many different views of sexual morality in our society. You and I represent two. One of the problems, which you help identify, is that sex offender status and registration often work to impose a particular (I call it puritanical) moral imperative on those who may, like you, have a dfferent view of what is immoral as opposed to healthy.

BTW, my view of sexting has much to do with potential repercussions…photos being shared with unintended audiences or photos coming back to embarass someone later in life. For that reason alone I would regard it as unwise. I concede that “deplorable” may have been too strong a descriptor at least for those are legally adults, though I stand by “self debasing” knowing full well that you disagree.

Really?? Deplorable?? Self-debaing?? I see it as neither. I see it as healthy.

Why are we so ashamed of images, pictures and actual nudity? Why do we pretend 16 – 18 year olds (and you added college students!) are not fully funtioning sexual adults, at least the vast majority.

To understand the problem with sex offender status and registries, we must first accept that a significant percentage of registered sex offenders are not child molesters or rapists. A few examples might help. Two consenting adults have sex outdoors, say in the woods, or in a car. Public Indecency…lifelong sex offender status. Another example (an actual situation): an underage girl (16) has dated a boy for over a year. He turns 18, and they continue to have sex. Statutory rape…lifelong sex offender status. The final example I will cite here is high school and college students “sexting” each other. While deplorable and self debasing, it should not be the stuff of which permanent sex offender status is made…but it is.

Nothing here is meant to condone underage pregnancy, child molestation or sexual assault. Just the opposite. I believe we need to make clear distinctons between serious problems and less serious mistakes in judgment so that we can better address the serious problems while having the grace forgive momentary lapses in judgment or youthful overexuberance.

The rush to declare anyone who engages in some momentary libertine indiscretion a “sex offender” and subject him/her to lifelong discrimination presents too puritanical a face, and makes it more difficult to sift out serious offenders (who should be registered) from minor pecadillos. In our zeal to punish and expose the truly dangerous we have cast the net so wide that we ensnare many who present no danger. We should have the discretion to separate the two.