Follow-Up on "Criminalizing Normalcy"

An update on this post about sex offender registries and teenagers.

One of Sullivan's readers makes a good point in relation to Classically Liberal's original post:

I do think, however, that "cls" could've served his/her readers... his/her own credibility... and the blogosphere in general, a lot better, had (s)he taken a day or two to conduct more research on sexual abuse, pedophilia, and so forth.

Whenever you have a sexual situation involving young people, it's important to consider the age differences between the parties involved. If the age difference is less than three years, you're most likely dealing with innocent exploration; if the age difference is three years or more, there's a good chance that some sort of coercion is involved.

"Coercion" in this context is a tricky word -- the implication in most people's minds is the use of force, and that's not necessarily the case. I suspect in a lot of the "coercion" cases, it's much more a matter of the younger child following the older child's lead. Is that "child sexual abuse"? That's iffy. It's much clearer in the case of an adult and a child -- the adult is able to make reasoned decisions and has the responsibility of looking out for the welfare of the child. It's much closer to black and white, as much as anything ever is. (Just to make it crystal clear, I am not excusing those instances in which coercion does mean forcing someone -- that's something that's unacceptable under any cirumstances, at any age.)

In the instance related by Sullivan's reader, he was the victim of abuse by an older child -- he was 8, the older boy 14. There's no question in my mind that the older boy was way over the line.

But the issue of placing a child on a sex offender registry for the rest of his/her life is a separate one. The Economist took a hard look at some of the consequences of our sex offender laws. And "sex offender" becomes a very loose term indeed:

Every American state keeps a register of sex offenders. California has had one since 1947, but most states started theirs in the 1990s. Many people assume that anyone listed on a sex-offender registry must be a rapist or a child molester. But most states spread the net much more widely. A report by Sarah Tofte of Human Rights Watch, a pressure group, found that at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers.

Some of these laws are, as you can see, ludicrous. And getting off those registries is almost impossible. Read the piece in The Economist -- it's pretty thoroughly depressing, and brings up the point I mentioned above: most of the people on these registries pose no threat to children or anyone else. To some extent, Sullivan's reader is correct: in some cases, registration is reasonable. But in 65% of them it's not.

So my outrage and disgust remain unchanged: is it justice to place an eighteen-year-old on a sex offender registry for life because he had consensual sex with his sixteen-yer-old boyfriend? Give me a break.