appeal said his defendant has the burden of showing that there is no rational basis for the legislative determination that persons who engage in oral copulation with minors are likely to be reservists and should be required to register object to all the groups all i'm pointing out is that when in the scheme all the crimes all crimes that involve actual sexual conduct are required to register with three exceptions one of them  you're one of the very question the court is asking supports my view because the registration statute has nothing to do with morality i think you're right the legislature made the legislature made a moral judgement at the time when this law was enacted statutory rape as a very serious crime and has talked about the high rate of birth and has talked about the statistics and that which demonstrates that the legislature doesn't believe that the risk of procreation of dollars and the findings that have been made by both the federal government and the state governments that teenage pregnancy is a serious problem that is caused by older men i'm committing acts of statutory rape with young girls and they have to  jones didn't meet his burden of disproving a rational basis and we have to look at what the state court looked at and what the state court looked at was some of nothing presented by jones in state court and trial court and the court of appeal both of which records are before the court and were before the district court jones presented no evidence and cited no studies no articles there was one citation to a case which discussed some discrepancies the various  statues but there was nothing presented it was eminently reasonable for the state court to conclude that he had not disproved a rational basis something more than an argument in the court of appeal in state court is and even if we look at it to novo i could i don't believe the burden is met but more specifically the issue here is whether the state court was reasonable include concluding that you know you haven't you haven't met your burden and is presumed that there is a rational basis for legislation the legislation is presumed valid there is a tremendous amount of deference in this context there is the the white deference that's given the legislature to enact  crimes regulation and also on saturday this corpus of course we're looking at whether the supreme court's rejection of the claim was reasonable so  the point is as i say much more narrow than is being argued here now i would like to respond to a couple of specific points that were made there's an argument that registration has no nothing the registration here has nothing to do with morality well the stated interest of the legislation is to prevent recidivism and make offenders more available for registration and contact by police the legist the legislature is ju copulation is more punishable in most situations under california law than statutory rape again no stated basis for that but that's never been challenged if the legislature can criminalize or i think the legislature is rational rational in believing or deciding that the forcible act is more offensive and therefore we have a stronger interest in preventing recidivism it's not simply statistics it's not simply that forcible forcible must occur more often that's relevant to that there's also the issue that they may consider one more severe than the other and therefore may take a stronger interest in preventing recidivism and therefore requiring undisputed that she must disprove all of them state court there was nothing presented and that's what we have to look at here you can't do you think it's more difficult to to because legislators determinations that aren't always made clear in the legislation itself and this is a good example the legislative history does not reflect the specific reason for this distinction but on a gut level the under inclusiveness is i suppose more more palatable generally and there's more sympathy towards under inclusiveness than over in place and that's i suppose that may be one basis for what just seems you know i'm trying to think that under the way they try arguing the case with their ever goes to their reason for not including statutory right no not unless not unless they are faced faced with some evidence was absent any evidence absent evidence by either side the court the only rationale suggested the classification with morality will only in this court has the attorney general the state come up with other reasons and i've been willing to shoot them down too but i can't shoot down things that no one even p s them out there as an explanation there's no supreme court case that tells the defendant or the challenger that they not only have to show rationality they have to postulate possible reasons and shoot them down i think the benefit i th the argument as i understand it is they get the benefit of the presumption first so then you have the burden of doing something and if your burden doesn't do anything and they don't have to put forth any evidence i don't think it's an issue of evidence your hon i would have to in some circumstances i believe they are your honor and that just isn't the challenge here obviously here this isn't punishment this is a matter of regulation and i just you know i don't think that there's really a basis for the view