DiscussMormonism.com

My husband is on the sex offender registry in Illinois, for 15 years for having a consensual relationship with me, his wife, when I was 16. He is lumped in with pedophiles, rapists and the worst kind of perverts. We have three children and my husband can't keep a job (he has a P.H.D), he can't pick up our kids from school, we've been thrown out of our home twice because we live by a school and police monitor our home. Why in Gods name isn't any common sense prevailing around this issue and when do we start letting people off the registry who are not a public threat? This is destroying our family, our children's well-being and my father in law (a decorated war veteran) has depleted his pension supporting us. We have testified before Illinois congress, had several favorable articles on us from the Chicago Tribune, yet they wont let my husband - Mark - off the registry. He only has a misdemeanor for being with me, his devoted wife of 5 years now. We were married by the same judge,(Thomas E. Nowinski,) who gave Mark the misdemeanor. Please, please someone help us. Neighbors stare at our home; people think a rapist lives in the home. Mark's oldest son (from a previous marriage) was assaulted in Hyde Park, defending Mark from fellow classmates calling Mark a rapist!! This is ruining my children's welfare and I, the "victim" am begging some one to take his name off the sex offender registry!!. To verify what I've said, look Mark Perk up on Google...we live in Crestwood IL, zip code 60445. Please, someone help my family from this horror.

Psychologist Stephen Mason Ph.D. replies

I have an answer for you. There isn't any common sense prevailing. Welcome to Hell! Rather than tear down laws people build more. It gives them power over people.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/lo ... r-neighbor

I do want age of consent laws to protect children, but the idea that 16 and 17 year olds can't consent to sex is ridiculous. The law needs to change because consensual sex is not rape

Few Americans will ever meet a worse enemy than their own government.

But you've chosen a party who defends and pushes forward things like what happened in the Duke rape case. It's part of the feminist and anti white movement.

I know you think the minority majority latin American population will help solidify a socialist government by 2050. Why wait for it to take over the United States? You can go to Venezuela and have that kind of a country right now.

Maxine Waters wrote:Few Americans will ever meet a worse enemy than their own government.

You're right...

Maxine Waters wrote:Few Americans will ever meet a worse enemy than their own government.

But you've chosen a party who defends and pushes forward things like what happened in the Duke rape case. It's part of the feminist and anti white movement.

I know you think the minority majority latin American population will help solidify a socialist government by 2050. Why wait for it to take over the United States? You can go to Venezuela and have that kind of a country right now.

I'm sorry, but how do your comments related to the sex offender registry? I'm fairly certain Conservatives would be more in favor of ages of consent laws than Liberals?

- Doc

Here's the thing, DT. The age of consent in Illinois is 17. He had sex with a minor. Isn't that considered statutory rape?

I know that it doesn't seem fair, but it looks like he did violate the law so that's why he's on the sex offender list.

The law doesn't provide for folks who have underage sex and later marry. The law is presumably there to protect minors regardless of the outcome of any particular union.

That's where the term "jail bait" came from that folks used to use to describe a minor in terms of sexual behaviors and relationships.

Jersey Girl wrote:The law is presumably there to protect minors regardless of the outcome of any particular union.

The majority of sex offenders aren't child rapist. Child rapists get life in prison, so for me the sex offender registry makes no sense. The child predators are behind bars.

Jersey Girl, our current sex offender laws aren't protecting minors according to some police officers, "the police complain that having so many petty sex offenders on registries makes it hard to keep track of the truly dangerous ones".

Did you know the children of sex offenders get bullied in school? Did you know bullying can lead to suicide?

Jersey Girl wrote: I know that it doesn't seem fair, but it looks like he did violate the law so that's why he's on the sex offender list.

I think the laws need to be reformed. We need change.

Jersey Girl wrote: Isn't that considered statutory rape?

A 19 year old guy having consensual sex with a 16 year old isn't child rape. Rape is devastating. The law needs to change. I agree there has to be some form of punishment, but calling child rape is going too far.

Maxine Waters wrote:Few Americans will ever meet a worse enemy than their own government.

Well, our evil government is currently being controlled by anti-government conservatives

According to War on Sex Book

"A quarter of convicted sex offenders are minors, eleven to seventeen years old; 16 percent are under twelve...What did these young criminals do? My own research suggests that the answer is not much. Some engaged in consensual sex - mutual masturbation and blowjobs mostly - with teens or pubescent kids a little younger than themselves. Some viewed online images of other naked ...... Like their adult counterparts, many end up on the registry for "indecent liberties with a minor"

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I'm fairly certain Conservatives would be more in favor of ages of consent laws than Liberals?

- Doc

To answer your question the War on Sex book says

Power imbalances equal coercion. Ergo, sex between lovers of different ages made the younger partner a victim... The Victorian notion behind age-of-consent law - that "children," capaciously defined, are sexually ignorant, thus categorically unable to say yes to sex - had received the imprimatur of feminist theory.

I do want age of consent laws to protect children, but the idea that 17 year olds can't consent to sex is ridiculous. The law needs to change.

Jersey Girl wrote:Here's the thing, DT. The age of consent in Illinois is 17. He had sex with a minor. Isn't that considered statutory rape?

I know that it doesn't seem fair, but it looks like he did violate the law so that's why he's on the sex offender list.

The law doesn't provide for folks who have underage sex and later marry. The law is presumably there to protect minors regardless of the outcome of any particular union.

That's where the term "jail bait" came from that folks used to use to describe a minor in terms of sexual behaviors and relationships.

Two problems here. First, the term "sex offender" is wildly indiscriminate in terms of the crimes that fall under its label, but people on it are viewed as dangerous, would-be rapists. While this case at least involves statutory rape, people can find themselves on the registry for urinating in public at an inopportune time. The stigma associated with being a sex offender is unfair and really should be viewed as unacceptable. You could fix this by not being so indiscriminate about labeling. A statutory case like this shouldn't be viewed as the same as a serial pedophile. His crime does not make it likely that he will rape children in the future. And that takes us to:

Second, "sex offender" as a category that denies people rights and social participation even after they've served sentences is based on false ideas about recidivism in "sex offense" categories. You can thank Justice Kennedy as the main culprit here, as he authored an opinion justifying treating sex offenders unlike other people convicted of crimes on the basis of their supposedly astronomical recidivism rate. The empirical claim he made was false. His source was a Psych Today article written by a counselor who, as best anyone can tell, made the number up:

https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/h ... sAllowed=y

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/08/justi ... laim-about

Let that sink in for a moment. The legal justification for our criminal justice systems treatment of thousands of people in part relied on citing Psychology Today.

But beyond that, we have an opinion written just last year by Justice Alito in which he affirms that empirically false claim to justify his stance on sex offenders too:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... 27a92e7fbf

It's amazing something so impactful on people's lives can be based on such irresponsibility with data.