Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Nope! They've got to rack up those convictions, though.

Posted by: Captain Mike | December 18, 2009 9:38 AM

The cherry on this sundae of bullshit is the (girlfriend's) mother's admission that her daughter was a consensual participant in the relationship. She apparently pressed charges only because "it was the only way she could think of to end the relationship". It's cool, though - he'll be removed from the sex offender registry in 2028.

Posted by: Joe | December 18, 2009 9:44 AM

Who pressed the charges initially? that age spread during those years is the rule and not the exception.

Posted by: astrosmash | December 18, 2009 9:47 AM

As far as I can tell, there's no minimum age requirement for getting married in Michigan; if one of the parties is 15 or younger, they need approval from a probate court, but that's it. This sad story is just another example of how sex outside marriage hurts teenagers.

Posted by: Pat Donohue | December 18, 2009 10:00 AM

Is there any proof -- or even a credible allegation -- that either party to this sexual relationship was in any visible way hurt by it? If so, then, at the very worst, both teenagers need some sort of psychological counseling. Legal punishment has absolutely no chance of helping either partner; it's just a way for adults to pretend they're "doing something about it."

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 18, 2009 10:22 AM

The sex offender list does not exist to provide additional punishment to the criminal. It exists as a tool to help protect vulnerable people from sexual predators. Crowding it with the names of people who have shown no inclination to be predators weakens it.

Posted by: Taz | December 18, 2009 10:42 AM

I just had a look at the article, and I notice that the male in this relationship is black, and his dress and demeanor (in those two photos at least) kinda conformed to certain negative stereotypes. Think that might have had something to do with his treatment by the law? Just askin'...

I also noticed that he had stolen something during his probation. That doesn't justify treating him as a "sex offender," of course, but it was a pretty fucking stupid thing to do, and doesn't help his credibility as he tries to maintain he's not a criminal or a threat to society. This behavior, in fact, makes the girl's mothers' decision to call the cops on him look a little less ridiculous.

Freeman never returned to high school after going to jail.

Way to get our young people back on the right path, guys! Isn't our American system of justice wonderful?

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 18, 2009 10:52 AM

Crowding [the sex-offender registry] with the names of people who have shown no inclination to be predators weakens it.

Worse yet, it gives REAL sexual predators a great list of young guys and gals they can victimize, with handy references to where to find them. And who's gonna believe a "registered sex offender" if he claims he's been assaulted himself? Extra bonus points if you can locate his ex-girlfriend -- she'd already consented to one sexual liason, and admitted to it on record, so who would believe her if she claims she was raped by someone else?

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 18, 2009 10:59 AM

JusticeLeague: OK, so anyone convicted of a sex offense can't live within 1000' of a school. How about anyone convicted of bank robbery or bank fraud can't live within 1000' of a bank? [etc...]

I like it. But you missed the obvious one - anyone convicted of burglary can't live within 1000' of a house.

Posted by: eric | December 18, 2009 12:07 PM

The problem is voir dire. In most of the world, the idea of letting lawyers and the judge cherrypick a jury is flat out insane.

On its face, voir dire cannot be expected to work. In the rare case that the two sides are equally matched, we'd expect no net result; in all other cases, we'd expect the better player to stack the jury in his favor. Thus voir dire is a method of systematically biasing the jury. And that's voir dire on its face.

It is really a three-handed game with the prosecution, defense, and the bench working in concert against the citizenry to purge the jury of the wrong kind of people, to wit, people who have no faith in the police, the judicial system, lawyers of any kind, or judges. Slip up and let one of those people get on the jury and you can bet your bottom dollar you will never get a conviction, unless the judge bounces the troublemaker and replaces him with a ringer from the already-vetted alternates.

This is why we get juries who want to convict. The jury pool itself is biased in favor of conviction, so even without voir dire, the jury is seriously biased. Voir dire is there to weed out the miscreants that don't want to side with the government against their fellow citizens. Good Germans only, please.

Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | December 18, 2009 12:18 PM

My mother works for the department of Housing and Urban development. She informed me that all registered sex offenders must be denied federal housing subsidies by federal law. This would include the boy in the above referenced case, even if he had been married to said same high school girlfriend for 20 years with three kids; no housing subsidy would be available until he's off the list (and those permanently registered may never receive a subsidy). That family, in a situation where public housing is there only current option, would either have to stay with relatives, or be homeless. I'm appalled that the "tough on crime" ratchet has moved several notches past stupid on this one.

Posted by: Robert Faber | December 18, 2009 12:53 PM

I'm not agreeing with her decision to turn the kid in, or the fact that the kid was placed on the sex offender list, simply pointing out that, with some people, talking to them isn't an option that works all that well.

After my initial snark, I'm starting to see your point. The girl's mom was a single working mom, possibly not equipped to talk effectively with a teenage girl, and possibly also lacking in family time due to her job. All of these factors probably made the task of guiding her daughter even harder than they would be under the best of circumstances.

Then there's the real problem with this whole anti-sex husteria: once she called the cops and got the law into the picture, NO ONE was able or willing to stand up and resist the excessive punishment that the law -- born of hysteria -- had made mandatory. It could well be that ALL of the officials involved (as well as the mom, possibly) knew, well in advance, that this kid had no business being treated as a sexual predator; but none of them had the authority or latitude to exercise any judgement.

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 18, 2009 1:21 PM

a consensual sexual relationship between teenagers...

Posted by: Herod the Freemason | December 18, 2009 1:35 PM

Herod #26: The age of the young man makes a big difference. He was 17 and also a minor. A 25 year old having sex with a 15 year old would be a different matter. The purpose of the laws regarding child abuse should be to protect kids from adults, not other kids.

Eric #18: I like that idea!

Posted by: JusticeLeague | December 18, 2009 2:22 PM

Herod: the problem is that "consent" has at least two meanings. One of them "simple consent" is the one that was being used here; it refers to willingness alone. Other meanings would require not just that someone be willing, but that they be informed (know the reasonably foreseeable implications of what they're getting into) and competent (have good enough judgment to make a proper decision). Age-of-consent laws focus on the latter; they refer to the age at which one is considered competent to consent to sexual activity.

Posted by: ebohlman | December 18, 2009 2:46 PM

Herod: the problem is that "consent" has at least two meanings. One of them "simple consent" is the one that was being used here; it refers to willingness alone...

Posted by: Herod the Freemason | December 18, 2009 4:43 PM

What do you expect of a "christian" nation? Those god-botherers are always looking for people to condemn so that they can feel good about themselves. This prevalent false modesty is something which always annoyed me - it is pretentious and unnatural.

Posted by: MadScientist | December 18, 2009 6:22 PM

The first part of this is just horrifying. This guy - who just did what teenager's do - is branded as a sex offender until he's 42? Just wrong.

The second part is even worse - some misguided people think that this is making their children safer. He's not danger to children and he never was. He's not a pedophile.

I don't have a problem with people opposing sex before marriage. I have a problem with people equating consensual teenage sex with pedophilia. It's not the same thing. If you think penalizing this guy(and others like him) in this way makes kids safer, you're just clueless.

Posted by: blurdo | December 19, 2009 2:11 AM

You people just do not seem to get it. None of you! This IS the slippery slope. You people have allowed the self righteous politicians and the sensationalist media to use fear mongering and lies to create these insane sex offender registry laws. Politicians do it to pander to the hysterical uninformed mothers & fathers out there who are too lazy to look at the facts. 93% of all sexual abuse is perpetrated by a parent, relative or trusted friend or guardian. Even the Department of Justice study, as well as dozens of others have proven these laws DO NOT WORK and in fact make matters worse. YOUR CHILD HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF BEING STRUCK BY LIGHTNING, THAN BEING ABDUCTED BY SOMEONE ON THE REGISTRY. And the residency restrictions???? What, a pedophile can't walk or drive 1001 feet instead of 1000. I guess now that they are coming for your kids, you will wake up.

Fear and loathing in the USA; Sex Offender laws, the toxic mix of hysteria, ignorance and Old Testament religious fundamentalism. This nation is quickly abandoning nobility and embracing retribution, exchanging freedom for a tenuous and false sense of security. All being lead blindly by politicians pandering to the hysterical and uninformed through the sensationalist media just to get elected? Intriguing, especially since Jesus said: “But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the Day of Judgment than for you.”

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time, no one was left to speak up." --Martin Niemoeller

"First they came for the Sex Offenders, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Sex Offender (USA). Then they came for the Arsonist and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an Arsonist (California). Then they came for those convicted for drugs, and I didn't speak up because I was never convicted for drugs (Wisconsin). Then they came for the DUI Offenders, and I didn't speak up because I was a Teetotaler (AL/FL). Then they came for me, and by that time, no one was left to speak up."--VDog

Just a few of the registries being considered around the country, modeled after the SOR. Be aware! Be very aware! The slippery slope is upon us.

Posted by: VDog | December 19, 2009 9:05 AM

Ummm...VDog, are you under the impression that the commenters here are in favour of these registries? Because I don't think that they are. I know I'm not.

Posted by: Captain Mike | December 19, 2009 9:39 AM

Are you being fucking serious? I would use that standard for a fifteen year old, because it is quite typical for fifteen year olds to fuck. Often enough it is typical for them to fuck their significant others - seventeen not being the least bit unreasonable an age for a fifteen year old to be seeing.

For a four-year-old, I would not call sexual activity "consensual." I would agree with the concept, embedded in our law, that children are to young to be said to give "consent." And since we are talking about a legal decision, there would be no point and no wisdom in confusing a common definition with a legal definition.

So it's typical for a fifteen year to fuck. What does that have to do with the question of whether they are mature enough, compared to a four-year-old, to be said to give consent?

Apparently your position is that yes, a typical 15 year old does qualify as mature enough to be said to give consent. Apparently this is Ed's position. But if you see a distinction between a 4 year old and a 15 year old, then you should agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and you have simply drawn the line in a different place than the folks who wrote the law in Michigan.

Ed has done so as well. And yet Ed has brushed over this difference of opinion, stating as an uncontroversial fact that the sex was "consensual."

Posted by: Herod the Freemason | December 19, 2009 10:04 AM

I see, so it is reasonable to denigrate people with mental handicaps, by using said handicaps as an insult - classy, there Herod, real classy.

No, I don't think there should be some brightly truncated line that is used as fucking ridiculously as this one is. What if they were both fifteen? Should they both have their lives ruined and be put on a sex offenders registry? Should we put five year old children on a sex offenders registry for playing "I'll show you mine, if you show my yours" with a four year old?

It was completely and unquestionably consensual sex. Just like it would have been, if she had fucked another fifteen year old. Just as it would have been, had she fucked a fourteen year old. Common sense is what the law used to be in MI and it is what it should be now. Previously, the law was that if you were within two (possibly three) years of age of the person you had sex with, it was legal.

The law should be there to protect kids from sexual predators, not to victimize them in turn. Even if you need some line that prevents a seventeen year old from fucking their fifteen year old significant other, make it sensible. Don't ruin the seventeen year old person's life, by acting as though their sexual foray with a fifteen year old was the same as that of a forty year old perv doing the same chick. It is not the same and destroying an adolescent's chances for any kind of a life, so you can have your pathetic bright line in teh sand that will supposedly keep your children safe is fucking insane.

Don't want your fifteen year old daughter fucking? Then raise her not to. Don't decide the state should destroy other children, because you're to fucking lazy to raise your own.

Posted by: DuWayne | December 19, 2009 9:46 PM

Well Ed, in the state of Michigan, the current age of consent is 16 years old. Therefore, it is not legally accurate to call this "consensual." Would you call it "consensual" if it involved a 4-year-old? A 10-year-old? I hope not. Someone has to draw the line as to what the age of consent is, and Michigan drew their line at 16. You could argue that there is a better place to draw the line, or you could argue that the legal consequences are out of line with the offense, but simply ignoring the law and using a word like "consensual" seems improper.

Why not? The four year old is obviously more mentally competent than someone who thinks there's no meaningful difference between the intellectual capabilities of a four year old and a sixteen year old, or someone who thinks that creating an arbitrary law conjures into existence a factual difference of category that did not previously exist.

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 20, 2009 3:26 AM

Here's a good way to end this:

Parents: It is your God-given right to be concerned about what your children (especially teens) are doing. In fact, it's your responsibility. It is also your right to get angry at your kids when they do something that you think is wrong when they think there is nothing wrong. It is your right to see certain things your kids do as mistakes even when they, at the time, have no regrets. It is also your right to punish and protect them.

But you have no right to pin a scarlet letter on your teen's significant other (also a teen) that will stay with him for the rest of his life.

Posted by: Jim | December 20, 2009 10:37 AM