Are Some Sex Offenders Badly Treated?

Did anyone watch the Louis Theroux documentary on BBC2 on Sunday night? One of the most interesting and eye-opening 60 minutes you will ever see.

He basically spent two months around registered sex offenders in Los Angeles, many of them have to live in "sex offender communities" because it is impossible to live anywhere else - the LA law states a sex offender can't live within 2000 yards of a park, school or play area.

The main topic the documentary threw up is the fact that registered sex offenders are placed into one category - sex offender - yet it's clear that many are no more a danger to children than anyone else.

One woman had been convicted of having a sexual relationship with a 14 year old boy - she claimed they loved each other - yet had been sent to prison and lost custody of her three children. She is now on the sex offenders register for the rest of her life and may never see her children again.

Another bloke, in his 60's, was addicted to flashing at women in the street. He had never touched a woman, but had often masturbated where they could see him.

And a young guy had been sent to prison and placed on the sex offenders register for life for having sex with a girl at a party who told him she was 18 but turned out to be 14.

These three are forced to live in a community with what I would label real sex offenders - adult and child rapists.

I guess the question I am asking, and possibly the point of the documentary, is are we too quick to lump all "sex offenders" in the same category without exploring the facts? Is a guy caught shagging a 14 year old who told him she was 18 the same as a guy who steals a baby and rapes it? In many cases, the law says he is.

Some people subscribe to the theory that if there is grass on the pitch, you can play. A particularly vulgar theory, I'll admit - but who goes to a party to drink, dance and check for ID? It is not always obvious how young a female is which is why I like women who are clearly mature and would not have a one night stand under dubious circumstances. It should, however, be viewed differently to a teacher for example, who is well aware of the fact that the person they are about to shag is a child. Some sort of "Guilty with Explanation" would perhaps help - provided the explanation is not "We are in love!". Stranger things are happening though - such as this 23 year old woman who was found by the Police shagging a Pitbull after a report by her neighbours. So there's that.

It was a fascinating watch, I agree.

I almost felt sorry for the older flasher guy - you could see the frustration in his face when he was talking about trying to find a doctor who would lop his 'nads off for him because he was so desperate to get things under control.

The young guy in the van's case is one that, if we're honest with ourselves, probably a few of us can relate to from when we were teenagers.

(No names, no pack drill and that's all I'm saying on that subject.)

As for the Teacher, yes I can understand not letting her teach again, but how on earth should she be considered a risk to her own children?

She said it herself, either lock us up forever or start using some common sense to differentiate between cases like hers and the baby stealing rapist mentioned by Nat in the main article.

What made me the most uncomfortable was the fact that the "worst" offender of the lot was the guy entrusted to run the hostel.

He raped his own kids because he "thought his wife was having an affair" and now he's in charge of welcoming and "supporting" newly-released sex-offenders. Work that one out....

And I wasn't too chuffed seeing the local police force happy-clapping at the opening of a new park which is basically just a tool to enable the local council to move all their sex-offenders off their patch and onto somebody else's.

(There's some law which states known sex-offenders can't live within a certain distance of public parks where there's likely to be kids, so they built a park to use as a way of moving them on.)

It's a complex issue and there aren't any quick answers, but I agree that more care and attention needs to be paid on an individual case basis to avoid the type of bollocks we saw in the film.

The guy running the hostel went berserk at one of the 'residents', I can't remember what it was for, and chucked him out so all he could do then was hang out on the streets which just made him more of a potential danger to the public. They do stoopid things in Amerika.

People defending sex offenders. We've hit a new low

I read the title of this thread and was getting ready to tear Nat a nice new vagina...

However, I think she makes a good point. for example...

A seventeen year old boy, having consensual sex with a 15 year old girl he has known for years is not as bad as kidnapping a 2 year old girl and raping her, sorry but its not.

Yes, there is a law that states its illegal to have sex under the age of 16 and this law has to be enforced, but a 15 year old is no worse at deciding what she wants to do sexually then, than in another few months when she is 16.

Yet in both these scenarios, BOTH would be registered 'sex offenders' and tarred with the same brush. Yes, the child rapist would go to prison for a long time as deserved, but both would be on the SAME register. Damaging his future career prospects for a start.

I'm not saying do away with the age of consent as that would be wrong on so many levels and possibly provide a licence for 'genuine' pedophiles to go on the prowl. I just think some common sense needs to be used when sentencing people for sex offences.

Agree with Rebel

Spain has a more sensible attitude!  They basically have 2 ages of consent.   The first age, which I disagree with to be fair because it is 2 years too young (although I would never condone anything of that nature with someone that young anyway), is 12 years old whilst the final age of consent is 18.   But during those 6 years if a girl has sex it can only be with someone who is at most 3 years older otherwise it becomes statutory rape - therefore in the example that R_R gives it would clear the 17 year old name!!! 

Although I didn't see the programme I seem to get the gist of what it was about and on one of those rare occasions I actually agree with Natasha as there are certainly different levels of sex offenders and cannot all be put into the same bracket!!!

Two points:
In most major criminal offences, courts differentiate on the basis of intent e.g. murder - if it can't be proved that you intended to murder someone, it ain't murder. But if a young person lies about their age, why is the older person guilty regardless? Surely they are the one that has been deceived?

Secondly, and perhaps more controversially, this Spanish law thing which says that kids of 12 upwards can have sex with someone no more than 3 years older than themselves flies in the face of everything published about teenage sexual development. We hear a stream of stuff about kids under pressure to post nude selfies on line and the glorification of abusive porn which, given the fact that teenage sex is pretty crap anyway as they don't really know what they're doing and it's a very formative part of life which will impact on them forever, the law seems daft. I'm not advocating either open season or abstention - just saying that the law seems arbitrary and doesn't take into account individual personas or peer group pressure. Surely courts are capable enough to include these factors in their deliberations rather than saying that one day it's an illegal act but the next day it isn't?

"Surely courts are capable enough to include these factors in their deliberations rather than saying that one day it's an illegal act but the next day it isn't?"


And therein lies the problem.


There is currently no room or facility for these type of subtle distinctions in a court room.


If you break Law X, the judge has to follow sentencing guidelines which are laid down centrally.


If the jury finds you guilty but the judge believes there is a degree of mitigation involved, he can pass down a sentence which reflects this ( a reduced term or the minimum he is allowed to give you) but you're still convicted of the crime.


And as things stand currently, once you have that particular albatross round your neck, you are automatically lumped in with everybody else who has been convicted of an offence which involved a sexual element, irrespective of what you in particular did, and you are then subject to the same conditions as the very worst offender for life.


It does need looking at, in my opinion.


And before Magoo jumps in, no, I am not on the Sex Offenders Register.