Law to make tongue kissing minors a sex offense

[PatrickHenry]

Here's an interesting story
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/09/kissing.minors.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- State legislators passed a law Saturday that would require adults who French kiss a child younger than 13 to register as a sex offender.

Those convicted of tongue-kissing a child would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The House of Delegates passed the legislation 96-1 and the Senate 39-0.

The bill now heads to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, who said he supports the legislation.

Delegate Riley Ingram, R-Hopewell, introduced the bill on behalf of a woman whose 10-year-old daughter was French-kissed by the 62-year-old husband of her babysitter.

The only crime prosecutors could charge the man with was contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which did not require that he register as a sex offender.

Ingram and other members of the House fought to make the crime a felony, but later gave in to senators who thought that classifying it as a felony was too harsh.

Delegate Phillip Hamilton, R-Newport News, cast the lone nay vote, refusing to back down from his belief that the crime should be a felony.

"I think that type of behavior is so egregious it warrants a felony," Hamilton said.

Ingram said he was satisfied that a conviction would land someone on the sex offender registry.

Man! What a freakout to be a kid and have some "uncle" stick his tongue in your mouth!

[Northpaw77]

This should be part of Sexual Offense law everywhere... French kissing is not where its going to stop... its going to escalate from there...

I read this and said... DUH!!

[Pookie]

I did too, Northpaw. What's very sad about this is the fact that it has to be a law!
What the hell is wrong with people?!
Purrs,
Pookie

[Osborn F. Enready]

While I find it disgusting, and inappropriate, I think this is a knee-jerk over-reaction and a prime example of an unnecessary law.

Does anyone think this is truly widespread and out of control?
Why is it worthy of a law? (let alone a felony)

Before anyone goes off spouting nonsense, allow me to clarify I am all for protecting the rights of a child, and this was a violation of those rights in my opinion. I find it doubtful and hard to believe no recourse could be taken for the offense, without the addition of a "new law".

Sounds absurd.

[PatrickHenry]

I think there was recourse. The offender that was the proximate cause of the lawmakers' efforts was charged with "was contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which did not require that he register as a sex offender."

And I think the legislators wanted to make sure that guys doing this got the "sex offender" label stuck on them.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Well, I disagree with the sex-offender registration legislation also.

I see it as proof that society admits its legal system is broken, if people who are already tried and freed after serving their time, are still viewed as non-equal citizens.

Reminds me of when the Nazi's pinned Star of Davids on Jews for identification.

If people don't think justice is the product of the justice system, the admirable and honorable thing to do is fix it, not demonize and hunt people after the system sets them free. Like a modern day witch-burning.....

[AnnEsthesia]

Sorry Osborn, but they are STILL a treat to children and if their sentence includes the requirement that they stay away from children, the public around them has a right to know who and what they are so that they can properly keep their kids away from them.

[Osborn F. Enready]

So you admit Ann, the justice system is failing to arrive at Justice?

If you don't admit that, why do you think ex-felons should be less than equal citizens?

I am not trying to be difficult here, I am trying to find the point of disagreement, and debate it.

[AnnEsthesia]

Well, since no one will let me put them down the way they deserve to be put down, this at least leaves the public some modicum of safety.

Ex-felons that can be rehabilitated should not be marked. Sexual predators that NEED secrecy in order to get victims, should be marked. So sorry if the rapist or child molester finds that their style is crimped afterwards.

[PatrickHenry]

SOME sex offenders are extremely recidivist.

Others should be allowed to go their way after being punished.

[AnnEsthesia]

PH, if you hunt for children, I do not care if your penis has been sliced off in punishment. That is a crime that will and SHOULD haunt you for the rest of your life.

[PostmodernProphet]

Sorry Osborn, but they are STILL a treat to children


I'm praying that's a typo......

[PatrickHenry]

PH, if you hunt for children, I do not care if your penis has been sliced off in punishment. That is a crime that will and SHOULD haunt you for the rest of your life.
There's all kinds of sex offenders.

Some are recidivism risks and some aren't.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Ann said:
PH, if you hunt for children, I do not care if your penis has been sliced off in punishment. That is a crime that will and SHOULD haunt you for the rest of your life.

Seems as though you think women can't be child molesters? They don't have a penis, so what would you cut off in their case?

I have no sympathy for child molesters, assuming its an actual child and not a +16 year old and there was no mutual conscent.

Patrick said:
There's all kinds of sex offenders.

Some are recidivism risks and some aren't.

Thanks Pat, and I fully agree here.

I dislike blanket laws like this, as they only cause logcial blowback later as the blanket expands and is further the fault of imprisoning people who shouldn't be.

[AnnEsthesia]

Ann said:
PH, if you hunt for children, I do not care if your penis has been sliced off in punishment. That is a crime that will and SHOULD haunt you for the rest of your life.

Seems as though you think women can't be child molesters? They don't have a penis, so what would you cut off in their case?

I have no sympathy for child molesters, assuming its an actual child and not a +16 year old and there was no mutual conscent.


It was an example. But then again, you knew that.


Patrick said:
There's all kinds of sex offenders.

Some are recidivism risks and some aren't.

Thanks Pat, and I fully agree here.

I dislike blanket laws like this, as they only cause logcial blowback later as the blanket expands and is further the fault of imprisoning people who shouldn't be.


Yep, some have a higher risk of relapsing than others. But when it comes to this sort of crime, I err on the side of safety. Or is it just that you feel we should wait until they have hurt a certain number of people before they should be marked as a threat?

[Buck Laser]

PH, if you hunt for children, I do not care if your penis has been sliced off in punishment. That is a crime that will and SHOULD haunt you for the rest of your life.

The problem is that if you're a 17 year old boy who has sex with a 15 year old girl, you can prosecuted for statutory rape and get tagged as a sex offender. That's a bit different from being a child molester. I'm not smart enough to know exactly where the a distinction should be made, but there should be one.

I don't think anyone knows how to enforce the law against randy teenagers, especially when the deeds of some of them look very similar to what real child molesters do.

[AnnEsthesia]

I can understand that, Buck... and perhaps the system is not perfect, but it is far better than not giving parents a way to know who the predators are in their neighborhood... those poor poor molesters, so abused and discriminated against... just makes my heart ache for them, I tell ya.

[preservanation]

I think it's BS.
Since Bill Clinton got his Lewinskys, oral sex isn't sex, so where do they get off criminalizing swapping spit?

[Elrathin]

I think it's BS.
Since Bill Clinton got his Lewinskys, oral sex isn't sex, so where do they get off criminalizing swapping spit?


From your mouth to pedophiles ears.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Ann said:
Yep, some have a higher risk of relapsing than others. But when it comes to this sort of crime, I err on the side of safety.

I agree with that theory, erring on the side of safety, WHEN it is within the rights of the government, or the people.

This is not within the rights of the people to ask, and not in the rights of the government to enforce.

If a person is freed from prison and declared to have "time served" and no probation or any issues, they should not wear a public badge of scorn to be singled out by those moral extremists who seek to spy, assault and antagonize those who have committed crimes and paid for them as the system demanded.

Ann said:
Or is it just that you feel we should wait until they have hurt a certain number of people before they should be marked as a threat?

I think cases should be based on individual merit of the situation, instead of creating blanket laws that cause further problems.

Ann said:
I can understand that, Buck... and perhaps the system is not perfect, but it is far better than not giving parents a way to know who the predators are in their neighborhood...

If they served their time, and are declared free men, they are not predators.

Once again, we are at the issue of the fact you don't trust the justice system.

Ann said:
those poor poor molesters, so abused and discriminated against... just makes my heart ache for them, I tell ya.

Sounds like an issue of elitism, if you can't seperate a man who served time and paid the price the system and jury demanded, from a man who is an active criminal.

Elraithin said:
From your mouth to pedophiles ears.

Oh my.... talk about drama. :love:

[nevadamedic]

Here's an interesting story
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/09/kissing.minors.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- State legislators passed a law Saturday that would require adults who French kiss a child younger than 13 to register as a sex offender.

Those convicted of tongue-kissing a child would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The House of Delegates passed the legislation 96-1 and the Senate 39-0.

The bill now heads to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, who said he supports the legislation.

Delegate Riley Ingram, R-Hopewell, introduced the bill on behalf of a woman whose 10-year-old daughter was French-kissed by the 62-year-old husband of her babysitter.

The only crime prosecutors could charge the man with was contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which did not require that he register as a sex offender.

Ingram and other members of the House fought to make the crime a felony, but later gave in to senators who thought that classifying it as a felony was too harsh.

Delegate Phillip Hamilton, R-Newport News, cast the lone nay vote, refusing to back down from his belief that the crime should be a felony.

"I think that type of behavior is so egregious it warrants a felony," Hamilton said.

Ingram said he was satisfied that a conviction would land someone on the sex offender registry.

Man! What a freakout to be a kid and have some "uncle" stick his tongue in your mouth!


It should be illegal to kiss a child in the mouth period and it should be under 18 not 13.[hr]
While I find it disgusting, and inappropriate, I think this is a knee-jerk over-reaction and a prime example of an unnecessary law.

Does anyone think this is truly widespread and out of control?
Why is it worthy of a law? (let alone a felony)

Before anyone goes off spouting nonsense, allow me to clarify I am all for protecting the rights of a child, and this was a violation of those rights in my opinion. I find it doubtful and hard to believe no recourse could be taken for the offense, without the addition of a "new law".

Sounds absurd.


Do you live in that state now and are you worried your going to have to start registering after it passes?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Nevadamedic said:
It should be illegal to kiss a child in the mouth period and it should be under 18 not 13.

Ok, based on WHAT?!?

Nevadamedic said:
Do you live in that state now and are you worried your going to have to start registering after it passes?

When I was 19 I married a 17 year old with her parents conscent, and under some ridiculous blanket law like this, yes, some idiot could charge a person for something similar.

Nice attempt to impose some type of "mistrust" for anyone sticking up for a persons rights you don't think should have them, really becoming of you. :shock:

Sorry, no charges in my past for sexual relations, or improper relations with children... :shame:

[Elrathin]

When I was 19 I married a 17 year old with her parents conscent,


You just hit the nail on the head, WITH HER PARENTS CONSENT.

So if they don't have the parents consent it should be illegal.

[Osborn F. Enready]

It already is illegal. The childs rights were violated, and could be pressed on many issues and angles of attack.

I doubt the honesty of the Congressman saying this is the only means for adequate recourse to acts like this.

My point, this does not constitute a law requiring people to BE ADDED TO A SEX OFFENDER LIST.

[AnnEsthesia]

Yes, any person who would force him or herself on a child and french kiss them is a predator and needs to be tracked. This is not some innocent thing. But I guess it would be better to just let them wander free in our neighborhoods until they reach some magical threshold like... what/? 10 children hurt and THEN we can mark them? Or should we wait until they have violently attacked 20 people? At what point is it ok to mark them as a threat and notify the community?[hr]But yes, let's stand up and fight for the rights of sexual predators. Those poor things.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Sorry Ann, I can't argue with what you're putting forth more than I already have.

Either you trust the justice system to assure justice, or you fix it.

I don't see how forcing a person to live a life of being marked, to the public, for a past crime, is going to help anything but to encourage those in the system to go out with a bang, assuming they can't control their urges, which you assume NONE of them can.

Just doesn't make sense.

[AnnEsthesia]

Well, unless we are going to keep them in prison forever, there is no other option. You cannot let a sexual predator, especially one that preys on kids, out in the community.

If you want to live next door to a sexual predator, good for you. I won't be, if I can help it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Ann said:
Well, unless we are going to keep them in prison forever, there is no other option. You cannot let a sexual predator, especially one that preys on kids, out in the community.

Is the community supposed to meet some criteria of being child safe?!?
I thought parents were charged with the responsibility of protecting and raising their children?!?

You can't child proof the world Ann, though most parents go through that stage where they think it should be natural.....

Ann said:
If you want to live next door to a sexual predator, good for you. I won't be, if I can help it.

I respect your right to try to prevent it, and seek dwellings that suit your needs, to the point of that infringing on the rights of those passed through as serving their time and paying their price to society.

[AnnEsthesia]

When it comes to rapists and child molesters, there will never be enough punishment. But you would not like my solution, so we will just leave it with marking them so that there is a better chance they will not get another innocent victim in their grasp. Something is better than nothing.

[Mayberry]

Slipping the tongue to a minor is just disgusting, no matter how you look at it. Throw the book at 'em as far as I'm concerned. Then send 'em to Judge Roy Bean's court (look it up). :fight:

[Mark L Hamburger]

When it comes to rapists and child molesters, there will never be enough punishment. But you would not like my solution, so we will just leave it with marking them so that there is a better chance they will not get another innocent victim in their grasp. Something is better than nothing.


The problem with automatically putting people on a sexual offenders list whenever they commit a certain type of crime, is theres no descretion left to the judge or jury. What about the 18 year old guy that has sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, parents get pissed, press charges. The guy is branded a sexual offender and screwed for life, can't get a decent job, can't go to college, can't be a fully-functioning member of society.

Then there's the guy that drinks a bit too much with his friends and takes a leak in the bushes. He gets caught by the cops, charged with indecent exposure and has to register as a sex offender.

I have the same issue with mandatory minimum scentences. Check out http://www.famm.org

[AnnEsthesia]

So then fight to change the minimum limits that require being placed on the registry. The solution to fixing the minimums is not to remove the registry! That is just absurd!

That is like saying that some women claim false rape, so we should remove all rape punishment.

[preservanation]

Same will happen with any hate crime/speech legislation which some think is a good idea.
All these feel good laws are short-sighted, and as Mark points out, eliminates any discretion by reasonable judges.

[davo]

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.


Enough said.

I'm all for protecting children from real pedophiles, but these kind of laws serve only to entrap people, often the young. Remember that if you get branded a 'sex offender' no matter how minor the offense, your life is ruined. It should be at the judge's discretion of whether or not someone is considered a sex offender.

[AnnEsthesia]

And so, go forth and get those laws changed. Don't condemn the whole system because a small part is broke. Allowing people who do, will and will probably again, molest and attack people to wander free with no consequence is not the solution.

And don't give me the "The poor rapist or pedophile has served his time, so should be treated 'fairly'. Someone who is in jail for 5 years for rape (or whatever short time it is) or for molesting a child, has NOT paid their debt.

[davo]

And so, go forth and get those laws changed. Don't condemn the whole system because a small part is broke. Allowing people who do, will and will probably again, molest and attack people to wander free with no consequence is not the solution.

And don't give me the "The poor rapist or pedophile has served his time, so should be treated 'fairly'. Someone who is in jail for 5 years for rape (or whatever short time it is) or for molesting a child, has NOT paid their debt.


I agree. Genuine rapists and pedophiles in most Western countries deserve far longer sentences than what they usually get. In the good old days, rapists and pedophiles either faced capital punishment or had their privates cut off. Today they spend a few years in jail in the unlikely event of arrest and being found guilty.

However, the sloppy sentencing handed to rapists and pedophiles should not be an excuse to create laws that entrap the innocent or mandate a punishment that might not fit the situation.

Here in Australia a teenager was charged with manufacturing child pornography after he threw a house party and 500+ people turned up and the police had a huge effort to break it up (cost $20,000). He had taken a picture of topless girls from his school (age 16) with his mobile phone while at the party. The police obviously couldn't find a serious enough law to charge him with, so they charged him with manufacturing child porn.

If this were the USA, he'd be registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life. While deserving of some punishment for his misdeeds, he obviously doesn't deserve to be treated as a sex offender in the same way rapists and pedophiles are. This was obviously not the original intent of such laws when they were written, and the government applied it because they couldn't think of anything else to charge him with.

[Jade Rat]

I think the law is a to leiant, i would support a mandatory 3 years, and a variable fine- when it comes to protecting children, their must be a big firm line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and with mandatory jail-time you send a clear message that this loop-hole that gives profiles room to maneuver- is closed and in a big way.

[Mia]

While I find it disgusting, and inappropriate, I think this is a knee-jerk over-reaction and a prime example of an unnecessary law.

Does anyone think this is truly widespread and out of control?
Why is it worthy of a law? (let alone a felony)

Before anyone goes off spouting nonsense, allow me to clarify I am all for protecting the rights of a child, and this was a violation of those rights in my opinion. I find it doubtful and hard to believe no recourse could be taken for the offense, without the addition of a "new law".

Sounds absurd.




It is absurd, and redundant. Political pandering and posturing.

The sex offender craze has gotten extremely out of control, and keeps getting worse.

There were already laws that covered this, as PH points out.

[Mia]

Well, I disagree with the sex-offender registration legislation also.

I see it as proof that society admits its legal system is broken, if people who are already tried and freed after serving their time, are still viewed as non-equal citizens.

Reminds me of when the Nazi's pinned Star of Davids on Jews for identification.

If people don't think justice is the product of the justice system, the admirable and honorable thing to do is fix it, not demonize and hunt people after the system sets them free. Like a modern day witch-burning.....




So glad to see some rationality on this issue, though not at all surprised from you, of course!

Murderers are treated better after they are released than 18 year olds that had sex with their 16 year old gf's because of the sex offense nonsense.

You do the crime, you do the time, but here in America, after that it's supposed to be done, not have life-long penalties.





Sorry Osborn, but they are STILL a treat to children and if their sentence includes the requirement that they stay away from children, the public around them has a right to know who and what they are so that they can properly keep their kids away from them.


What good will that do when over 90% of perps are known to the vic - family and close friends of family? And over 90% are also 1st time offenders. So all this does next to nothing nothing to help kids - studies have shown Megan's Law (public registry) and residency restrictions to have NO effect on recidivism, treatment, however, has.

Al this does is give a false sens of security to people when they find out there are no sex offenders on their block. Living there, that is. They are mobile, you know :rolleyes:

Fact: more kids are killed every year by drunk drivers than SOs. I want to know where THEY live, work, and drive, if anything!

[AnnEsthesia]

What good will that do when over 90% of perps are known to the vic - family and close friends of family? And over 90% are also 1st time offenders. So all this does next to nothing nothing to help kids - studies have shown Megan's Law (public registry) and residency restrictions to have NO effect on recidivism, treatment, however, has.

Al this does is give a false sens of security to people when they find out there are no sex offenders on their block. Living there, that is. They are mobile, you know :rolleyes:

Fact: more kids are killed every year by drunk drivers than SOs. I want to know where THEY live, work, and drive, if anything!


Who said they should only be on the list and not get treatment? They need both.

And could you please back up your statistics that I bolded above? Thanks!

[Deadshot]

Since this seems to has gone down the road of sexual predators I thought this web site would help.

http://www.familywatchdog.us/

Go there, put in your zip code and see who is around you. You'll be suprised.

[Mia]

They 'remain a threat'?

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.

Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.

That's the LOWEST recidivism rate next to murderers.

Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

I can't seem to easily locate the other stat you asked for, but I'll be back with it. :thumbsup: