Ok, light your torches cause here I go.

Jessica's Law is a fantastic idea, but before it's passed their needs to be a revamping of consent laws. If a 17f and 18m have consenual sex in some states that's child molestation, and to me that just ain't cricket. I haven't really heard any solutions for this issue.

I think as a possible solution Jessica's Law should only apply to pedophiles who target preteens and or who have non-consensual sex with teens.

Begin flaming.

16 seems to work for the most of the world. Unless you're in Spain, where it's 13, and Italy where it's fourteen...and you know what? Legislating morality in pretty much any situation is subjective standards. That said, a lot of states in the U.S. have their consent age set at sixteen. The federal law says 18, as do some states. There are usually close in age exceptions, for example, if you sleep with anyone over 12 but under sixteen, you're still cool if you're at least within four years of your partner's age. State laws usually, but not always take precedent. This is also why shows like To Catch A Predator use 14 year olds...it's statutory pretty much any way you slice it, unless the guy is (in some states) 18 or younger.
So yeah, it's a really subjective thing and will likely backfire exactly as this guy pointed out. Of course, none of this will get covered in the press because "wese lubs dat senzationalizt jo-nalism, baws" and they'll report acccordingly. Take for example, the troglodyte at the end there whose rationality is "I understand his job is to defend people, but ya know?"
Innocent until proven guilty. It's a shame we've pretty much already lost that in this country.
Feel free to post stupid comments now.

You guys seem to have a bit of a persecution complex.

What happened to just dry humping in your parent's basement?

Mandatory minimum sentences are retarded, and I honestly can't believe that we're expanding the scope of the death penalty at this point. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html With that said I think that guy could've made his point just a tad bit more gently.

ULTIMATE LAWYER

Yeah, he's an asshole, but he makes a good point.

OR

Yeah, he makes a good point, but he's an asshole.

Pick whichever one you want, I don't care.

Yeah, no, he ain't wrong. I'm not sure utter child destruction is really nessecary, but the point is taken nonetheless.

We already went over this in the news thread about chemical castration, and I still have a dollar on 1:200 odds that eventually, two consenting gay males, 17white, and 18black, will be brought to court, and they'll throw the book at the 18 year old. The story will be all over Freep, Bill O' Rielly if he's still alive will be having conniptions, there will be cries for black nutsack blood, and the 17 year old will face shame on the same level, except privately and out of the public spotlight, until he commits suicide from the projected shame of his entire county.

This whole recent phenomenon we've seen in the past week or two boils down to crazy old men with failing brains legislating morality on half-formed adultchildren without developed brains, before the creeping, icy fingers of death take them away from this world (and their office!). Once they're dead, a spectre which they have become more and more aware of, they won't be able to enforce their morality on their constituents any longer, so I think they're just trying to push every possible law to maintain the status-quo as long as possible, and write them in stone, so it'll take a decade of solid work after their eulogy to break those metaphorical stone tablets.

Is "Moses Complex" even a valid term?

So if some dude rapes a kid why wouldn't he just kill the only witness afterwards. After all, he gets caught, he's dead too in either case.