By Sandy . . . I read about a case today that disturbs me; it raises some concerns and some questions that I am unable to find answers to.

A young man in Mississippi was arrested January 7 for “. . . possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of alcohol by a minor . . .”

He is a felon because he has a sexual crime conviction from March 27, 2023. He is a minor because he was born in the summer of 2005, making him 18; possession and conumption of alcoholic beverages in the United States is not legal, except for religious or prescribed medicinal purposes, until the age of 21.

While his sexual crime conviction was in early 2023, when he was still 17, it was for a crime of statutory rape committed in 2018 when he was 13, which raises the first question: Why was there a five-year gap between the commission of the offense and the sentencing? I can find very little information about this case, most likely due to his and the victim’s ages.

Possibly she did not come forward with information that led to his being charged for several years. If this was statutory—consensual but illegal due to a statute making it illegal, in this case their ages–why did she make a complaint? Was she pressured by someone to go to the police? Was he allowed to plea to this charge when her behavior was not, after all, reciprocal? These are questions that will probably never be answered.

Possibly there was legal wrangling back and forth for several years before he pled guilty to the charge. Five years between a crime being committed and a conviction being recorded is actually not very rare and therefore not a very serious concern after all.

My next question is more serious—much more serious. This young man is identified in local media as the youngest person on their local sex offender registry. Why? And by why, I mean why is he required to register?

In the definitions for the 97-3-65 sexual crime of statutory rape is this: “. . . conviction or adjudication under Section 97-3-65(1)(a) when the offender was eighteen (18) years of age or younger at the time of the alleged offense, shall not be a registrable sex offense . . .” The difference between 97-3-65 (1)(a) and (1)(b)—which is the sub-section of this young man’s conviction–is the age of the victim. (1)(a) encompasses victims aged 14 and 15 while (1)(b) delineates victims aged 13 and younger. (16 is the legal age of consent in Mississippi.) This boy’s victim was in his age group; he was thirteen—thirteen. Why is (1)(b), which allows charging “a person of any age,” a registerable offense when (1)(a) is not? The age differential between the perpetrator and the victim allowed in (1)(a) is actually greater, 36 months, than that of the 24 months allowed in (1)(b).

Is this what the crafters of the statutes governing sexual crime in Mississippi intended, that a person of 17 or 18 could be convicted of statutory rape with a person aged 14 or 15 and not be required to register, but a person of 11 or 12 or 13 could be convicted of the same exact offense committed with a person aged 10 or 11 or 12 and be required to be on the Mississippi sex offender registry for, as the judge in this case is reported as saying,  “the rest of his natural-born life”?

This was a child who quite possibly engaged in sex-play with an age-appropriate peer, sex-play that may well have gone beyond being age-appropriate behavior. It may not even have been sex-play at all but aggressive behavior. Punish him. Counsel him. Help him. But don’t put him on a registry that will destroy “for the rest of his natural-born life” his ability to make that life a normal one.

The post Is this what legislators in Mississippi really intended? first appeared on NARSOL.