Court says oral sex law violates rights

[deadparrot]

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A 22-year-old Californian man who received oral sex from a sixteen-year-old girl should not be forced to register for life as a sex offender, the California Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

The state's top court found that California denied Vincent Hofsheier equal protection under the law because those having intercourse in such circumstances would not be forced to register as lifetime sex offenders.

Hofsheier appealed after being ordered to register his name on the list, which is shared with the public and carries significant stigma.

"Requiring mandatory lifetime registration of all persons who, like defendant here, were convicted of voluntary oral copulation with a minor of the age of 16 or 17, but not of someone convicted of voluntary sexual intercourse with a minor of the same age, violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state Constitutions," the court ruled.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060307/od_nm/california_sex_dc

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. Hence the term "jail bait"

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Really, who thinks a BJ is more "bad" than intercourse?

During the Clinton adminitration, it wasn't even considered "sex"!

[Gormy Cuss]

3. Countdown in freeperville 3...2...1...

The mighty Clenis! The mighty Clenis!

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Except that vaginal sex with a 16 year old is legal

That seems to have been the point: the man would not have faced prosecution at all if the two had engaged in "traditional" sexual intercourse. It was a criminal act only because it was oral sex, which is why the judge ruled the law as invalid.

Added: Oops, sorry. This was in response TallahasseeGrannie's post. :hi:

[DallasBoy]

16. That's not true

The age of consent in CA is 18. Intercourse with a 16 yo is stutory rape, however, he wouldn't have had to register as a sex offender. Whether or not he could be convicted for oral sex with a minor was not the issue here, only whether he could be made to register as a sex offender.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. I sit corrected

In Washington, the age of consent in most cases is 16.

Anyway, at the heart of the ruling is that similar criminal acts should be treated with similar punishments.

[MrPrax]

5. I don't get it...

Why was he being charged in the first place, if it was consentual? Was there a solicitation charge involved here?

I don't get it...

[Mandate My Ass]

6. yes it was consensual

He picked her up in an internet chat room. Probably her parents found out and sicced the cops on this guy. He sounds like a perv who likes to troll for young girls but I don't think he should have to register as a sex offender for life since she consented. Hopefully lesson learned for both of them.

We perceive no reason why the legislature would conclude that persons who are convicted of voluntary oral copulation with adolescents 16 to 17 years old...constitute a class of 'particularly incorrigible offenders'... who require lifetime surveillance as sex offenders."

U.S. law on oral sex has evolved over the years, and it was not until 1975 that oral sex between consenting adults was decriminalized in California. Today, in 38 of the 50 U.S. states consensual sex with a 16- or 17-year old is legal.

In the case, Hofsheier pleaded guilty and received probation after meeting the teenager in an Internet chat room and sharing rum and orange juice with her at a beach.

[MrPrax]

8. "since she consented"

I am not really too sure that a 22 yr. old getting sexed by a 16 yr. old makes someone a 'perv'...

So OK that's the context--the Internet was involved...makes more sense as to why the Courts are wasting their time with this stuff.

[Mandate My Ass]

12. My point was that her parents probably initiated this

Trolling for teens on the internet is borderline perv in my book, especially when you ply them with liquor. The main thing is it's not very bright. I understand the allure, but as this guy found out, people get pissed when adult men do this with their teenaged daughters. Good thing for him she didn't change her story and say she was forced to have oral sex to save her own skin.

[MrPrax]

14. Um...

Yeah...whatever...are these the same types of parents that want their daughter to be eligible, but NOT TOO eligible either...

As far as all these borderline 'perv's go--I much rather have them whipping their meats in front of a computer monitor than trolling the libraries or frottaging on public transit.

'Perv' is kinda relative--I had a girlfriend that didn't like me 'going down'--she thought it was 'perverted'--what are you going to?

Oh I know tell the parents to stop wasting the resources of law enforcement and hoping for the return of the innocent days of the telephone, I suppose

[Lochloosa]

18. Just curious. Do you have a 16 year old daughter?

And how would you feel about her dating a 22 year old?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

22. My daughter

met her future husband when she was sixteen, and he was (and still is) twelve years older than she.

They've been married for almost twenty-one years.

Your point?

[Beaverhausen]

23. What did you think of him when they first met?

Did you have any qualms about your 16 year old dating a 28 year old?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. He was a rock star

I knew him from his music and TV appearances, and he seemed like a nice guy. He always picked her up properly, came in and visited with us, and was assured by me right from the start that I, being Italian-American, would make sure that the gutters of all streets would run red with his blood if he so much as touched a hair on our girl's head.

When his mother came to visit the US, I had his family over for dinner. My daughter still refers to that as "their third date," so, yeah, I liked him from the start, and I had no qualms whatsoever about him dating our girl. She was also a terribly bright and strong kid, so I wasn't worried about her, either. Trust is a big factor, and she made absolutely no mistakes during their courtship.

The irony is that they're still married, and her father and I divorced.

[NashVegas]

9. Because Every Sperm Is Sacred

to whomever wrote the law.

U.S. law on oral sex has evolved over the years, and it was not until 1975 that oral sex between consenting adults was decriminalized in California.

[LeftyMom]

26. Because a minor can't give legal consent in CA

Age of consent is 18 here.

[nylab123]

7. Oral sex is still

sex. He is having sex with a minor. That is against the law. However, if it was not forced on her, he should not be made to register as an offender. He should only have to register if consensual intercourse with a minor requires registration of being a sex offender.

[merwin]

11. But the point is that it is not against the law if they were to have

vaginal sex.

Crazy laws.

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. As DallasBoy corrected me...

In California, it is a criminal act for a 22 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, period. At issue is the fact that the law prohibiting oral sex meant the man had to register as a sex offender, with all the publicity, bigotry and stigma for the rest of his life no matter where in the United States he might go. Had it been "traditional" sex, he would not be required to register as a sex offender and could retain his anonymity.

Similar crimes, vastly different punishments. That was the issue on which the court ruled.

[DS1]

10. People are growing up earlier

The legal system refuses to acknowledge this as the trends is towards more business for the penal system.

[redqueen]

17. That's a discussion we needed to have about 20 years ago.

*sigh*

[SOteric]

25. Oddly, this system acknowledges it quite well,

for murder, some felony theft and battery charges. We're able to consider our children as adults as early as 9, 10, 11... for violent acts they may have voluntarily committed. But we refuse to consider them adults for sexual acts they may have voluntarily committed as late as 16 and 17.

I know there are at least a few who will scan this post relatively quickly and without further consideration will presume incorrectly that I mean we should allow our children to be molested if they're willing to go along with it.

Nothing could be further from the truth. But I do think we need to reconsider on a case by case basis whether a 16 year old young person should be considered too young to consent to some sexual behaviour. I also believe we should seriously reconsider whether most 9-year-olds who've engaged in heinous behaviour should be considered as fully culpable as an adult.

[Sgent]

13. 22yo maile and 16yo female

is not considered illegal in many states -- including CA.

It wasn't the sexual relations, it was the oral sex that was considered illegal.

[DallasBoy]

15. That's incorrect

It still would have been illegal if they had engaged in intercourse, he just wouldn't have had to register as a sex offender.

[LeftyMom]

27. Age of consent in CA is 18

If she's even one day shy of her 18th birthday, he can't legally have sex with her whether he's 18 or 80. The issue was the disparity in punishment between oral and vaginal acts of statutory rape.

[rodeodance]

21. I do not think he should pay for the rest of his life.