I interpreted that line as follows: “By not uncritically buying into the child sex abuse hysteria that is currently gripping the country (if not the entire western world), I may loose a few readers. That’s fine with me since those who do mindlessly buy into the child sex abuse hysteria probably aren’t bringing much rational thought to the topic anyway.”

If a kid has sex at age 15, the law presumes he could not possibly have given consent, so the older partner is prosecuted as being solely to blame for corrupting the minor. But, if that same kid shoots up a few of his classmates, the government immediately petitions to prosecute him as an adult.

As for the 3 year old, I would much rather entrust his safety to a parent than permit the state to take over the roll of grand guardian dictating arbitrary ages where children are permitted to engage in activities better regulated on an individual level by a real guardian. At minimum, the age of consent (ie: the age where the government feels compelled to get involved) should be lowered to be more in tune with reality. The law isn’t protecting anyone by destroying the life of a 18 y/o for having consensual sex with a 16 y/o.

“even consensual sex with children is criminalized.”

In the framework where I taught, there is a concept similar to that of “statutory rape”. It is based on the idea that there can be no consensual sex with a child, because the child’s consent is nothing, and that because the child is assumed not to understand to what he or she is consenting. Would the OP accept the average 3-year-old’s consent to uncriminalize the sex act? Does the OP really believe that the average 3-year-old who has never had sex would understand what sex is, even if explained to her in great detail? Does the OP really believe that the average 3-year-old can sufficiently analyze possible bias by the explainer/sex-partner? Would the OP also bind the average 3-year-old to a contract he had signed gifting all of his property, since he gave his full consent?

“But, if that were an applicable principle, the prohibition of sex should apply to dwarves but not to children above a certain physical stature.”

In the system where I taught, it is assumed that the laws are written for normal people and normal situations. There can be good laws which turn out badly in odd and extreme cases. I have never seen anyone come up with a good solution for this problem, since most people would consider giving vast discretion to the people who apply the law, whether police or judges, a bad solution. Given a good law and an unusual situation in which it turns out badly, it is up to the courts and the officers of the court to wiggle their way out.

In any case, if it is accepted that one of the bases of child molestation laws is the nature of consent, the question would never come up. The average dwarf has both the practical and the legal power of consent; the average 3-year-old does not have the legal power, and probably not the practical power.

“I suspect I may lose a few readers because of this post. That’s fine.”

Is the OP saying here ‘I don’t give a damn what any of you think, because I am always right and you are presumed stupid’, or ‘I have a moral duty to ignore the opinions of others on a moral question on which I’m sure I’m right’? Is this contempt for human beings, or moral principle? And how do we tell the difference?

Some gems:

“Any person who is a registered sexual offender under the laws of any other state who enters this state and fails to notify the Commissioner of Public Safety in writing not less than forty-eight hours prior to entering the state…shall be guilty of a class D felony.”

Does Conn. even have jurisdiction to enforce other states’ registration laws, and to interfere in interstate commerce? How does an offender who is a truck driver manage this one?

“Any person who has been convicted…of a tier three offense and who has been subject to the registration requirements of [C.G.S.] 54-251 [committed a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor or a nonviolent sexual offense]…shall maintain such registration for life”

Consensual statutory rape [C.G.S. 53a-71] is a Tier III offense under this bill. And if you were sentenced to probation in 1998 and just got off the list after completing your 10-year registration in 2008, and finished all your probation, now you must re-register for life!

“Any tier three registrant…shall appear in person every ninety days…Any person…who becomes a transient shall…continue to
appear…not less than ten days or more than fifteen days from the last reporting date…If a registrant fails to physically report in person to an assigned office of the Court Support Services Division…that agency shall apply for a warrant to be issued for the registrant’s arrest under this section.

This is de facto probation. That’s what CSSD is. And the language reads just like a VOP.

I thought this was non-punitive legislation, at least it purports to be in order to survive Constitutional ex post facto scrutiny.

But it is a sneaky form of unconstitutional probation!

Those with the lowest recidivist rates and who make up the vast majority of registered sex offenders are Situational. These abusers do not have a sexual preference for children. They have sex with child for many reasons including, simple availability, opportunity, curiosity, or a desire to hurt a loved one of the molested child. There are any number of reasons. Their sexual preference however is not children, they prefer adults.

About Pedophiles, Molesters and Types of Sexual Abusers http://tinyurl.com/yjgchzu

I’ll not go to that website, since its logic is at a level I already understand, and instead stay with other sites that are more general in their attack against the ones who force their morality upon others.