I say no. Juvenile offenders are not the same as adult offenders and the focus on juveniles has always been rehabilitation. Requiring them to be registered as sex offenders contradicts that. It may even cause the youth offender to re-offend. Recidivism rates are low for juveniles with proper treament and the scarlett letter of registering may cause them not to respond to treament. It amounts to cruel and unusal punishment. Juveniles brain development and ability to make reasonable decisions is limited. Potentially a youth offender could be placed on the list for exchanging nude pictures. A 10 year old recently was charged with sexual harassment for kissing a girl. Maybe inappropriate but certainly not criminal to the point of labelling him a sex offender.
If you do the crime do the time...I don't believe the story about the kid kissing someone and becoming a sex offender. Sorry our courts just don't work like that. Besides that, kids are raised to know What is right or wrong. Even if the definitions of right and wrong are different, sex offense is Always taught as wrong.
Even in the rare occasion that someone thinks that it is right, we should still punish them the same because if they think its right to do that to someone, they need the help given in the correctional facilities
You say "If you do the crime do the time"....that's the thing...offenders have already done their time. The registry list is punishment on top of punishment, which is unconstitutional. This list helps no one. It does nothing for victims and it gives the public a false sense of security. The fact is that most sex offenses are committed against family members and not by strangers. The US Department of Justice reports that 93% of offenses are committed by people not on the registry list. It's already a known fact that recidivism rates are the lowest among sex offenders, and it is widely accepted and proven in the professional community that juvenile sex offenders are not at all the same as adult offenders. If anything the registry list could cause a juvenile offender to re-offend, by isolating and attaching a stigma that will follow him/her for life. Again, if the offender has already done their time, why continue to punish? We don't do it to murderers. I'm a former police officer and your statement that "our courts just don't work like that" is idealistic and flawed. It shouldn't work like that, but sometimes it does. Also, the registry list has become so muddled with offenses that are not really considered "dangerous" that it's hard to tell which ones really do pose a threat.
Why do you wish to debate this if you say the supreme court has decided it.. Thus you created a one sided argument.....but, are you saying that just because it doesn't help a family we shouldn't do it? The victims life is drastically changed for the worse and you feel bad for the offender. You seem to think that the punishment is too much. But wasn't it too much for the victim? 87% of sex offense victims attempt suicide. How is there a punishment too harsh for someone that caused that?