• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sex offender stamp on Passports?

Sex offender stamp on Passports?

  • Total voters
    16
Henrin said:
Why must you wait until the law is in effect?
Click to expand...

Two reasons:

First because you generally have to be able to claim that the law has harmed you to have standing. If the law isn't yet in effect you can't claim harm. Second because generally it's the law as implemented, not necessarily as written, that is subject to the suit.

There are no doubt exceptions to those generalities but I don't know what they are.
 
soot said:
Agreed.

I was.

But with girls (in my case, but it really doesn't matter in general - whatever floats your boat) who were also under the age of 18.

And there's nothing in any of our child sexual abuse laws that say a 16-year-old can't give a hand job to another 16-year-old.

When I was 19 and in to my early 20s I no longer had a sexual interest in 15 and 16-year-olds.

And I think that's probably the case for most reasonably well adjusted people.

If you're 18, and having sex with a 15-year-old, or 21 and having sex with a 17-year-old, you're wrong.

I agree that we're not living in the 1940s and that "kids these days" are becoming sexually active at younger and younger ages.

It's sad, in my opinion, that kids are surrendering their childhood to peer pressure when they should, by all rights, still very much be children.

But that doesn't make it okay for adults to take advantage of them.

We teach our children as best we can and instill them with our values as best we can but at the end of the day they're all still going to make some decisions, frequently bad ones, that go against our wishes.

Really nothing we can do about that.

This isn't about that.

This is about adults, who SHOULD know better, and who MUST be held accountable under the law for their own actions, being held to such account.

And I'll tell you what, in the interest of not being too much of a boor, I'll even concede, for the sake of argument, that maybe there is some biological gray area between the ages of 16 and 18 and 20.

Frankly I think it's nonsense because by the time you're 18 you can vote, drive, serve in the military, and do all kinds of other things that require even greater cognitive capacity than simply knowing it's wrong to have sex with high school kids.

But maybe there are a few poor, happy, maladjusted fools out there who just don't "get it" but are otherwise really great people and genuinely have nothing but love in their hearts.

So I'll say this, as an absolute line in the sand, 18 is a gray area but by 21 you are a child sexual predator if you're having any kind of sex with anyone under the age of 18 and you deserve a lengthy prison sentence, public ridicule and ostracism, and to wear your crime around your neck like an allegorical albatross for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...
What is it about physical age that should be the determining factor? Are you claiming a "one size fits all" approach? Based on your assertion of what "reasonably well adjusted people"... by your own criteria, I'm sure... would do, it sure sounds like it.
 
PeteEU said:
Hell no.

If you are a teenager, and take nude selfies... you are making child porn and will be registered as a sex offender for life.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/201...s-ruined-children-put-sex-offender-registries



Absolutely insane... the list goes on and on..

Surprising Things That Could Make You A Sex Offender - Business Insider

Having sex with an under 18 year old.. even if you, yourself is under 18.

So yes, having it put in a passport is absolutely insane under the current conditions...
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree that the far-flung, absolute fringe exceptions, should dictate the rule.

I agree with you that the case you cite is a travesty of justice, in my opinion, but, "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs".

Much like everything else, everywhere, ever, our criminal justice system is imperfect.

But our government is charged with doing "the greatest good for the greatest number".

Sometimes things slip between the cracks, sometimes innocent men go to prison, sometimes a dumb kid makes a stupid mistake that haunts her for the rest of her life, but, again, the rules shouldn't be predicated on the exceptions.
 
radcen said:
What is it about physical age that should be the determining factor? Are you claiming a "one size fits all" approach? Based on your assertion of what "reasonably well adjusted people"... by your own criteria, I'm sure... would do, it sure sounds like it.
Click to expand...

The concept of an "age of majority" isn't something I invented here on the spot.

If you want to argue that we should change it from the currently arbitrary 18 to some other equally arbitrary lesser age we can certainly have that discussion in other thread.

But earlier in this discussion I was asked, "well then, what defines a "child"?

And the answer to that question is current federal law and the rules of federal programs.

A "child" is any person under the age of 18 or an unemancipated minor.

We don't have to like that, and, again, we can discuss whether or not it should be changed, but for the purposes of applying the law we need to have a standard and at present 18 is that standard.
 
soot said:
I'm going to disagree that the far-flung, absolute fringe exceptions, should dictate the rule.

I agree with you that the case you cite is a travesty of justice, in my opinion, but, "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs".

Much like everything else, everywhere, ever, our criminal justice system is imperfect.

But our government is charged with doing "the greatest good for the greatest number".

Sometimes things slip between the cracks, sometimes innocent men go to prison, sometimes a dumb kid makes a stupid mistake that haunts her for the rest of her life, but, again, the rules shouldn't be predicated on the exceptions.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty cavalier attitude when it's not your life.

You are correct that no system is perfect, nor will it ever be, but is it really so hard to advocate breaking fewer eggs by tweaking some laws so that the people who you admit got caught in a travesty of justice aren't?
 
radcen said:
That's a pretty cavalier attitude when it's not your life.

You are correct that no system is perfect, nor will it ever be, but is it really so hard to advocate breaking fewer eggs by tweaking some laws so that the people who you admit got caught in a travesty of justice aren't?
Click to expand...

I'm open to the possibility of tweaking.

But I believe that the law is reasonable given the totality of the circumstances surrounding it.
 
soot said:
I'm going to disagree that the far-flung, absolute fringe exceptions, should dictate the rule.

I agree with you that the case you cite is a travesty of justice, in my opinion, but, "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs".

Much like everything else, everywhere, ever, our criminal justice system is imperfect.

But our government is charged with doing "the greatest good for the greatest number".

Sometimes things slip between the cracks, sometimes innocent men go to prison, sometimes a dumb kid makes a stupid mistake that haunts her for the rest of her life, but, again, the rules shouldn't be predicated on the exceptions.
Click to expand...


"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" -- William Blackstone

I'm sorry but your entire post is contra the very foundation that our legal system in built on. In practice we "break eggs" all the time. We make mistakes. But the should be corrected and the system should be designed to minimize them. We should not bake in the system the acceptance of mistakes.
 
soot said:
I'm going to disagree that the far-flung, absolute fringe exceptions, should dictate the rule.

I agree with you that the case you cite is a travesty of justice, in my opinion, but, "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs".

Much like everything else, everywhere, ever, our criminal justice system is imperfect.

But our government is charged with doing "the greatest good for the greatest number".

Sometimes things slip between the cracks, sometimes innocent men go to prison, sometimes a dumb kid makes a stupid mistake that haunts her for the rest of her life, but, again, the rules shouldn't be predicated on the exceptions.
Click to expand...

So you are one of those... "so what if a few innocent get thrown in jail, as long as we get the guilty" types?
 
digsbe said:
If I'm not mistaken, I believe when you visit another country immigration can look up your criminal record to deem you inadmissible. I'm sure sex offenses will populate, I don't see much of a point in putting a marker on a passport.
Click to expand...

I'd also add that those offenders deemed moderate to high risk are usually (I don't know about all 50 states) civilly committed, so they aren't going anywhere anyway. The ones at lower risk generally still have to comply with all sorts of registration requirements, reporting requirements, etc, and it's hard enough for them to travel to a job, let alone try to leave the country.

I'm not sure that the OP addresses any actual threat.




Anyway, for my own part, I think we need to rejigger the laws entirely. Make the criminal punishment be all the punishment. It is grossly unjust that an individual can serve what society told him was his sentence, and then hey-presto, the government seeks to have you committed and fights to keep you committed until you die. (Though many are eventually released. Eventually. After being locked up far longer than the statute said they could be. And that's all OK because one is civil and one is criminal, explain the courts - nevermind that you're locked up either way).
 
So what some of you are saying is that a guy that takes a baseball bat to a 15 year old girl's head doesn't get his passport marked. BTW, that would be agg assault. Yet a guy that has consensual sex with his girlfriend or grabs a girl's ass should have a special passport?

You can beat the crap out of a minor, and yet that's a much lesser offense than some of the things people on "the list" do. And you're ok with that?

What about wife beaters? They're dangerous. Drug dealers are scum. Con artists may be coming to another country to commit fraud. Maybe a habitual DUI offender is coming to their country to drive drunk.

Where does it end? I don't like Scarlett Letters on our government documents.
 
soot said:
Agreed.

I was.

But with girls (in my case, but it really doesn't matter in general - whatever floats your boat) who were also under the age of 18.

And there's nothing in any of our child sexual abuse laws that say a 16-year-old can't give a hand job to another 16-year-old.

When I was 19 and in to my early 20s I no longer had a sexual interest in 15 and 16-year-olds.

And I think that's probably the case for most reasonably well adjusted people.

If you're 18, and having sex with a 15-year-old, or 21 and having sex with a 17-year-old, you're wrong.

I agree that we're not living in the 1940s and that "kids these days" are becoming sexually active at younger and younger ages.

It's sad, in my opinion, that kids are surrendering their childhood to peer pressure when they should, by all rights, still very much be children.

But that doesn't make it okay for adults to take advantage of them.

We teach our children as best we can and instill them with our values as best we can but at the end of the day they're all still going to make some decisions, frequently bad ones, that go against our wishes.

Really nothing we can do about that.

This isn't about that.

This is about adults, who SHOULD know better, and who MUST be held accountable under the law for their own actions, being held to such account.

And I'll tell you what, in the interest of not being too much of a boor, I'll even concede, for the sake of argument, that maybe there is some biological gray area between the ages of 16 and 18 and 20.

Frankly I think it's nonsense because by the time you're 18 you can vote, drive, serve in the military, and do all kinds of other things that require even greater cognitive capacity than simply knowing it's wrong to have sex with high school kids.

But maybe there are a few poor, happy, maladjusted fools out there who just don't "get it" but are otherwise really great people and genuinely have nothing but love in their hearts.

So I'll say this, as an absolute line in the sand, 18 is a gray area but by 21 you are a child sexual predator if you're having any kind of sex with anyone under the age of 18 and you deserve a lengthy prison sentence, public ridicule and ostracism, and to wear your crime around your neck like an allegorical albatross for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

So what kind of magic occurs in the brain of someone who is 17 years and 364 days and someone who is 18 years old????

And you are right... someone should not knowingly have sex with a person under 16 years old if they are 21...... but if they were misled by deception, that should NOT be on the 21 year old's criminal record...... if the "victim" chooses not to prosecute, it should not matter to the court system.

Also, as to your comment about being 18 and they should know its wrong to have sex with high school kids...... Do a poll of the ages of high school seniors.... You'll find alot of 18 year olds amongst them....
 
soot said:
I'm going to disagree that the far-flung, absolute fringe exceptions, should dictate the rule.

I agree with you that the case you cite is a travesty of justice, in my opinion, but, "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs".

Much like everything else, everywhere, ever, our criminal justice system is imperfect.

But our government is charged with doing "the greatest good for the greatest number".

Sometimes things slip between the cracks, sometimes innocent men go to prison, sometimes a dumb kid makes a stupid mistake that haunts her for the rest of her life, but, again, the rules shouldn't be predicated on the exceptions.
Click to expand...

Dude... these "eggs" you are referring to are PEOPLE'S LIVES!!!

Answer me this question.... How exactly is society benefited by punishing someone for the rest of their life because two people of different ages engaged in consensual sexual conduct?????

I'll give my answer.. There is none.

There is no benefit to throwing people under the bus for life because of a mistake they made in engaging in consensual sexual conduct. And I say this because I disagree with the contention that coercive behavior is assumed (not proven) to have occurred on behalf of the older party to get the younger party to agree to the sexual conduct. If our courts what to make a case against a person, they should stand up to the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that coercion occurred.
 
soot said:
The concept of an "age of majority" isn't something I invented here on the spot.

If you want to argue that we should change it from the currently arbitrary 18 to some other equally arbitrary lesser age we can certainly have that discussion in other thread.

But earlier in this discussion I was asked, "well then, what defines a "child"?

And the answer to that question is current federal law and the rules of federal programs.

A "child" is any person under the age of 18 or an unemancipated minor.

We don't have to like that, and, again, we can discuss whether or not it should be changed, but for the purposes of applying the law we need to have a standard and at present 18 is that standard.
Click to expand...

The age of consent isn't even 18 in most states (or even countries for that matter)......not sure where you are getting your information.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

I know its wikipedia but all the sources for the information are listed below if you want to fact check them.
 
PeteEU said:
So you are one of those... "so what if a few innocent get thrown in jail, as long as we get the guilty" types?
Click to expand...

LOL...

Not sure why and this is probably off topic but I couldn't help but think of this when I read your post...... (skip to the 0:22s mark)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom