"And for the 14 yo boy caught fooling around with a 13 yo girl? That is the problem with the stupid law. Morons enact crap without thinking and many fall in love with the politically influential "mandatory" effects of a law and all of a sudden you are committing children to an RSO for something completely absurd."

Absolutely right. "Mandatory" sentences were an overreaction to horror stories about soft judges handing out light sentences to obviously dangerous criminals. The result, however, is that some clown who "streaks" through a fraternity party gets labeled a sex offender for life, and a kindergartner who gives his cute classmate a peck on the cheek is sent to psychological counseling. Well, as Mr. Bumble observed, "The law is an a$$."

In the Wisconsin case, I would ask why a guy who raped and murdered a little girl was released after 13 years—or at all.

Better check. That could already be posted on Johnnie's Facebook homepage.:D

And who is more trusted than another parent? And are they required to go through the same scrutiny?:rolleyes:

Would be nice...

Unfortunately, our league has some experience with this problem. I'm not coming from left field here.

Another parent in most any league is probably a stranger to most of the kids in the league. They're only familiar with the ones they see regularly. An umpire in uniform is much more likely to be trusted. Not as much as the kid's coach, but more than an unknown parent from another team - especially a team in a different grouping.

Two things I've experienced and on the matter, just had a conversation with the president of a local youth softball org. in my area. It is not unusual for parents to have their daughters chauffered to and from games by other parents. And you definition of stranger may vary here, but these people know each other. There may be an outsider get involved in a program every now and then, but I doubt they would be included in the circle of "trusted" parents. And as previously stated, an umpire should be umpiring, not conversing with young girls.

Then again, did we have this problem growing up? If so, we didn't hear about it often. How was it as children we left the house at 8am and did not return home until 5pm and no one was issuing Amber alerts for us?

Another thing may be that we had the luxury of better parenting (yeah, I know not everyone did) where we were constantly reminded not to talk to strangers, not to accept anything or go anywhere with a stranger and never get into a car with a stranger AND WE BELIEVED THEM.

Of course, back then any dirtbag who messed with a kid didn't have the opportunity to safely sit in the back of a police car demanding a lawyer. Well, not until the police were called because someone inthe neighborhood beat them to a pulp. Not a big fan of vigilanty justice, especially today when people are more ready to believe the worse of someone, but "back in the day" (and I hate that expression) folks had an idea of what was real before reacting. Probably because an adult was given the benefit of doubt at first.

"I just hope they don't find that I did steal that gum from Johnnie Rummel in the sixth grade!"

Nothing to worry about. Johnnie Rummel is on the terrorist watch list.

Which one? There seem to be dozens of 'em nowadays! :eek:

And apparently, they are equally ignored.

Your tax dollars at work......:cool: