Nobody is saying that violent sex offenders shouldn't get the worst this world has to offer.
However, children and teens and even some adults who commit non-violent sex offenses should not be treated in the same way that violent sex offenders should be treated.
Many child and teen sex offenders commit crimes because, I think, they're just too young and inexperienced to know better. They don't deserved to have that stigma for life. And what they need is psychological evaluations and therapy in order to train and teach them socially accepted sexual behavior. Rather than the incarceration we give them.
It's absolutely absurd to expect the same behavior from a child or teen that we expect from an adult. So we shouldn't give them adult criminal sentences. Especially if the crime is non-violent in nature.
You're right about that.
What most sensationalist people scream is "think before you defend these sex offenders." Ok, I'm not defending anyone. I'm actually trying to think about this stuff in a rational manner. Something you might want to try out sometime. Lets analyze this.
With drug offenders, we don't just sentence based on them being a drug offender, do we? Why not? Because there are HUGE differences between the guy caught with one joint and the guy caught with a meth lab. While technically both of these guys are "drug offenders" their vast differences between their offenses should garner them vastly different sentences and parole requirements. And guess what? This holds true with these types of offenders. But.....
This doesn't hold true for sex offenders. We label the two romeo juliet teens as sex offenders just like we label the serial rapist. While both of these are sex offenses, they are vastly different in intent and SHOULD not even be under the same label. However, being a sex offender, both will have the same restrictions when getting out of prison and in some states, both would be on GPS monitors, some for life. Both would have to notify neighbors, neither could go to their child's school functions. Is that fair to the child of the teens who later marry and want to have kids? Think about that before you spout of your "soft on sex offender" bull****.
Then you have the guy who was looking for porn one night and found a website unlabeled that had underage teen girls in some of the pics. The FBI monitors that site's hit's, gets your IP address, gets a warrant and confiscates your computer and arrests you. You are now labeled a sex offender for life, but not only a sex offender, a Tier 2 sex offender according the Adam Walsh Act, meaning a sex offender who must register for 25 years. And that's right now, 5 years ago it would have been 10 years. Who knows if he'll ever get off the registry with idiots in office and bigger idiots who vote for them who "don't want to be soft on sex offenders." Yea, well, you obviously don't want to be smart, either.
I bet you didn't know that "indecent behavior with a juvenile" is a lower tier than "possession of child porn." The child molester is on the registry for 15 years, the downloader for 25. So someone who touched a child is a lower risk than someone who clicked a mouse? Wow, really? I guess common sense is so far gone you couldn't find it with a telescope.
If the crazy whackos in this country can't see the difference between those two offenders, they are a lost cause anyway.