I am glad you brought up the 13th Amendment because that too impacts a core argument of illegal means of the sex offender registry. First, a slave was considered property, and any forms of escape, non-compliance, and failure to remain in mandated accommodation was punishable by whatever means the owner wished to apply. There was no intervention between law enforcement (with the exception of capture and return) or fair judicial oversight. Fast forward a bit and the national or state offender registries have strikingly underlying similarities.
But if we all take a stroll down the “historical lane,” we will quickly discover that marriage and sexual relations began shortly after puberty. I am not suggesting this is acceptable. I am only providing a timeline of fact. In the mid-1800’s the age of consent was 13 years of age. By the 1970s, feminist rape law reform campaigns had helped to expand age of consent laws. But an issue of gender age inequalities kept the age of consent for females at 13 to 16 while raising the age of consent to males 17 to 19. Keep in mind same-sex relationships were unlawful. In essence, poorly researched legislation combined with uneasy and secluded law advocates created its criminal quandary. Today that same methodology and tactic are used to develop convoluted consent or a labyrinthine of sexually based legislation that further complicates rationale and spirit of humanistic liberation such as a consensual choice between reasonable parties. I would suggest that these legislative tactics are created with a moral purpose to constructively end consensual sexual activities between unwed parties.
A disturbing trend is that some high profile and localized cases seem to raise a significant question to alleged sex crimes or underage circumstances sometimes thirty years ago. Laws appear to have been constructively created to strip statutes of limitations to allow individual cases to be accepted despite the lack of evidence. Instead, of evidence, there is emotional recollection combined with specific social movements to add pressure to judicial administrators. That indicates there is no longer a burden of proof but a reasonable belief and reasonable suspicion. These low bar levels that appear to trend towards conviction will eventually be the downfall of our credibility in the scales of justice in addition to possibly the collapse of our judicial system.
PS. Law enforcement is currently testing facial recognition software at our NC State Fair to compare against the state sex offender registry. Additionally, the State of Florida and naturally Disney have implemented facial recognition software programs.