More Registration, Not Less

This story reports that the California Supreme Court has struck down a law that would require adults 21 years or older, who are convicted of having oral sex with 16- and 17-year-olds, to register as a sex offender for life.

The reason the law was struck down? Deemed unconstitutional under the federal and state equal protection clauses, because those over 21 who just have sex (not oral sex) with minors aren't required to register.

Obviously, the law -- which was passed back in 1947 -- is a symbol of a time when oral sex was more often viewed as a deviant sexual activity, rather than as it is now, when many young people (warning: link contains graphic sexual allusions) see it as a handy way to maintain one's "virginity" or avoid pregnancy.

In any case, the bottom line is this: In California, having sex with minors under the age of 18 is a crime, particularly when there is an age difference of more than three years between those involved.

Not only is it wrong, it's also worth noting that, according to this bulletin from the Napa County District Attorney's Office:

[M]en over 20 years old are responsible for five times as many births among junior high girls as are junior high boys. Men over 20 years old are two and a half times more responsible for births among high school girls as high school boys. In 70% of the cases of teen mothers becoming pregnant by males over 21, the relationships end before the birth.

Rather than eliminating the registration requirements for offenders engaged in oral sex so as to level the playing field, it eems to me the best answer is to require registration by anyone over 21 having any kind of sex with 16- and 17-year-olds.