Kids shouldn’t be on the registry

An opinion piece in TheHill makes the valid point that, “[c]ontrary to logic, laws designed to protect children from sexual predators often result in punishing children themselves, with what can be lifelong detrimental consequences. In fact, it is possible for two 16-year-olds in a fully consensual relationship to be charged with abusing each other. This neither protects children nor society from harm.”

In fact, a good percentage of those on the registry were (or still are) minors when they committed their offenses. Whether consensual or not, children don’t have the cognitive development (the growth of thinking processes and the understanding of the rules that govern the physical world in which we live) as adults or the capacity to appreciate the consequences of their actions. It’s why we don’t let 13 year-olds drive cars (though they may be physically able to).

Eventually, when they turn 16 they can drive, when they turn 18 they can vote and when they turn 21 they can drink. At some point, the government determines, their capacity and maturity level changes. So why do we put children on the sex offender registry and keep them there?

The question again came to light recently with the case of Oregon State pitcher Luke Heimlich, who is on the registry because at 15, he sexually abused a family member. He’s since moved on to do presumably positive things, such as go on to College and become a projected MLB first-round draft pick. That progress was interrupted by the discovery that he is a sex offender. As reported yesterday, the projected first round pick wasn’t selected by ANY team in 40 rounds, undoubtedly because of the discovery of his offense.

It’s a real shame, for Luke and for the tens of thousands of other children who were placed on the sex offender registry who presently have no chance.