Convicted child rapist says making him register no different than Jim Crow racism in the South

We are talking about a multiple decade age difference complicated by providing intoxicants.

So, yes, the teen boinking teen situation has gone too far (although a three or four year age difference would be considerable developmentally) - however, that's a distraction to this idiot's situation. He wants you to think that it was "almost consensual" in starry-eyed romantic way. Giving kids drugs and having sex with them doesn't fit that description, now does it?

... it basically has to come down to a clear bright line distinction. although it would be nice to be able to have a way to gauge the intentions and the physical and psychological development of both parties in statutory cases, it's simply not feasible. and i think we need laws to protect children -- even to protect them from themselves.

i am not trying to get on my high horse. no moral superiority here. i have no problem saying that when i was 15 i had a relationship with a man who was 23. it was voluntary and consensual and i don't think it did me any lasting harm, although it was definitely illegal. however, i learned last year that that man, who was 23 and is now 47 was apparently *still* dating 15 year old girls, and now he's in prison for it. and i think at this point he belongs there.

so where do you draw the line? you basically have to draw it somewhere. and i think the best you can do is draw it bright and clear, and hope that the judiciary system uses their discretion in adjudicating it.

I'm not sure if exceptions such as you describe are made in Massachusetts law, but I'd gladly support it. Because an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old doesn't strike me as something that should be illegal. You can build those exceptions into the law while still having a system of statuary rape laws. Until the law is changed, though, we should not forgive ALL people found guilty of statutory rape. It IS a sex crime and it is precisely why sex offender registries exist.

And statutory rape IS rape. Rape is sex without consent. The only distinguishing factor in statutory rape is that the victim is deemed incapable of providing consent by statute. That they wanted to consent is immaterial. The law exists to protect them, just do separate sentencing for juvenile offenders. We also should mistake the fact that many cases tried as statutory rape are not consensual in any respect. That certainly sounds like the case here. They are often tried as statutory rape simply for expediency. Its a crime however you look at it, but looking at it that way is just easier to prove.

The alarming thing here is how the individual in question is intent on making excuses for his actions. He is not taking responsibility for what he did at all. He makes excuses. Says what he did was something different. Something more acceptable. Insists its impossible for him to recommit because... well, because he says so. That pattern is the most frightening thing. While I agree with sex offender registries, I'm sympathetic to the legal issues involved and I respect those who feel they are unconstitutional. I might have sympathy for an individual who has taken responsibility for his crimes and expresses a commitment to change. That's not what we have here. We have someone who doesn't take his crimes seriously. Makes excuses to minimize the offense (which was a 50 year old man getting 12-15 year olds drunk in order to assault them), and is dismissive of the possibility that he could re-offend. That's like an alcoholic just saying he'd never drink again. If all they are doing is saying it, I don't believe them. That attitude is what is a grave cause for concern here. His defiance about his crimes suggests not someone trying to move forward with their life, but someone who refuses to see what he did wrong.