Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Published Article

Re:Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Publishe... by lisper on Monday July 16, 2018 @07:11PM (#17545964)

Not all child rapists are the same. If an eighteen-year-old has consensual sex with a seventeen-year-old, technically they have "raped a child". And yes, over zealous prosecutors do prosecute cases like this. There are people on the offender registry convicted of distributing child pornography because they sent someone a nude selfie when they were a teenager.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Publishe... by tomjen3 on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @10:50AM (#17550065)

Not according to any reasonable interpretation of raped a child. You aren't the only one who assumed I would use the braindead US legal definition, so sorry for for not being clearer.

But if somebody rapes a five year old I don't want to work with them, don't want to be near them, etc. There are crimes that are impossible to rehabilitate from.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Publishe... by 21 on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @11:56AM (#17550571)

But for that you would need to read the actual case, you couldn't just look at the label "convicted for child rape"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Publishe... by lisper on Tuesday July 17, 2018 @12:42PM (#17550999)

Exactly. Most employers hear that you're on the registry and stop their inquiries at that point. The registry tars everyone on it with the same brush.

I'm not saying you would fail to make the distinction. But many people do, and many essentially innocent people suffer, and IMHO society as a whole, suffer as a result.

[ Parent | on HN ]