Minors and the Sex Offender Registry

Recently, USA Today published an article questioning the humanity of placing underage sex offenders on a sex offender registry. Because I don't read USA Today, I didn't get this argument until this morning, when it appeared on BBC News. Please bear with me.

As you might know, I talked about how two Ohio boys convicted of rape have been placed on the sex offender registry, despite being minors. The morality putting minors on sex offender registries has become a topic of debate recently. Associated Press argues that placing teenagers or children on the registry damages them for life by branding them as evil before they can understand the wrong in their crimes.

One former offender from Texas called 'Austin' still feels burdened by having sex with a 12-year-old girl when he was 14. Although he's grown up now and is fully aware of his sin, the stigma against him is permanent. Being placed on the sex offender registry makes a teenager's "mistake is forever available to the world to see," Austin says. "You are never done serving your time. There is never a chance for a fresh start" because your reputation has been permanently sullied for being on the registry. You are kept separated from other children and will have trouble finding jobs when your employer knows you're on the registry.

But does this mean that minors should be kept off of the registry, period? No. They committed a crime and need more than just a slap on the wrist, especially for older teenagers and more severe crimes. But there should be more leniency and offenders should be registered on a case-by-case basis. Teenagers, especially ones like Austin, are often too young to understand the immorality of their crimes. Meanwhile, older teenagers are more likely to realize what they're doing is wrong. Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, agrees that more discretion is needed for underage crimes based on the age of the offender and the severity of the crime. He gives two examples, "if a 15-year-old 'sexted' a picture of him or herself, it is safe to say that prosecutors would take appropriate steps to ensure that person isn't required to become a registered sex offender for life" but still be on the registry. But "If a 17-year-old had committed multiple violent sex offenses against children," he should definitely be placed on the registry, as he has repeatedly attacked children with no concern for their lives or the wrongs in his actions.

But setting up standards for registration would be difficult due to states rights. The Adam Walsh Act requires states "to include certain juvenile sex offenders as young as 14 on their registries," something that has been met with mixed reactions. Some states sacrifice "some federal criminal-justice funding" and refuse to condemn children so young. Other states subject "children younger than 14 to the possibility of 25-year or lifetime listings on public registries," refusing to show children less lenience than adults.

What do you think? Is it moral for states to ignore federal law and attempt to protect underage criminals? Should the laws be more forgiving towards minors?