I was reading an article at Town Hall by John Stossel today about the unintended consequences of the sex offender registry laws, and how one young man was prosecuted and forced to register for having the misfortune of not being liked by his girlfriend’s mother. There were of course comments that acknowledged that the law was being misapplied to a case like this, that there should be some consideration taken for the entire circumstance of the “crime”. There were also the posters who said quite loudly that the law is the law, and it shouldn’t be changed or interpreted differently just because there are cases like this man’s out there. I related the story of my cousin who is a “sex offender” because he, as a 19 year old custodian, had sex with a 17 year old student that he was dating at the school, and how he was only prosecuted because the girl’s parents disapproved of their interracial relationship.

What really struck me about the people saying that the law is the law was how absolutist and moralistic they were in defending these types of prosecutions. While I understand that it is immoral to have sex outside of marriage, I also understand that it happens. Hellfire and damnation, I had sex with my wife before we were married (we were engaged, but that doesn’t really change anything) and I didn’t go to jail for it. Those that defend this on moral grounds just don’t seem to understand that the laws are not meant to uphold the morality of individuals, but to ensure a safe and functioning society. Those acting as if these laws should be seen as protecting the morality of the public seem to forget that our laws aren’t even passed by the most moral of characters. Does anyone put their faith in the morality of Barney Frank, Teddy Kennedy, or North Carolina’s own Jim Black? So what sense does it make to think that any laws these people draw up and pass is some sort of morally positive pronouncement from Mt. Sinai?

The recent raft of sex offender laws is especially troubling to me for a couple of reasons: 1. The laws allow for no discretion by judges and delineation of sex crimes, and 2. Sex offender registries allow people to be punished in perpetuity for crimes that they have already done time for. Maybe this doesn’t bother anyone else, but it really concerns me when we give the government this type of power over anyone…even criminals who have served their time.

First, I don’t think that we should ever have any laws that are so hard and fast that no mitigation can be made for the actions, and that is exactly what these laws too often do. In the rush to pass “Meagan’s Law” type legislation the crusaders for these laws often fail to realize that the laws will have unintended consequences that come with them, and they fail to recognize that they are effectively tying the hands of the judges who hear these cases. That is why we can have a 19 year old facing a choice of 20 years in prison or a guilty plea, plus the sex offender registration, for having sex with a 17 year old girl…even though the relationship was totally consensual and only became a problem because of the racial biases of the girl’s parents. It lumps this “offender” in with the hardcore pedophile, and severely limits the way judges can deal with the situations.

Secondly, the ability of the state to force a person to register with the state because of the crime he committed, to allow the state to advertise the person’s crime to any future community they inhabit, and the restrictions on that person’s movements and living arrangements seems something more like Eastern Bloc practices than anything we should tolerate in America. While I understand the emotion behind this type of law, I cannot see any basis in law or logic for it; we are making this one type of criminal pay for his crime for the remainder of his days. What is so galling is that a convicted murderer can be released from prison and go on with his life with no further interaction with the cops, etc. so long as he stays out of trouble; yet, the sex offender must stay in constant view of the authorities long after his sentence is finished, under threat of further criminal punishment if he fails to live up to the rules of being a convicted sex offender. When is enough punishment enough? Where is the justice in singling out one type of criminal for perpetual draconian punishment, while all others can serve their sentences and move on?

Instead of dreaming up laws such as “Meagan’s Law” our legislators could have done much better by fixing the loopholes in their current laws. What was to stop them from strengthening sentences for convicted sex offenders? What prevented them from making sure that the punishment for the actual rape of a person or the molestation of a child drew tougher penalties than the “crime” of sex between a 16 and a 17 year old? I’ll tell you what…nothing but cowardice and political expedience. The two go hand in glove, because these legislators enacted this to look tough on crime, and to avoid any bad press…especially from the head “culture warrior”, Bill O’Reilly. But in taking the political shortcut, they have allowed people to get caught up in the system and treated like hardened pedophiles who simply may have given in to the temptations of the flesh. Does any of this make sense to you? I suppose that it is easier to create a new bad law than to fix the existing ones.

God save us from our politicians, and the laws we clamor for!