- NEW!
by frank peters on January 17th, 2006
Does a registered sex offender have to tell his landlord that he's a registered sex offender?
by Answerbag Staff on May 21st, 2011
| 3 people like this
Can a judge overrule a sex offender registry?
by Answerbag Staff on May 21st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Is it illegal for a registered sex offender to have a child?
by Answerbag Staff on May 19th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What would your reaction be if you found this out but were not told first hand?
by wezsox on March 6th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
If you got a letter in the mail that said your neighbor was a registered sex offender, would that change your opinion of him/her?
by John Cox will be back April 6th 2013 on February 20th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading I was arrested for statutory rape. The father now wants to drop the charges, but the D.A. says it's too late. Is there anything I can do to have the charges dropped?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Americans are prigs.
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
WhoCaresAboutTheStupidLaw? I sure don't, and dumb laws should be fought. He didn't provide the exact details, but some statutory rape laws are absolutely draconian. If he's 18 and his girlfriend was 15 and they had consensual sex and he's going to be punished for it, it's a ludicrous crock. From his question, I gather something like that happened.
˙
Of course, maybe he was 18 and she was 12 or something, but he'd probably be in deeper trouble anyway if that were the case.
˙
Even if what he did was so terrible, he has the same right to seek legal advice as anyone else who stands accused, so stop being indignant.
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
It's called morals. We kinda sorta believe that young women are actually worth something
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
Just reading this question made me seriously sick to my stomach. And seeing people like bolwerk defend this... I really sometimes wish I wasn't in this world.
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
N I C K: Believing they're worth something requires acknowledging that they should be given autonomy to make their own decisions. Laws like this do the exact opposite, and instead make her vagina chattel of the state.
˙
WhoCaresWhatYouThink: take a Valium. And then try to develop a system of ethics that's more adult than being told what you can and cannot do by a group of crusty, old, white, male legislators. The vast majority of laws are plain useless, and most of the rest are hostile to the public. Nobody is denying he broke the law. Nobody is denying the guy was probably thinking with his dick. But should he be punished because he had consensual sex with someone?
˙
(Actually, asking rhetorical questions on AB is like asking for humor at a Ron Paul rally, so nevermind....)
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
Do you have a sister, bolwerk?
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
Is this supposed to be a segway into a point?
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
Any man that had a sister would understand why people like snookman, and people like bolwerk that justify his sin are the lowest of the low. Do you have any sense of decency?
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
WhoCaresWhatYouThink: Don't even try. These people are so disgusting that none of this has any resonance to them. They're not men. Nothing is sacred to them not even a young girl.
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
@WhoCaresWhatYouThink: are you even reading, or just spouting off? The OP never said he was 22 and had sex with a 13-year-old. No such detail was divulged at all – he never gave his age, nor did he give the age of the person he had sex with. For all you know, he's 18 and had sex with a 15-year-old or even somebody older.
˙
But even if he did commit such a "crime," he still has a right to seek legal advice.
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
@NICK: the thing is, having decency is about thinking things through and not making stupid, irrational decisions with insufficient information. You don't need to have a sister to do that.
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
No, but I wouldn't want my brother going to jail over what amounts to a harmless mistake either.
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
HARMLESS MISTAKE!!! You are a real piece of shit. I know you have no sister if you can say that, and if you do you're even more pathetic than I thought. Don't you have any respect for the integrity of a poor, young girl?
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
NICK: Really, calm down. I can see you're not the brightest bulb in the bunch, but do you really need to be this indignant? Can you read? The sex was clearly CONSENSUAL. You're having a shitfit about two people willingly engaging in a natural biological process. The only fact you have besides that is one of the two people who committed the act is being prosecuted under a statutory rape law. You have no idea what any circumstance beyond that even is, and neither do I. Just by how angry you're getting, I can tell you're probably not smart enough to weigh the moral implications of what happened (or just don't care because you're probably an authoritarian thug anyway), but could you tone down the BS just a little bit?
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
I'm only 19 now but when I have kids, the day I have a daughter I'm gonna buy a gun. Knowing that the world is filled with bastards like I've seen here. snookman, you may be afraid of going to jail but there's something much worse waiting for you when you die. It's called Hell. Same goes for bolwerk
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
WhoCaresAboutThinking: are you projecting or something? When did I ever say I had any sexual interest in anyone, much less teenagers? I can assure you, the last thing I'd be interested in are your trailer-raised sister-daughters.
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
oh no bolwerk is insulting my intelligence. the cold-hearted rationalist lacking any morals thinks I'm unintelligent
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
How old are you, bolwerk I have to know?
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
NICK: Well, that's pretty brilliant. I suppose I could point out that gun is probably around 40x more likely to accidentally hurt your sprog (which may be good for our collective gene pool), but at least you're safe from the terrorists, right?
˙
My age and family makeup are of course none of your business, but could you please cite a shred of evidence that I lack morals? At least, you know something. WhoCaresAboutThinking is obviously just making stuff up. Let's see what you have.
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
hey bolwerk, is your way of thinking common over there in England? Are you people not considered disgusting in your country?
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
WhoCaresAboutThinking never told you how she attempts to conceive her sister-daughter. It involves an elaborate pagan cult ritual where she drinks a goblet of dead Christian baby blood, and then gets passed around to the throbbing member of each blood related male in her household, all the while vigorously stimulating her clit with the entrails of a slaughtered boar and beseeching the Moon Goddess to grant a conception resulting only from the ejaculate of the most virile of her brothers.
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
NICK: no, England has a pretty solid antifa movement actually. People who lie and make belligerent character attacks are considered disgusting (that's you, in case you're really that obtuse). Unlike the USA, there's still some common sense, decency, and resistance to government oppression. But, that's the case in most civilized countries. BTW, I don't live in England.
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
Why does it sound like you're talking about fascism? Is protecting innocent girls fascism to you?
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
Again, read for comprehension. I never said anything about being against protecting "innocent" girls. Although your choice of the word "innocent" is pretty revealing.
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
Yes, I think you very clearly did say that. I know the kind of person you are. You're a real nihilist that has no respect for anything, nothing is sacred to you not even the purity of a poor underage girl. In other questions you've talked about demolishing the institution of marriage, justified men cheating on their wives, told a young girl to buy a dildo and tons of other sick crap. And I only looked on the first page. You're a messed up dude and I hope for your sake that you change. And at the least don't bring any daughters into the world if you don't believe in protecting them.
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
Marriage is oppressive to women, homosexuals, and economically disadvantaged men, so why would I support it? I reasoned that using a dildo would be a safe, STD-free, pregnancy-free alternative to sex – you know, better than violating their "purity" with a penis? I never justified men cheating on their wives, I simply pointed out why it happens.
˙
For that matter, you're the one obsessing over oppressive patriarchal notions of "purity" and "innocence" – as if a woman who has sex isn't pure anymore or something. I mean, come on, Nick. You can't have it both ways. Either you continue to view women as chattel, as you have all along, or you support a measure of self-determination for them, in which case you have to accept that some will do things your narrow worldview finds objectionable like have sex or become lesbians. Really, man, grow up.
by bolwerk on September 7th, 2009
Obsessing over purity and innocence? You're damn right I am, where I come from that means something. I don't know about you but in my family we protect our women. Don't you have any sense of honor? If none of that mattered what kind of world would we live in?
by N I C K on September 7th, 2009
We let our women be themselves and choose how they live our lives. We protect them when they ask for help, just like how we treat the males. Shocking, eh?
by bolwerk on September 8th, 2009
Is there anything you actually respect?
by N I C K on September 8th, 2009
People who don't ask specious questions.
by bolwerk on September 8th, 2009
Man, I've had enough of this. If this is the way you see things then that's your right. This question just made me so sick and then hearing you defend the person that did this, I got pissed, extremely pissed. Female purity is something very sacred to me and you are basically stomping all over it by saying what you're saying. The stuff you said in this and in your other answers really offended me, but I'm not gonna keep arguing with you. I actually feel really bad for you.
by N I C K on September 8th, 2009
Female purity is a patriarchal preoccupation. You don't have any right to enforce other people's "purity."
by bolwerk on September 8th, 2009
What are you a Gender Studies professor? If that's the label you want to put on it then go ahead, I can't help if that's what I'm "preoccupied" with, it's how I was brought up and what I value. You can intellectualize anything until it has no meaning.
by N I C K on September 8th, 2009
Oh, and I forgot to add that you're going to Hell along with snookman, and anyone else that does, talks, or even thinks about doing these things to innocent girls, or supports them being done (that's you, bolwerk)
by N I C K on September 8th, 2009
You have to question what you were brought up with, or you're stuck in the trap of continually spouting kneejerk reactions to your preconceptions. Part of that will probably mean having to admit that most of what you were brought up with is stupid.
˙
But you're not even responding to anything I said anymore. You've simply supplied your own narrative and you're responding to it. So, really, get it straight: nobody said anything about "doing" things to "innocent" girls. I never said I even supported teenage sexual activity. You're completely ignoring the reality of what the OP asked, and the likely nature of the act. This is probably an 18-year-old who had sex with a 15-year-old. Good idea? No. Jail-worthy? Hell no.
˙
I really don't think I need to address the irony of a practicing Catholic complaining about sexual non-misconduct committed by others, but if you really expect me to feel threatened by the fairytales of the barbarian thugs who made up your religion, you're batshit nuts.
by bolwerk on September 8th, 2009
You're telling me you don't feel any anger or desire to punish an 18-year old that would do that to a poor girl? Man, I'm glad I was brought up with values.
by N I C K on September 8th, 2009
I see no reason to punish an 18-year-old for having sex with a 15-year-old. As long as they both WILLINGLY agreed to have sex, the very idea of punishment is patently absurd. I'm glad I was brought up with SENSIBLE values.
by bolwerk on September 8th, 2009
A 15-year old girl cannot willingly agree to have sex with a man. That's just a defenseless girl.
by N I C K on September 8th, 2009
The 18-year-old is just a defenseless little boy.
by bolwerk on September 8th, 2009
WhoCaresThatIMissedThePoint - really, who cares what you think? I mean, you pretty much can't. NICK is at least trying to.
˙
Let's see some evidence for my sickness, and how it makes me any less right, next time.
by bolwerk on September 8th, 2009
"The 18-year-old is just a defenseless little boy."
I'm gonna assume not even you are stupid enough to actually believe that statement and said it only for the sake of argument. Otherwise you have absolutely ZERO sense of decency.
by N I C K on September 8th, 2009
Don't worry. I was actually making fun of how you make broad, unsupported statements. But then, you pretty much have ZERO sense of decency for thinking the same about a 15-year-old girl by that logic....
by bolwerk on September 8th, 2009
"lol you're not that important" = "I'm a spiteful trailer lard who substitutes being obnoxious, uneducated, and reactionary for having a point"
by bolwerk on September 8th, 2009
oh bolwerk, you devil you. you made fun of me good.
-
Why do I have zero sense of decency for thinking the same about a 15-year old girl by that logic?
by N I C K on September 8th, 2009
I'm simply employing your logic, not my own. Unless you think an 15-year-old is automatically defenseless and an 18-year-old is automatically strapping and empowered.
by bolwerk on September 8th, 2009
No the key difference is the fact that we're talking about a girl. The 15-year old is defenseless because she's a girl. The man violating her is far from defenseless.
by N I C K on September 8th, 2009
So if the man were 17 years and 360 days, would it be a violation? How about if he were 14? Where's the magic line?
by bolwerk on September 8th, 2009
If he's old enough to get an erection and ejaculate and to coerce a girl into doing that in the first place then yes he's violating her. How much does it have to be spelled out for you?
by N I C K on September 8th, 2009
How much does it have to be spelled out for you: females enjoy having sex too. That's why they have sex, including even occasionally with people they probably shouldn't. You're living in a fantasy world if you think all teen sex involves a coerced female. (BTW, old enough to get an erection for a male is about any age >0 and old enough to ejaculate frequently starts around 11. Heck, maybe males get erections in the womb, I have no idea.)
by bolwerk on September 10th, 2009
From my experience I think you're wrong. Most girls have sex to feel wanted and loved, and men take advantage of that. I know there's dirty girls out there that wnat to get in a guy's pants, I KNOW! They are usually just trying to make a man happy who they think in turn will love them. I once had a girl that I was driving to school everyday try to give me a blowjob. She was just one of those confused girls trying to get a man's affection the only way they know how. Trust me, 99% of girls don't really want to be violated by men. They're giving into men because they want to be loved.
by N I C K on September 10th, 2009