1. The women would get a smaller sentence, something like community service.

2. The women would be looked at as someone to HELP, not to punish.

3. Society would look at why it is that women feel the need to commit such crimes and that maybe there is something wrong with the way society views sex offenses, that maybe society needs to adapt to take into account women's NEEDS for offensive sex.

4. Women would be all over high fiving each other for bedding 15 year old boys.

5. There would be male apologists (with requisite manginas of course) stoking the fire of letting women off the hook because, after all, underage boys SHOULD, if they are man enough, dream of being molested by older women in the first place.

Since society refuses to treat men and women equally, I in return will refuse more and more to accept that women need rights of any sort UNTIL WOMEN BEGIN TO OWN UP TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE FAIR TO BOTH SEXES.

Men have sexual needs. I know this surprises many women, since most [particularly America feminist] women despise men and despise sex.

as a constitutional matter - it seems to me a clear violation of the "cruel and unusual" provision. It appears that society, or more likely, pandering politicians, want to protect children. Fine, if that's indeed what these measures do, but I'm doubtful, and if in the process the sex offenders' rights are egregiously restricted, then that should concern all of us. We may say these scumbags should have no rights; they've lost that - okay, but let's be open and honest about it, and be aware of what that might mean about our own rights. A further consideration is the violence often inflicted upon certain types of sex offenders once they are imprisoned. Often being sent to jail is a death sentence, and while none of us may mourn some of these criminals, if what we want to do is kill them we should be more honest and not turn a conveniently blind eye.

1) Women offenders get equally or more sentence than men:

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/07/20/florida_juveniles/permalink/7aa3ea417d6b3e0068243828036fe8f7.html

2) I agree with you that sex offenders, who are mostly male, are very poorly in this country.

3) The people who push the hardest for treating sex offenders as sub-human are social conservatives, family-values loving, angry-god worshipping, totally repressed puritan, bible-thumping helen lovejoys, not feminists.

4) It is not in your best interests to equate sex offenders with men in general. Just because men have sexual desires does not mean that sex offenders are less guilty of their crimes.

I agree this raises some serious constitutional questions about the rights of offenders who, in spite of committing grotesque crimes, are still rights-bearing citizens. But it also raises a lot of practical questions. Is the goal to reduce the number of sex crimes and the frequency of victimization or is it just to strike out and punish people we find disgusting? If it is the former then we need some evidence that this is an effective way of preventing these kinds of crimes from happening. All of the evidence I've seen seems to indicate that it is not. I think the latter is closer to the truth, retribution is the overriding goal here, as it is with many other components of the criminal justice system (the death penalty and, frankly, our system of incarceration). And if this is the case then let's be honest about it--these measures are NOT about protecting children, they're about the pleasure we derive from punishing others.

No, not the ridiculous premise that this is a male-bashing, feminazi issue.

That we need to take an honest look at what makes a sex offender, how they can be cured/treated, and how to protect society from repeat offenders.

We're so quick to pass laws that allow us to pat ourselves on the back without really thinking about what these laws are doing. Are we just pushing more sex offenders underground and making them even more marginalized? Does this make them more likely to offend and harder to catch when they do? Do different types of sex crimes warrant different types of treatment by the community?

We need to start asking ourselves the tough questions and stop thinking that asking any questions at all makes us "soft on sex crime."

Give sex offenders life sentences, no parole.

Problem solved.

retribution is the overriding goal here ... if this is the case then let's be honest about it--these measures are NOT about protecting children, they're about the pleasure we derive from punishing others.

Retributive justice is a well-established goal of our legal system. It's not about deriving pleasure; it's about giving people the treatment they've earned.

Read your Kant.

Brightstar - why don't you do a quick Google search on what percent of sexual offenses are committed by men? The studies I saw came up with figures between 90 and 92 percent.

In light of this glaring fact, I don't see why you're fixated on that ridiculous hypothetical about women sex offenders - I don't see why you're blaming women at all. If you actually read the Broadsheet article, you'd see that the author seemed to agree with the idea of re-examining these harsh sex offender laws to see if they really protect children or if they just create more problems. So what's your beef?

That said, I do think it's time to stop adding more conditions to sex offenders' sentences. These measures are products of mass hysteria and they make it extremely difficult for offenders to rehabilitate themselves and live relatively normal lives once their sentences have been served. I know a man who was falsely accused of a sex offense against a child. Even though the case was dismissed, he still can't find housing or a job with places that run background checks because the records show him being arrested - not convicted - for this crime. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for someone who was actually convicted to become a productive member of society. Yes, I understand that some of these people have committed horrible crimes - but are these pandering laws really solving anything?