LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • Rothulfossil
    +14

    It's just absurd anyway to have the label permanently branded on your forehead, so to speak. Like you said, a "youthful mistake" should be seen as the law as just that. Society can't seem to get past seeing a person for who they were rather than who they are and that's becoming fatal as technology allows for more transparency.

    I've often said, "If I could go back in time and meet my past self, I'd probably hate him as recently as a month ago." I'm 22 and the rate at which my mind is changing has slowed. Between 18 and 21, though, I changed fundamentally as a human being probably as much as I did throughout all of my teen years. If my mistakes then still hung around like a cloud over my head, I'd have no hope of a future.

    One-time sex offender at 19 years old, especially under these circumstances, can't be indicative of future behavior. Even if this kid meant to have sex with a 14-year-old, he's young enough that he could be reformed. Stupid, stupid law.

    • a7h13f
      +12

      One-time sex offender at 19 years old, especially under these circumstances

      I think the law should absolutely be able to examine the circumstances and not just the crime. For instance, this individual is not showing a pattern of abusive behavior. As best as the article indicates, he had no ill intent. He found a girl who said she was older than she was on an app for hooking up, and hooked up with her. Obviously, we should still try to impart a lesson upon this young man about responsible sexual behavior, but this punishment isn't achieving that goal.

      A judgement that lasts a lifetime for a single incident should be reserved for the most heinous of offenders, not a young man who made the mistake of trusting the word of someone on a hookup app.

      This isn't fair or just. The punishment does not fit the crime, and even the word crime seems to barely fit in this situation.

      • Rothulfossil
        +6

        The thing is, the law can examine the circumstances and not just the crime. That's the point of a jury of peers and, ultimately, a judge.

        • a7h13f (edited 3 years ago)
          +7

          The law can, but too often it misses the mark. As in this case. We have these laws in place to protect children from sex offenders and predators. This young man obviously fails to meet that criteria. The problem is that this isn't an isolated incident - The New York TImes wrote an article about this in 2010, but nothing seems to have changed.