Male teen Has Consensual Sex with Female Teen. He Gets 25 Years as Sex Offender, Banned from Interne

[Stan Fan]

I agree in part. However, the boy did not harm the girl, or threaten her. He didn't force himself on her, and treated her well. He isn't the same as other sex offenders simply because he didn't prey on this child. He deserves to be punished, but to have his life ruined for the next 25 years for an act which didn't harm anyone? I don't agree with that.

Okay, but the law says otherwise.

And, no, he didn't treat her well. He had sex with a girl who our laws says isn't able to make those kinds of decisions.

Police officers arriving at the scene of a domestic dispute, where a woman, (or in some cases a man), has been assaulted (not even saying sexual assault here), just regular assault, and they observe bruises, automatically, whether the victim wants to prosecute or not, takes the perpetrator into custody. The State's Attorney than also goes forth with a prosecution, whether the victim wants to or not. Many times, later, in court, the victim doesn't want to proceed with the prosecution, women are notorious for sticking with abusive men (until they kill em). Remember the girlfriend who the NFL player cold clocked in the elevator? Professional football player strength, hit her with everything he had, and she went down like a ton of bricks. The dumb girlfriend sticks with the guy later and lots of people say she attacked him, and deserved the punch ???? She will become another sad statistic eventually.

So, whether the girls parents wanted the boy prosecuted for having sex with their minor daughter or not, means absolutely nothing whatsoever, and the girl, by law, is incapable of reasoning correctly on sexual matters like this. At age 18, people become adults, although they still, in many states, have to wait until they are 21 for some priviledges. You can't purchase a drink - but you can join the military, obtain a driver's license - change your name, drop out of High School, etc.

What you can't do, once you become 18-years old, is have sexual relations, of any type, groping, penetration, assault, with a child UNDER the age of 18. That clear fact seems to be escaping a lot of poster's here. If the girl was 17, he couldn't do it. With a child of 14, absolutely not, and I know of a school teacher who went to jail here for having relations with a 16 year old student. Also, two school security guards, ages 19-20, went to jail, back-to-back one day. First one observed kissing a 15-year old HS student on the CCTV, was arrested when he arrived for work in uniform the next day, and if that wasn't warning enough, his partner was observed on the CCTV, letting a 14-years old HS student (both were female), get in his car at the end of the school day. He was arrested and joined his co-worker on arrival at school the next day. Both got 3-years jail time, the teacher is doing 10 -20 years, and he had the girls consent, in fact, was dating here for quite awhile. She couldn't give consent legally.

One doesn't raise the age of consent on sexual matters, based on the fact that the times have changed and juveniles are exposed to much more than in previous times. The human mind and maturity hasn't changed. Despite the long lives of some of our Founding Father's, the lifespan during colonial times only averaged about 35 years, with all the diseases. Modern teenagers mature biologically, much faster than they do intellectually. Therefore, we have an age of consent law in just about every state, and 18 seems to be the cut off age. Is there any adult on this forum that would put much stock in the opinions and comments of 14 year old posting? I doubt it. You would know they are a child just by reading their words.

What that judge is doing in putting the 19-year old on the Sexual Predator's register, is protecting the next 12-13-14-15-16-17 year old girl he or any other 19-60 year old decides to go after, for the next 25-years, and sending a message to everyone in his state that this type of behavior will NOT be tolerated. Whether the parents wanted the case dismissed, means nothing, and the girls opinion isn't valid either, she can't make that decision - by law. The judge rightly dismissed the opinion of the parents and the girl, because he is protecting society from this type of behavior by others in the future.

That is why we have laws, and why laws have to be obeyed. Teenage girls can make themselves up to look older than they are, and very provocative - but it is the responsibility of the male to insure they are of age, otherwise, you are going to get hit with the full weight of the law, if you even touch them. She might have looked 22 on her web page - but you can't tell me once they met, that the guy couldn't tell she was a minor, all you have to do to determine that is listen to their speech in most cases. Also, what happens when this girl repeats the offense with another stupid 18-19-20 plus year old boy, or man? You think she is going to stop having sexual relations for the next four years, until she turns age 18?

Some people in here are living in a liberal cloud - change the law and let the guilty go, instead of protecting the innocent, that is the 14 year old, and every minor child under the age of 18, and whether she solicited the engagement or not, we follow the law, because the message is clear - hands off, they are children.....

You may not be familiar with the differences in state age of consent laws, but the law is not universal in this country that an 18 year old cannot legally have sex with an under-18 year old. Some states have age of consent at 16, some have different rules for 18-20somethings than for older adults, etc.

As to the idea that a 19 year old must know that a 14 year old is not 17, that's ridiculous. Utterly asinine. Different people mature at different rates, some people may present themselves in a more adult fashion as children than others, and different people have varying abilities to determine the age of others. Without knowing either individual involved, it's nearly impossible to say whether the 19 year old should have known, simply through social interaction, the age of the 14 year old. Have you never known a particularly immature adult that could pass for a child? Hell, most teens on television are played by 20-somethings, and very often they do it fairly convincingly. The same can be true, at least to some extent, in the other direction. It is entirely possible that the girl did a good enough job presenting herself as a 17 year old to pass casual inspection both physically and emotionally.

Also, according to at least one of the articles, there is a provision in the law of this state that allows for leniency for offenders under the age of 21 (I believe). This was a 19 year old, first time offender, and the girl admitted to lying about her age. Add in the girl and mother both asking for the charges to be dropped and I seriously question the judge's decision.

As always, this is based on the facts available, there could well be further information which would change the situation.

The only part of your post which makes any sense whatsoever, is the last paragraph about the first time offender opt-out. The Judge decided not to extend that get-out-of-jail free card to this man. Whatever his reasoning was, it still comes down to protecting children. This guy isn't going to have sex with a child again, and it appears that judge is sending a severe message to every man in Michigan, that sex with minor children won't be tolerated, whether you are 18-19 or 60+ years old. I agree with him completely. This is what the criminal justice system is designed for, retribution and deterrence, not the liberal rehabilitation garbage you are crying crocodile tears over here.

You think the guy is going to stop having sex? We don't know the attitude he presented in court, what his defense was, other than she gave consent, which the child is not capable of doing. Obviously this judge, protecting the state's children by sending the message that you will end up on a sexual predator list for 25-years if you violate children sexually, and at that, he didn't send the guy to jail from what I understand.

Even if we took everything you wrote as gospel (and your tone is more liberal-cloud nonsense - let the guilty go), and we forget about the 18-year old consent rule, which apparently applies in this case, no guy in the world is going to mistake a 14-year old for an 18-year old. You can dress your silly ideas up with rhetoric about how teenager's on television are portrayed by 20-year old actors and actresses, but Hollywood insures their talent receives the absolute best makeup, grooming and makeover, before those people appear in front of a camera. That tosses that argument out the window, it is a sad excuse and a diversion from the real problem anyways.

She is a Freshman in High School, and a child. Why the concern for the parent's opinion regarding asking for leniency for the guy who had a sexual encounter with their way underage daughter? I raised a beautiful daughter, and trust me, at age 14, she was lovely - but nobody would have ever mistaken her for an 18-year old, and we controlled her appearance and clothing style to what a 14-year old should be as a High School Freshman.

What you should be posting about, instead of this liberal horse hockey, is calling for the parents to be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and perhaps having the girl removed by Children's Services from their custody. Obviously they have no control over her. Also, you didn't respond to my question that the girl is sexually active - at age 14, and soliciting sex on the internet - there is another lack of control by the parents in their responsibilities to their daughter. And you want to have a judge accept their opinion and recommendation? Do you really think she is going to quit having sex for the next four years, until she turns 18-and can legally give consent? Of course not - but somebody better be keeping tabs on her activities - whereabouts - friends - internet access and style, in addition to her school work, of another guy is going to fall into her clutches. No matter how you look at this case, the 19-year old male isn't the victim, he is the instigator of the criminal act of illegal sex with a female child. If it deters even one adult male in the state from repeating his mistake, that the judge's decision to hang a sexual predator sign on him for 25-years is justified and fair.....................

 

[JoeB131]

he should be punished for the act, as it was statutory. However the labeling him as a sex offender is over the top. His purpose was to have sex with a 17 year old, which is legal, not a 14 year old. He shouldn't be lumped in with people who intend to have sex with 14 year olds.

We only have his word for it he didn't know she was 14.

What happens the next time he tries it and no one identified him properly.

Sorry, not getting upset over this guy.

Yeah, you being a statist thug is not news.

So that's what your defending here, guy? The right of predators to have sex with 14 year old girls?

 

[Jarlaxle]

No...but you knew that and are, as usual, lying.

 

[JoeB131]

No...but you knew that and are, as usual, lying.

Uh, guy, it seems that you are more upset that the judge handed down a stiff sentence than this man had sex with a child.

And the sentence wasn't all that stiff. This punk is not going to jail.

 

[Jarlaxle]

So...did you not read the first post or are you lying AGAIN, boy?

 

[JWBooth]

Hell of a price for the boy to pay to find out that women will lie

 

[Katzndogz]

Between cases like this and the plethora of rules coming out of every college campus, this might be the end of the hook up culture. This young man thought nothing of having sex with a girl he just met and knew nothing about. It just so happened that the girl was under age. It's his fault that he was so immersed in the core belief in the right to casual sex he didn't do any due diligence.

The punishment absolutely fits the crime. He has 25 years of vulnerability to every female with an axe to grind. If he wants a girlfriend, hire a chaperone. Move the clock back 150 years.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Between cases like this and the plethora of rules coming out of every college campus, this might be the end of the hook up culture. This young man thought nothing of having sex with a girl he just met and knew nothing about. It just so happened that the girl was under age. It's his fault that he was so immersed in the core belief in the right to casual sex he didn't do any due diligence.

The punishment absolutely fits the crime. He has 25 years of vulnerability to every female with an axe to grind. If he wants a girlfriend, hire a chaperone. Move the clock back 150 years.

So to be clear

A man is now responsible for making sure a woman doesn't lie to him?

Let's take this a step further

What if a woman lies when she tells a man she wants sex? And then has him arrested for rape. Reasoning "I didn't tell the truth when I said I wanted sex, he should have known that?"

Oh , and don't think for one moment that there aren't people out there vindictive enough to do it.

Where do you draw the line? How far are women allowed to lie and a man be punished for it?

 

[Stan Fan]

Between cases like this and the plethora of rules coming out of every college campus, this might be the end of the hook up culture. This young man thought nothing of having sex with a girl he just met and knew nothing about. It just so happened that the girl was under age. It's his fault that he was so immersed in the core belief in the right to casual sex he didn't do any due diligence.

The punishment absolutely fits the crime. He has 25 years of vulnerability to every female with an axe to grind. If he wants a girlfriend, hire a chaperone. Move the clock back 150 years.

So to be clear

A man is now responsible for making sure a woman doesn't lie to him?

Let's take this a step further

What if a woman lies when she tells a man she wants sex? And then has him arrested for rape. Reasoning "I didn't tell the truth when I said I wanted sex, he should have known that?"

Oh , and don't think for one moment that there aren't people out there vindictive enough to do it.

Where do you draw the line? How far are women allowed to lie and a man be punished for it?

Don't know why anybody is responding to your uninformed, dangerous and potentially fatal attitude here, but we DRAW THE LINE at adult men having sex with minor children. What part of the law don't you particularly understand? This girl is 14-years old, not 18, not 16 (which I checked - and it is the age of consent in Michigan), but 14, as in, High School freshman.

She is, by law, according to the legal standards of the State of Michigan, incapable of giving consent to any male, female, or otherwise, for sexual activity of any kind. Do a simple Google Search, and you will also see that under the Michigan law, MISTAKE - thought she was old enough for consent IS NOT a defense for having sex with a child. The child can't give her consent - incapable of doing so for their own protection. The parent's can't give consent - that is aiding and abetting a criminal act.

A woman of age claiming rape after a sexual encounter? Happens, but to my knowledge, they have to be above the age of consent to even engage in sexual relations - and most state laws also clearly elaborate that having sex with women who are in any way incapacitated, whether from drugs; alcohol; knock out drops; kidnapped; illness or holding a position of authority over them - as in teacher; parent; job supervisor; military officer, etc., also invalidates consent and changes the sexual act to rape.

BTW, the only reason the parents learned about the encounter was they went looking for her, since they were worried (and should have been), because the girl had epilepsy. People with epilepsy collapse and pass out routinely if their medicine isn't taken at regular intervals, just like diabetics. Is is so far fetched to assume that our 19-year old rapist perhaps had sex with this child while she was passed out with epilepsy? You defending that? Nobody really knows.

Women claiming rape after consensual sex do so for a reason - but if they really were raped, and I am writing about an adult women over the age of consent here, they first go to the hospital for a rape examination, and even if they don't want that conducted, the hospital, by law, is required to notify the police. Same thing with school teacher's who notice students who are carrying bruises must notify the principal and the state, that something has occurred to that child for the child's protection.

If a woman claims rape after the fact, and fails to go to the hospital immediately upon being capable of doing so - or be taken there immediately on the request of the EMS or police responding to that alleged crime scene, where they can observe evidence that would lend itself to believe a rape took place, than, her credibility for telling the truth is very much in question.

How many prostitutes do you think report rape by their handlers? All of that is immaterial to the case we are discussing, because you can't get it through your sick head, that sex with minor children is illegal, immoral and sick. Obviously you have no children, and have never worked with or around children, like a police officer or a teacher.

This ends the discussion on my part with you and your warped liberal, idiot ideas of justice in this matter. The judge sent a message - and the men, all of whom know better, particularly anybody who goes looking for sex on the internet, got exactly what he deserved. Me, I would have given him the jail sentence also, so he would understand what rape really is in prison.............

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Between cases like this and the plethora of rules coming out of every college campus, this might be the end of the hook up culture. This young man thought nothing of having sex with a girl he just met and knew nothing about. It just so happened that the girl was under age. It's his fault that he was so immersed in the core belief in the right to casual sex he didn't do any due diligence.

The punishment absolutely fits the crime. He has 25 years of vulnerability to every female with an axe to grind. If he wants a girlfriend, hire a chaperone. Move the clock back 150 years.

So to be clear

A man is now responsible for making sure a woman doesn't lie to him?

Let's take this a step further

What if a woman lies when she tells a man she wants sex? And then has him arrested for rape. Reasoning "I didn't tell the truth when I said I wanted sex, he should have known that?"

Oh , and don't think for one moment that there aren't people out there vindictive enough to do it.

Where do you draw the line? How far are women allowed to lie and a man be punished for it?

Don't know why anybody is responding to your uninformed, dangerous and potentially fatal attitude here, but we DRAW THE LINE at adult men having sex with minor children. What part of the law don't you particularly understand? This girl is 14-years old, not 18, not 16 (which I checked - and it is the age of consent in Michigan), but 14, as in, High School freshman.

She is, by law, according to the legal standards of the State of Michigan, incapable of giving consent to any male, female, or otherwise, for sexual activity of any kind. Do a simple Google Search, and you will also see that under the Michigan law, MISTAKE - thought she was old enough for consent IS NOT a defense for having sex with a child. The child can't give her consent - incapable of doing so for their own protection. The parent's can't give consent - that is aiding and abetting a criminal act.

A woman of age claiming rape after a sexual encounter? Happens, but to my knowledge, they have to be above the age of consent to even engage in sexual relations - and most state laws also clearly elaborate that having sex with women who are in any way incapacitated, whether from drugs; alcohol; knock out drops; kidnapped; illness or holding a position of authority over them - as in teacher; parent; job supervisor; military officer, etc., also invalidates consent and changes the sexual act to rape.

BTW, the only reason the parents learned about the encounter was they went looking for her, since they were worried (and should have been), because the girl had epilepsy. People with epilepsy collapse and pass out routinely if their medicine isn't taken at regular intervals, just like diabetics. Is is so far fetched to assume that our 19-year old rapist perhaps had sex with this child while she was passed out with epilepsy? You defending that? Nobody really knows.

Women claiming rape after consensual sex do so for a reason - but if they really were raped, and I am writing about an adult women over the age of consent here, they first go to the hospital for a rape examination, and even if they don't want that conducted, the hospital, by law, is required to notify the police. Same thing with school teacher's who notice students who are carrying bruises must notify the principal and the state, that something has occurred to that child for the child's protection.

If a woman claims rape after the fact, and fails to go to the hospital immediately upon being capable of doing so - or be taken there immediately on the request of the EMS or police responding to that alleged crime scene, where they can observe evidence that would lend itself to believe a rape took place, than, her credibility for telling the truth is very much in question.

How many prostitutes do you think report rape by their handlers? All of that is immaterial to the case we are discussing, because you can't get it through your sick head, that sex with minor children is illegal, immoral and sick. Obviously you have no children, and have never worked with or around children, like a police officer or a teacher.

This ends the discussion on my part with you and your warped liberal, idiot ideas of justice in this matter. The judge sent a message - and the men, all of whom know better, particularly anybody who goes looking for sex on the internet, got exactly what he deserved. Me, I would have given him the jail sentence also, so he would understand what rape really is in prison.............

Oh, you're one of those.....

I'm not a liberal

 

[BullKurtz]

What are Facebook and Twitter good for? Nothing but gossip, bullying, sexual predators, beat down videos, and now people murdering others to impress their followers. ISIS is a big user....the feds keep track of every post. You can lose your job by posting drunk or ranting. So my question again.....what good is the "social media" doing and why shouldn't it all be shut down for good?

Are you in the right thread? The "I dream of North Korea" thread is someplace else.

Refute what I said.....what is "social media" other than gossip with strangers and a minefield of perverts, jihadists, and dumbasses who think the mundane things they do all day are interesting to anybody else?

 

[Katzndogz]

Between cases like this and the plethora of rules coming out of every college campus, this might be the end of the hook up culture. This young man thought nothing of having sex with a girl he just met and knew nothing about. It just so happened that the girl was under age. It's his fault that he was so immersed in the core belief in the right to casual sex he didn't do any due diligence.

The punishment absolutely fits the crime. He has 25 years of vulnerability to every female with an axe to grind. If he wants a girlfriend, hire a chaperone. Move the clock back 150 years.

So to be clear

A man is now responsible for making sure a woman doesn't lie to him?

Let's take this a step further

What if a woman lies when she tells a man she wants sex? And then has him arrested for rape. Reasoning "I didn't tell the truth when I said I wanted sex, he should have known that?"

Oh , and don't think for one moment that there aren't people out there vindictive enough to do it.

Where do you draw the line? How far are women allowed to lie and a man be punished for it?

Every man should assume that every woman he just met is lying to him. Every woman should assume that every man she just met is lying to her. Do you believe every telemarketer that rings your phone is a paragon of truth?

As long as makes and females think that having sex with those you don't know is harmless they deserve whatever happens. Including being lied to. The fault is with the culture of sex so casual that an app can hook you up for ten minutes at a time.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Between cases like this and the plethora of rules coming out of every college campus, this might be the end of the hook up culture. This young man thought nothing of having sex with a girl he just met and knew nothing about. It just so happened that the girl was under age. It's his fault that he was so immersed in the core belief in the right to casual sex he didn't do any due diligence.

The punishment absolutely fits the crime. He has 25 years of vulnerability to every female with an axe to grind. If he wants a girlfriend, hire a chaperone. Move the clock back 150 years.

So to be clear

A man is now responsible for making sure a woman doesn't lie to him?

Let's take this a step further

What if a woman lies when she tells a man she wants sex? And then has him arrested for rape. Reasoning "I didn't tell the truth when I said I wanted sex, he should have known that?"

Oh , and don't think for one moment that there aren't people out there vindictive enough to do it.

Where do you draw the line? How far are women allowed to lie and a man be punished for it?

Every man should assume that every woman he just met is lying to him. Every woman should assume that every man she just met is lying to her. Do you believe every telemarketer that rings your phone is a paragon of truth?

As long as makes and females think that having sex with those you don't know is harmless they deserve whatever happens. Including being lied to. The fault is with the culture of sex so casual that an app can hook you up for ten minutes at a time.

That's a stupid attitude

"A woman can lie to a man in order to get him to commit a crime"

 

[Katzndogz]

Between cases like this and the plethora of rules coming out of every college campus, this might be the end of the hook up culture. This young man thought nothing of having sex with a girl he just met and knew nothing about. It just so happened that the girl was under age. It's his fault that he was so immersed in the core belief in the right to casual sex he didn't do any due diligence.

The punishment absolutely fits the crime. He has 25 years of vulnerability to every female with an axe to grind. If he wants a girlfriend, hire a chaperone. Move the clock back 150 years.

So to be clear

A man is now responsible for making sure a woman doesn't lie to him?

Let's take this a step further

What if a woman lies when she tells a man she wants sex? And then has him arrested for rape. Reasoning "I didn't tell the truth when I said I wanted sex, he should have known that?"

Oh , and don't think for one moment that there aren't people out there vindictive enough to do it.

Where do you draw the line? How far are women allowed to lie and a man be punished for it?

Every man should assume that every woman he just met is lying to him. Every woman should assume that every man she just met is lying to her. Do you believe every telemarketer that rings your phone is a paragon of truth?

As long as makes and females think that having sex with those you don't know is harmless they deserve whatever happens. Including being lied to. The fault is with the culture of sex so casual that an app can hook you up for ten minutes at a time.

That's a stupid attitude

"A woman can lie to a man in order to get him to commit a crime"

Obviously so. Women have lied to men to commit murder. Obviously women can. They have the ability. Should they get away with lying to men to get them to commit a crime. Logic says no. Reality says, you just saw it happen.

How did these two find each other? The young man isn't a predator. He didn't search out underage girls. It happened because two strangers who believed that instant anonymous sex was acceptable and the internet helped them hook up.

 

[Montrovant]

I agree in part. However, the boy did not harm the girl, or threaten her. He didn't force himself on her, and treated her well. He isn't the same as other sex offenders simply because he didn't prey on this child. He deserves to be punished, but to have his life ruined for the next 25 years for an act which didn't harm anyone? I don't agree with that.

Okay, but the law says otherwise.

And, no, he didn't treat her well. He had sex with a girl who our laws says isn't able to make those kinds of decisions.

Police officers arriving at the scene of a domestic dispute, where a woman, (or in some cases a man), has been assaulted (not even saying sexual assault here), just regular assault, and they observe bruises, automatically, whether the victim wants to prosecute or not, takes the perpetrator into custody. The State's Attorney than also goes forth with a prosecution, whether the victim wants to or not. Many times, later, in court, the victim doesn't want to proceed with the prosecution, women are notorious for sticking with abusive men (until they kill em). Remember the girlfriend who the NFL player cold clocked in the elevator? Professional football player strength, hit her with everything he had, and she went down like a ton of bricks. The dumb girlfriend sticks with the guy later and lots of people say she attacked him, and deserved the punch ???? She will become another sad statistic eventually.

So, whether the girls parents wanted the boy prosecuted for having sex with their minor daughter or not, means absolutely nothing whatsoever, and the girl, by law, is incapable of reasoning correctly on sexual matters like this. At age 18, people become adults, although they still, in many states, have to wait until they are 21 for some priviledges. You can't purchase a drink - but you can join the military, obtain a driver's license - change your name, drop out of High School, etc.

What you can't do, once you become 18-years old, is have sexual relations, of any type, groping, penetration, assault, with a child UNDER the age of 18. That clear fact seems to be escaping a lot of poster's here. If the girl was 17, he couldn't do it. With a child of 14, absolutely not, and I know of a school teacher who went to jail here for having relations with a 16 year old student. Also, two school security guards, ages 19-20, went to jail, back-to-back one day. First one observed kissing a 15-year old HS student on the CCTV, was arrested when he arrived for work in uniform the next day, and if that wasn't warning enough, his partner was observed on the CCTV, letting a 14-years old HS student (both were female), get in his car at the end of the school day. He was arrested and joined his co-worker on arrival at school the next day. Both got 3-years jail time, the teacher is doing 10 -20 years, and he had the girls consent, in fact, was dating here for quite awhile. She couldn't give consent legally.

One doesn't raise the age of consent on sexual matters, based on the fact that the times have changed and juveniles are exposed to much more than in previous times. The human mind and maturity hasn't changed. Despite the long lives of some of our Founding Father's, the lifespan during colonial times only averaged about 35 years, with all the diseases. Modern teenagers mature biologically, much faster than they do intellectually. Therefore, we have an age of consent law in just about every state, and 18 seems to be the cut off age. Is there any adult on this forum that would put much stock in the opinions and comments of 14 year old posting? I doubt it. You would know they are a child just by reading their words.

What that judge is doing in putting the 19-year old on the Sexual Predator's register, is protecting the next 12-13-14-15-16-17 year old girl he or any other 19-60 year old decides to go after, for the next 25-years, and sending a message to everyone in his state that this type of behavior will NOT be tolerated. Whether the parents wanted the case dismissed, means nothing, and the girls opinion isn't valid either, she can't make that decision - by law. The judge rightly dismissed the opinion of the parents and the girl, because he is protecting society from this type of behavior by others in the future.

That is why we have laws, and why laws have to be obeyed. Teenage girls can make themselves up to look older than they are, and very provocative - but it is the responsibility of the male to insure they are of age, otherwise, you are going to get hit with the full weight of the law, if you even touch them. She might have looked 22 on her web page - but you can't tell me once they met, that the guy couldn't tell she was a minor, all you have to do to determine that is listen to their speech in most cases. Also, what happens when this girl repeats the offense with another stupid 18-19-20 plus year old boy, or man? You think she is going to stop having sexual relations for the next four years, until she turns age 18?

Some people in here are living in a liberal cloud - change the law and let the guilty go, instead of protecting the innocent, that is the 14 year old, and every minor child under the age of 18, and whether she solicited the engagement or not, we follow the law, because the message is clear - hands off, they are children.....

You may not be familiar with the differences in state age of consent laws, but the law is not universal in this country that an 18 year old cannot legally have sex with an under-18 year old. Some states have age of consent at 16, some have different rules for 18-20somethings than for older adults, etc.

As to the idea that a 19 year old must know that a 14 year old is not 17, that's ridiculous. Utterly asinine. Different people mature at different rates, some people may present themselves in a more adult fashion as children than others, and different people have varying abilities to determine the age of others. Without knowing either individual involved, it's nearly impossible to say whether the 19 year old should have known, simply through social interaction, the age of the 14 year old. Have you never known a particularly immature adult that could pass for a child? Hell, most teens on television are played by 20-somethings, and very often they do it fairly convincingly. The same can be true, at least to some extent, in the other direction. It is entirely possible that the girl did a good enough job presenting herself as a 17 year old to pass casual inspection both physically and emotionally.

Also, according to at least one of the articles, there is a provision in the law of this state that allows for leniency for offenders under the age of 21 (I believe). This was a 19 year old, first time offender, and the girl admitted to lying about her age. Add in the girl and mother both asking for the charges to be dropped and I seriously question the judge's decision.

As always, this is based on the facts available, there could well be further information which would change the situation.

The only part of your post which makes any sense whatsoever, is the last paragraph about the first time offender opt-out. The Judge decided not to extend that get-out-of-jail free card to this man. Whatever his reasoning was, it still comes down to protecting children. This guy isn't going to have sex with a child again, and it appears that judge is sending a severe message to every man in Michigan, that sex with minor children won't be tolerated, whether you are 18-19 or 60+ years old. I agree with him completely. This is what the criminal justice system is designed for, retribution and deterrence, not the liberal rehabilitation garbage you are crying crocodile tears over here.

You think the guy is going to stop having sex? We don't know the attitude he presented in court, what his defense was, other than she gave consent, which the child is not capable of doing. Obviously this judge, protecting the state's children by sending the message that you will end up on a sexual predator list for 25-years if you violate children sexually, and at that, he didn't send the guy to jail from what I understand.

Even if we took everything you wrote as gospel (and your tone is more liberal-cloud nonsense - let the guilty go), and we forget about the 18-year old consent rule, which apparently applies in this case, no guy in the world is going to mistake a 14-year old for an 18-year old. You can dress your silly ideas up with rhetoric about how teenager's on television are portrayed by 20-year old actors and actresses, but Hollywood insures their talent receives the absolute best makeup, grooming and makeover, before those people appear in front of a camera. That tosses that argument out the window, it is a sad excuse and a diversion from the real problem anyways.

She is a Freshman in High School, and a child. Why the concern for the parent's opinion regarding asking for leniency for the guy who had a sexual encounter with their way underage daughter? I raised a beautiful daughter, and trust me, at age 14, she was lovely - but nobody would have ever mistaken her for an 18-year old, and we controlled her appearance and clothing style to what a 14-year old should be as a High School Freshman.

What you should be posting about, instead of this liberal horse hockey, is calling for the parents to be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and perhaps having the girl removed by Children's Services from their custody. Obviously they have no control over her. Also, you didn't respond to my question that the girl is sexually active - at age 14, and soliciting sex on the internet - there is another lack of control by the parents in their responsibilities to their daughter. And you want to have a judge accept their opinion and recommendation? Do you really think she is going to quit having sex for the next four years, until she turns 18-and can legally give consent? Of course not - but somebody better be keeping tabs on her activities - whereabouts - friends - internet access and style, in addition to her school work, of another guy is going to fall into her clutches. No matter how you look at this case, the 19-year old male isn't the victim, he is the instigator of the criminal act of illegal sex with a female child. If it deters even one adult male in the state from repeating his mistake, that the judge's decision to hang a sexual predator sign on him for 25-years is justified and fair.....................

You certainly are sure of yourself. Have you met this girl? No? Then how can you possibly know whether or not it is reasonable that she passed herself off as a 17 year old?

If you think it is impossible for a 19 year old boy to mistake a 14 year old girl for a 17 year old girl, then I would guess you have limited experience around teenagers. Then again, considering the self assured nature of your obviously incorrect assertions, perhaps you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit with what you think you already know.

Oh, and I didn't say the boy cannot be punished, rather that the punishment doled out is too severe. When the victim and the victim's parent both want leniency or for no charges to even be pressed, when the law specifically provides an outlet for leniency in this situation, when the boy is a first time offender, it seems harsh to spend the next 25 years on a sex offender list and to have your chosen college education ended for at least a couple of years. Again, there may be facts not available which would change my opinion, but everything written in the articles I read about the case indicate this was an honest mistake and not intentional sexual predation. There was nothing to say the boy was a particular threat to do this again. Putting him on a sex offender list demeans the purpose of such a list.

I find it interesting that you say 'another guy is going to fall into her clutches' in describing the 14 year old, and immediately follow that up by saying no matter how you look at the case the 19 year old isn't the victim. So falling into someone's clutches means what, exactly?

 

[Stan Fan]

I agree in part. However, the boy did not harm the girl, or threaten her. He didn't force himself on her, and treated her well. He isn't the same as other sex offenders simply because he didn't prey on this child. He deserves to be punished, but to have his life ruined for the next 25 years for an act which didn't harm anyone? I don't agree with that.

Okay, but the law says otherwise.

And, no, he didn't treat her well. He had sex with a girl who our laws says isn't able to make those kinds of decisions.

Police officers arriving at the scene of a domestic dispute, where a woman, (or in some cases a man), has been assaulted (not even saying sexual assault here), just regular assault, and they observe bruises, automatically, whether the victim wants to prosecute or not, takes the perpetrator into custody. The State's Attorney than also goes forth with a prosecution, whether the victim wants to or not. Many times, later, in court, the victim doesn't want to proceed with the prosecution, women are notorious for sticking with abusive men (until they kill em). Remember the girlfriend who the NFL player cold clocked in the elevator? Professional football player strength, hit her with everything he had, and she went down like a ton of bricks. The dumb girlfriend sticks with the guy later and lots of people say she attacked him, and deserved the punch ???? She will become another sad statistic eventually.

So, whether the girls parents wanted the boy prosecuted for having sex with their minor daughter or not, means absolutely nothing whatsoever, and the girl, by law, is incapable of reasoning correctly on sexual matters like this. At age 18, people become adults, although they still, in many states, have to wait until they are 21 for some priviledges. You can't purchase a drink - but you can join the military, obtain a driver's license - change your name, drop out of High School, etc.

What you can't do, once you become 18-years old, is have sexual relations, of any type, groping, penetration, assault, with a child UNDER the age of 18. That clear fact seems to be escaping a lot of poster's here. If the girl was 17, he couldn't do it. With a child of 14, absolutely not, and I know of a school teacher who went to jail here for having relations with a 16 year old student. Also, two school security guards, ages 19-20, went to jail, back-to-back one day. First one observed kissing a 15-year old HS student on the CCTV, was arrested when he arrived for work in uniform the next day, and if that wasn't warning enough, his partner was observed on the CCTV, letting a 14-years old HS student (both were female), get in his car at the end of the school day. He was arrested and joined his co-worker on arrival at school the next day. Both got 3-years jail time, the teacher is doing 10 -20 years, and he had the girls consent, in fact, was dating here for quite awhile. She couldn't give consent legally.

One doesn't raise the age of consent on sexual matters, based on the fact that the times have changed and juveniles are exposed to much more than in previous times. The human mind and maturity hasn't changed. Despite the long lives of some of our Founding Father's, the lifespan during colonial times only averaged about 35 years, with all the diseases. Modern teenagers mature biologically, much faster than they do intellectually. Therefore, we have an age of consent law in just about every state, and 18 seems to be the cut off age. Is there any adult on this forum that would put much stock in the opinions and comments of 14 year old posting? I doubt it. You would know they are a child just by reading their words.

What that judge is doing in putting the 19-year old on the Sexual Predator's register, is protecting the next 12-13-14-15-16-17 year old girl he or any other 19-60 year old decides to go after, for the next 25-years, and sending a message to everyone in his state that this type of behavior will NOT be tolerated. Whether the parents wanted the case dismissed, means nothing, and the girls opinion isn't valid either, she can't make that decision - by law. The judge rightly dismissed the opinion of the parents and the girl, because he is protecting society from this type of behavior by others in the future.

That is why we have laws, and why laws have to be obeyed. Teenage girls can make themselves up to look older than they are, and very provocative - but it is the responsibility of the male to insure they are of age, otherwise, you are going to get hit with the full weight of the law, if you even touch them. She might have looked 22 on her web page - but you can't tell me once they met, that the guy couldn't tell she was a minor, all you have to do to determine that is listen to their speech in most cases. Also, what happens when this girl repeats the offense with another stupid 18-19-20 plus year old boy, or man? You think she is going to stop having sexual relations for the next four years, until she turns age 18?

Some people in here are living in a liberal cloud - change the law and let the guilty go, instead of protecting the innocent, that is the 14 year old, and every minor child under the age of 18, and whether she solicited the engagement or not, we follow the law, because the message is clear - hands off, they are children.....

You may not be familiar with the differences in state age of consent laws, but the law is not universal in this country that an 18 year old cannot legally have sex with an under-18 year old. Some states have age of consent at 16, some have different rules for 18-20somethings than for older adults, etc.

As to the idea that a 19 year old must know that a 14 year old is not 17, that's ridiculous. Utterly asinine. Different people mature at different rates, some people may present themselves in a more adult fashion as children than others, and different people have varying abilities to determine the age of others. Without knowing either individual involved, it's nearly impossible to say whether the 19 year old should have known, simply through social interaction, the age of the 14 year old. Have you never known a particularly immature adult that could pass for a child? Hell, most teens on television are played by 20-somethings, and very often they do it fairly convincingly. The same can be true, at least to some extent, in the other direction. It is entirely possible that the girl did a good enough job presenting herself as a 17 year old to pass casual inspection both physically and emotionally.

Also, according to at least one of the articles, there is a provision in the law of this state that allows for leniency for offenders under the age of 21 (I believe). This was a 19 year old, first time offender, and the girl admitted to lying about her age. Add in the girl and mother both asking for the charges to be dropped and I seriously question the judge's decision.

As always, this is based on the facts available, there could well be further information which would change the situation.

The only part of your post which makes any sense whatsoever, is the last paragraph about the first time offender opt-out. The Judge decided not to extend that get-out-of-jail free card to this man. Whatever his reasoning was, it still comes down to protecting children. This guy isn't going to have sex with a child again, and it appears that judge is sending a severe message to every man in Michigan, that sex with minor children won't be tolerated, whether you are 18-19 or 60+ years old. I agree with him completely. This is what the criminal justice system is designed for, retribution and deterrence, not the liberal rehabilitation garbage you are crying crocodile tears over here.

You think the guy is going to stop having sex? We don't know the attitude he presented in court, what his defense was, other than she gave consent, which the child is not capable of doing. Obviously this judge, protecting the state's children by sending the message that you will end up on a sexual predator list for 25-years if you violate children sexually, and at that, he didn't send the guy to jail from what I understand.

Even if we took everything you wrote as gospel (and your tone is more liberal-cloud nonsense - let the guilty go), and we forget about the 18-year old consent rule, which apparently applies in this case, no guy in the world is going to mistake a 14-year old for an 18-year old. You can dress your silly ideas up with rhetoric about how teenager's on television are portrayed by 20-year old actors and actresses, but Hollywood insures their talent receives the absolute best makeup, grooming and makeover, before those people appear in front of a camera. That tosses that argument out the window, it is a sad excuse and a diversion from the real problem anyways.

She is a Freshman in High School, and a child. Why the concern for the parent's opinion regarding asking for leniency for the guy who had a sexual encounter with their way underage daughter? I raised a beautiful daughter, and trust me, at age 14, she was lovely - but nobody would have ever mistaken her for an 18-year old, and we controlled her appearance and clothing style to what a 14-year old should be as a High School Freshman.

What you should be posting about, instead of this liberal horse hockey, is calling for the parents to be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and perhaps having the girl removed by Children's Services from their custody. Obviously they have no control over her. Also, you didn't respond to my question that the girl is sexually active - at age 14, and soliciting sex on the internet - there is another lack of control by the parents in their responsibilities to their daughter. And you want to have a judge accept their opinion and recommendation? Do you really think she is going to quit having sex for the next four years, until she turns 18-and can legally give consent? Of course not - but somebody better be keeping tabs on her activities - whereabouts - friends - internet access and style, in addition to her school work, of another guy is going to fall into her clutches. No matter how you look at this case, the 19-year old male isn't the victim, he is the instigator of the criminal act of illegal sex with a female child. If it deters even one adult male in the state from repeating his mistake, that the judge's decision to hang a sexual predator sign on him for 25-years is justified and fair.....................

You certainly are sure of yourself. Have you met this girl? No? Then how can you possibly know whether or not it is reasonable that she passed herself off as a 17 year old?

If you think it is impossible for a 19 year old boy to mistake a 14 year old girl for a 17 year old girl, then I would guess you have limited experience around teenagers. Then again, considering the self assured nature of your obviously incorrect assertions, perhaps you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit with what you think you already know.

Oh, and I didn't say the boy cannot be punished, rather that the punishment doled out is too severe. When the victim and the victim's parent both want leniency or for no charges to even be pressed, when the law specifically provides an outlet for leniency in this situation, when the boy is a first time offender, it seems harsh to spend the next 25 years on a sex offender list and to have your chosen college education ended for at least a couple of years. Again, there may be facts not available which would change my opinion, but everything written in the articles I read about the case indicate this was an honest mistake and not intentional sexual predation. There was nothing to say the boy was a particular threat to do this again. Putting him on a sex offender list demeans the purpose of such a list.

I find it interesting that you say 'another guy is going to fall into her clutches' in describing the 14 year old, and immediately follow that up by saying no matter how you look at the case the 19 year old isn't the victim. So falling into someone's clutches means what, exactly?

I happen to be a High School teacher for your information.
Do you happen to have a law degree?
When you are elected a judge in some state's or district's criminal court system, you can dispense justice however the law allows, and your own feelings would be valid and considered.
The law doesn't allow rape of minors. Children under the age of 16 in Michigan are minors. The guy went looking for sex on the internet, good way to get caught as a pedophile or predator by the police who monitor Facebook and social media sites like that. The girl did nothing wrong, because she isn't capable of making adult decisions. This is America, we follow the law. Somehow, you can't seem to get that through your head.
The girls feelings and decisions are not recognized in a court of law, because she is a child.
The parents opinion and pleas do not mitigate the rape charge, therefore, the judge didn't concede to them.
The judge passed a perfectly legal and appropriate sentence on this man, and if men all over Michigan, and probably by now, the country, reading about it, don't get the message that sex with minors is rape - they probably will end up the same way.
The judge was lenient - he didn't send the man to prison where he would have really understood, quickly, the true meaning of rape.
Your views are that of an idiot regarding this matter...............

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Okay, but the law says otherwise.

And, no, he didn't treat her well. He had sex with a girl who our laws says isn't able to make those kinds of decisions.

Police officers arriving at the scene of a domestic dispute, where a woman, (or in some cases a man), has been assaulted (not even saying sexual assault here), just regular assault, and they observe bruises, automatically, whether the victim wants to prosecute or not, takes the perpetrator into custody. The State's Attorney than also goes forth with a prosecution, whether the victim wants to or not. Many times, later, in court, the victim doesn't want to proceed with the prosecution, women are notorious for sticking with abusive men (until they kill em). Remember the girlfriend who the NFL player cold clocked in the elevator? Professional football player strength, hit her with everything he had, and she went down like a ton of bricks. The dumb girlfriend sticks with the guy later and lots of people say she attacked him, and deserved the punch ???? She will become another sad statistic eventually.

So, whether the girls parents wanted the boy prosecuted for having sex with their minor daughter or not, means absolutely nothing whatsoever, and the girl, by law, is incapable of reasoning correctly on sexual matters like this. At age 18, people become adults, although they still, in many states, have to wait until they are 21 for some priviledges. You can't purchase a drink - but you can join the military, obtain a driver's license - change your name, drop out of High School, etc.

What you can't do, once you become 18-years old, is have sexual relations, of any type, groping, penetration, assault, with a child UNDER the age of 18. That clear fact seems to be escaping a lot of poster's here. If the girl was 17, he couldn't do it. With a child of 14, absolutely not, and I know of a school teacher who went to jail here for having relations with a 16 year old student. Also, two school security guards, ages 19-20, went to jail, back-to-back one day. First one observed kissing a 15-year old HS student on the CCTV, was arrested when he arrived for work in uniform the next day, and if that wasn't warning enough, his partner was observed on the CCTV, letting a 14-years old HS student (both were female), get in his car at the end of the school day. He was arrested and joined his co-worker on arrival at school the next day. Both got 3-years jail time, the teacher is doing 10 -20 years, and he had the girls consent, in fact, was dating here for quite awhile. She couldn't give consent legally.

One doesn't raise the age of consent on sexual matters, based on the fact that the times have changed and juveniles are exposed to much more than in previous times. The human mind and maturity hasn't changed. Despite the long lives of some of our Founding Father's, the lifespan during colonial times only averaged about 35 years, with all the diseases. Modern teenagers mature biologically, much faster than they do intellectually. Therefore, we have an age of consent law in just about every state, and 18 seems to be the cut off age. Is there any adult on this forum that would put much stock in the opinions and comments of 14 year old posting? I doubt it. You would know they are a child just by reading their words.

What that judge is doing in putting the 19-year old on the Sexual Predator's register, is protecting the next 12-13-14-15-16-17 year old girl he or any other 19-60 year old decides to go after, for the next 25-years, and sending a message to everyone in his state that this type of behavior will NOT be tolerated. Whether the parents wanted the case dismissed, means nothing, and the girls opinion isn't valid either, she can't make that decision - by law. The judge rightly dismissed the opinion of the parents and the girl, because he is protecting society from this type of behavior by others in the future.

That is why we have laws, and why laws have to be obeyed. Teenage girls can make themselves up to look older than they are, and very provocative - but it is the responsibility of the male to insure they are of age, otherwise, you are going to get hit with the full weight of the law, if you even touch them. She might have looked 22 on her web page - but you can't tell me once they met, that the guy couldn't tell she was a minor, all you have to do to determine that is listen to their speech in most cases. Also, what happens when this girl repeats the offense with another stupid 18-19-20 plus year old boy, or man? You think she is going to stop having sexual relations for the next four years, until she turns age 18?

Some people in here are living in a liberal cloud - change the law and let the guilty go, instead of protecting the innocent, that is the 14 year old, and every minor child under the age of 18, and whether she solicited the engagement or not, we follow the law, because the message is clear - hands off, they are children.....

You may not be familiar with the differences in state age of consent laws, but the law is not universal in this country that an 18 year old cannot legally have sex with an under-18 year old. Some states have age of consent at 16, some have different rules for 18-20somethings than for older adults, etc.

As to the idea that a 19 year old must know that a 14 year old is not 17, that's ridiculous. Utterly asinine. Different people mature at different rates, some people may present themselves in a more adult fashion as children than others, and different people have varying abilities to determine the age of others. Without knowing either individual involved, it's nearly impossible to say whether the 19 year old should have known, simply through social interaction, the age of the 14 year old. Have you never known a particularly immature adult that could pass for a child? Hell, most teens on television are played by 20-somethings, and very often they do it fairly convincingly. The same can be true, at least to some extent, in the other direction. It is entirely possible that the girl did a good enough job presenting herself as a 17 year old to pass casual inspection both physically and emotionally.

Also, according to at least one of the articles, there is a provision in the law of this state that allows for leniency for offenders under the age of 21 (I believe). This was a 19 year old, first time offender, and the girl admitted to lying about her age. Add in the girl and mother both asking for the charges to be dropped and I seriously question the judge's decision.

As always, this is based on the facts available, there could well be further information which would change the situation.

The only part of your post which makes any sense whatsoever, is the last paragraph about the first time offender opt-out. The Judge decided not to extend that get-out-of-jail free card to this man. Whatever his reasoning was, it still comes down to protecting children. This guy isn't going to have sex with a child again, and it appears that judge is sending a severe message to every man in Michigan, that sex with minor children won't be tolerated, whether you are 18-19 or 60+ years old. I agree with him completely. This is what the criminal justice system is designed for, retribution and deterrence, not the liberal rehabilitation garbage you are crying crocodile tears over here.

You think the guy is going to stop having sex? We don't know the attitude he presented in court, what his defense was, other than she gave consent, which the child is not capable of doing. Obviously this judge, protecting the state's children by sending the message that you will end up on a sexual predator list for 25-years if you violate children sexually, and at that, he didn't send the guy to jail from what I understand.

Even if we took everything you wrote as gospel (and your tone is more liberal-cloud nonsense - let the guilty go), and we forget about the 18-year old consent rule, which apparently applies in this case, no guy in the world is going to mistake a 14-year old for an 18-year old. You can dress your silly ideas up with rhetoric about how teenager's on television are portrayed by 20-year old actors and actresses, but Hollywood insures their talent receives the absolute best makeup, grooming and makeover, before those people appear in front of a camera. That tosses that argument out the window, it is a sad excuse and a diversion from the real problem anyways.

She is a Freshman in High School, and a child. Why the concern for the parent's opinion regarding asking for leniency for the guy who had a sexual encounter with their way underage daughter? I raised a beautiful daughter, and trust me, at age 14, she was lovely - but nobody would have ever mistaken her for an 18-year old, and we controlled her appearance and clothing style to what a 14-year old should be as a High School Freshman.

What you should be posting about, instead of this liberal horse hockey, is calling for the parents to be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and perhaps having the girl removed by Children's Services from their custody. Obviously they have no control over her. Also, you didn't respond to my question that the girl is sexually active - at age 14, and soliciting sex on the internet - there is another lack of control by the parents in their responsibilities to their daughter. And you want to have a judge accept their opinion and recommendation? Do you really think she is going to quit having sex for the next four years, until she turns 18-and can legally give consent? Of course not - but somebody better be keeping tabs on her activities - whereabouts - friends - internet access and style, in addition to her school work, of another guy is going to fall into her clutches. No matter how you look at this case, the 19-year old male isn't the victim, he is the instigator of the criminal act of illegal sex with a female child. If it deters even one adult male in the state from repeating his mistake, that the judge's decision to hang a sexual predator sign on him for 25-years is justified and fair.....................

You certainly are sure of yourself. Have you met this girl? No? Then how can you possibly know whether or not it is reasonable that she passed herself off as a 17 year old?

If you think it is impossible for a 19 year old boy to mistake a 14 year old girl for a 17 year old girl, then I would guess you have limited experience around teenagers. Then again, considering the self assured nature of your obviously incorrect assertions, perhaps you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit with what you think you already know.

Oh, and I didn't say the boy cannot be punished, rather that the punishment doled out is too severe. When the victim and the victim's parent both want leniency or for no charges to even be pressed, when the law specifically provides an outlet for leniency in this situation, when the boy is a first time offender, it seems harsh to spend the next 25 years on a sex offender list and to have your chosen college education ended for at least a couple of years. Again, there may be facts not available which would change my opinion, but everything written in the articles I read about the case indicate this was an honest mistake and not intentional sexual predation. There was nothing to say the boy was a particular threat to do this again. Putting him on a sex offender list demeans the purpose of such a list.

I find it interesting that you say 'another guy is going to fall into her clutches' in describing the 14 year old, and immediately follow that up by saying no matter how you look at the case the 19 year old isn't the victim. So falling into someone's clutches means what, exactly?

I happen to be a High School teacher for your information.
Do you happen to have a law degree?
When you are elected a judge in some state's or district's criminal court system, you can dispense justice however the law allows, and your own feelings would be valid and considered.
The law doesn't allow rape of minors. Children under the age of 16 in Michigan are minors. The guy went looking for sex on the internet, good way to get caught as a pedophile or predator by the police who monitor Facebook and social media sites like that. The girl did nothing wrong, because she isn't capable of making adult decisions. This is America, we follow the law. Somehow, you can't seem to get that through your head.
The girls feelings and decisions are not recognized in a court of law, because she is a child.
The parents opinion and pleas do not mitigate the rape charge, therefore, the judge didn't concede to them.
The judge passed a perfectly legal and appropriate sentence on this man, and if men all over Michigan, and probably by now, the country, reading about it, don't get the message that sex with minors is rape - they probably will end up the same way.
The judge was lenient - he didn't send the man to prison where he would have really understood, quickly, the true meaning of rape.
Your views are that of an idiot regarding this matter...............

Are you insane? OF COURSE the girl did something wrong, something that SHOULD be made illegal.

 

[Papageorgio]

Police officers arriving at the scene of a domestic dispute, where a woman, (or in some cases a man), has been assaulted (not even saying sexual assault here), just regular assault, and they observe bruises, automatically, whether the victim wants to prosecute or not, takes the perpetrator into custody. The State's Attorney than also goes forth with a prosecution, whether the victim wants to or not. Many times, later, in court, the victim doesn't want to proceed with the prosecution, women are notorious for sticking with abusive men (until they kill em). Remember the girlfriend who the NFL player cold clocked in the elevator? Professional football player strength, hit her with everything he had, and she went down like a ton of bricks. The dumb girlfriend sticks with the guy later and lots of people say she attacked him, and deserved the punch ???? She will become another sad statistic eventually.

So, whether the girls parents wanted the boy prosecuted for having sex with their minor daughter or not, means absolutely nothing whatsoever, and the girl, by law, is incapable of reasoning correctly on sexual matters like this. At age 18, people become adults, although they still, in many states, have to wait until they are 21 for some priviledges. You can't purchase a drink - but you can join the military, obtain a driver's license - change your name, drop out of High School, etc.

What you can't do, once you become 18-years old, is have sexual relations, of any type, groping, penetration, assault, with a child UNDER the age of 18. That clear fact seems to be escaping a lot of poster's here. If the girl was 17, he couldn't do it. With a child of 14, absolutely not, and I know of a school teacher who went to jail here for having relations with a 16 year old student. Also, two school security guards, ages 19-20, went to jail, back-to-back one day. First one observed kissing a 15-year old HS student on the CCTV, was arrested when he arrived for work in uniform the next day, and if that wasn't warning enough, his partner was observed on the CCTV, letting a 14-years old HS student (both were female), get in his car at the end of the school day. He was arrested and joined his co-worker on arrival at school the next day. Both got 3-years jail time, the teacher is doing 10 -20 years, and he had the girls consent, in fact, was dating here for quite awhile. She couldn't give consent legally.

One doesn't raise the age of consent on sexual matters, based on the fact that the times have changed and juveniles are exposed to much more than in previous times. The human mind and maturity hasn't changed. Despite the long lives of some of our Founding Father's, the lifespan during colonial times only averaged about 35 years, with all the diseases. Modern teenagers mature biologically, much faster than they do intellectually. Therefore, we have an age of consent law in just about every state, and 18 seems to be the cut off age. Is there any adult on this forum that would put much stock in the opinions and comments of 14 year old posting? I doubt it. You would know they are a child just by reading their words.

What that judge is doing in putting the 19-year old on the Sexual Predator's register, is protecting the next 12-13-14-15-16-17 year old girl he or any other 19-60 year old decides to go after, for the next 25-years, and sending a message to everyone in his state that this type of behavior will NOT be tolerated. Whether the parents wanted the case dismissed, means nothing, and the girls opinion isn't valid either, she can't make that decision - by law. The judge rightly dismissed the opinion of the parents and the girl, because he is protecting society from this type of behavior by others in the future.

That is why we have laws, and why laws have to be obeyed. Teenage girls can make themselves up to look older than they are, and very provocative - but it is the responsibility of the male to insure they are of age, otherwise, you are going to get hit with the full weight of the law, if you even touch them. She might have looked 22 on her web page - but you can't tell me once they met, that the guy couldn't tell she was a minor, all you have to do to determine that is listen to their speech in most cases. Also, what happens when this girl repeats the offense with another stupid 18-19-20 plus year old boy, or man? You think she is going to stop having sexual relations for the next four years, until she turns age 18?

Some people in here are living in a liberal cloud - change the law and let the guilty go, instead of protecting the innocent, that is the 14 year old, and every minor child under the age of 18, and whether she solicited the engagement or not, we follow the law, because the message is clear - hands off, they are children.....

You may not be familiar with the differences in state age of consent laws, but the law is not universal in this country that an 18 year old cannot legally have sex with an under-18 year old. Some states have age of consent at 16, some have different rules for 18-20somethings than for older adults, etc.

As to the idea that a 19 year old must know that a 14 year old is not 17, that's ridiculous. Utterly asinine. Different people mature at different rates, some people may present themselves in a more adult fashion as children than others, and different people have varying abilities to determine the age of others. Without knowing either individual involved, it's nearly impossible to say whether the 19 year old should have known, simply through social interaction, the age of the 14 year old. Have you never known a particularly immature adult that could pass for a child? Hell, most teens on television are played by 20-somethings, and very often they do it fairly convincingly. The same can be true, at least to some extent, in the other direction. It is entirely possible that the girl did a good enough job presenting herself as a 17 year old to pass casual inspection both physically and emotionally.

Also, according to at least one of the articles, there is a provision in the law of this state that allows for leniency for offenders under the age of 21 (I believe). This was a 19 year old, first time offender, and the girl admitted to lying about her age. Add in the girl and mother both asking for the charges to be dropped and I seriously question the judge's decision.

As always, this is based on the facts available, there could well be further information which would change the situation.

The only part of your post which makes any sense whatsoever, is the last paragraph about the first time offender opt-out. The Judge decided not to extend that get-out-of-jail free card to this man. Whatever his reasoning was, it still comes down to protecting children. This guy isn't going to have sex with a child again, and it appears that judge is sending a severe message to every man in Michigan, that sex with minor children won't be tolerated, whether you are 18-19 or 60+ years old. I agree with him completely. This is what the criminal justice system is designed for, retribution and deterrence, not the liberal rehabilitation garbage you are crying crocodile tears over here.

You think the guy is going to stop having sex? We don't know the attitude he presented in court, what his defense was, other than she gave consent, which the child is not capable of doing. Obviously this judge, protecting the state's children by sending the message that you will end up on a sexual predator list for 25-years if you violate children sexually, and at that, he didn't send the guy to jail from what I understand.

Even if we took everything you wrote as gospel (and your tone is more liberal-cloud nonsense - let the guilty go), and we forget about the 18-year old consent rule, which apparently applies in this case, no guy in the world is going to mistake a 14-year old for an 18-year old. You can dress your silly ideas up with rhetoric about how teenager's on television are portrayed by 20-year old actors and actresses, but Hollywood insures their talent receives the absolute best makeup, grooming and makeover, before those people appear in front of a camera. That tosses that argument out the window, it is a sad excuse and a diversion from the real problem anyways.

She is a Freshman in High School, and a child. Why the concern for the parent's opinion regarding asking for leniency for the guy who had a sexual encounter with their way underage daughter? I raised a beautiful daughter, and trust me, at age 14, she was lovely - but nobody would have ever mistaken her for an 18-year old, and we controlled her appearance and clothing style to what a 14-year old should be as a High School Freshman.

What you should be posting about, instead of this liberal horse hockey, is calling for the parents to be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and perhaps having the girl removed by Children's Services from their custody. Obviously they have no control over her. Also, you didn't respond to my question that the girl is sexually active - at age 14, and soliciting sex on the internet - there is another lack of control by the parents in their responsibilities to their daughter. And you want to have a judge accept their opinion and recommendation? Do you really think she is going to quit having sex for the next four years, until she turns 18-and can legally give consent? Of course not - but somebody better be keeping tabs on her activities - whereabouts - friends - internet access and style, in addition to her school work, of another guy is going to fall into her clutches. No matter how you look at this case, the 19-year old male isn't the victim, he is the instigator of the criminal act of illegal sex with a female child. If it deters even one adult male in the state from repeating his mistake, that the judge's decision to hang a sexual predator sign on him for 25-years is justified and fair.....................

You certainly are sure of yourself. Have you met this girl? No? Then how can you possibly know whether or not it is reasonable that she passed herself off as a 17 year old?

If you think it is impossible for a 19 year old boy to mistake a 14 year old girl for a 17 year old girl, then I would guess you have limited experience around teenagers. Then again, considering the self assured nature of your obviously incorrect assertions, perhaps you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit with what you think you already know.

Oh, and I didn't say the boy cannot be punished, rather that the punishment doled out is too severe. When the victim and the victim's parent both want leniency or for no charges to even be pressed, when the law specifically provides an outlet for leniency in this situation, when the boy is a first time offender, it seems harsh to spend the next 25 years on a sex offender list and to have your chosen college education ended for at least a couple of years. Again, there may be facts not available which would change my opinion, but everything written in the articles I read about the case indicate this was an honest mistake and not intentional sexual predation. There was nothing to say the boy was a particular threat to do this again. Putting him on a sex offender list demeans the purpose of such a list.

I find it interesting that you say 'another guy is going to fall into her clutches' in describing the 14 year old, and immediately follow that up by saying no matter how you look at the case the 19 year old isn't the victim. So falling into someone's clutches means what, exactly?

I happen to be a High School teacher for your information.
Do you happen to have a law degree?
When you are elected a judge in some state's or district's criminal court system, you can dispense justice however the law allows, and your own feelings would be valid and considered.
The law doesn't allow rape of minors. Children under the age of 16 in Michigan are minors. The guy went looking for sex on the internet, good way to get caught as a pedophile or predator by the police who monitor Facebook and social media sites like that. The girl did nothing wrong, because she isn't capable of making adult decisions. This is America, we follow the law. Somehow, you can't seem to get that through your head.
The girls feelings and decisions are not recognized in a court of law, because she is a child.
The parents opinion and pleas do not mitigate the rape charge, therefore, the judge didn't concede to them.
The judge passed a perfectly legal and appropriate sentence on this man, and if men all over Michigan, and probably by now, the country, reading about it, don't get the message that sex with minors is rape - they probably will end up the same way.
The judge was lenient - he didn't send the man to prison where he would have really understood, quickly, the true meaning of rape.
Your views are that of an idiot regarding this matter...............

Are you insane? OF COURSE the girl did something wrong, something that SHOULD be made illegal.

So you are saying ignorance on the part of the 19 year old is an excuse to break the law?

A 19 year old conned by a little 14 year old girl. Pretty embarrassing.

 

[Montrovant]

Police officers arriving at the scene of a domestic dispute, where a woman, (or in some cases a man), has been assaulted (not even saying sexual assault here), just regular assault, and they observe bruises, automatically, whether the victim wants to prosecute or not, takes the perpetrator into custody. The State's Attorney than also goes forth with a prosecution, whether the victim wants to or not. Many times, later, in court, the victim doesn't want to proceed with the prosecution, women are notorious for sticking with abusive men (until they kill em). Remember the girlfriend who the NFL player cold clocked in the elevator? Professional football player strength, hit her with everything he had, and she went down like a ton of bricks. The dumb girlfriend sticks with the guy later and lots of people say she attacked him, and deserved the punch ???? She will become another sad statistic eventually.

So, whether the girls parents wanted the boy prosecuted for having sex with their minor daughter or not, means absolutely nothing whatsoever, and the girl, by law, is incapable of reasoning correctly on sexual matters like this. At age 18, people become adults, although they still, in many states, have to wait until they are 21 for some priviledges. You can't purchase a drink - but you can join the military, obtain a driver's license - change your name, drop out of High School, etc.

What you can't do, once you become 18-years old, is have sexual relations, of any type, groping, penetration, assault, with a child UNDER the age of 18. That clear fact seems to be escaping a lot of poster's here. If the girl was 17, he couldn't do it. With a child of 14, absolutely not, and I know of a school teacher who went to jail here for having relations with a 16 year old student. Also, two school security guards, ages 19-20, went to jail, back-to-back one day. First one observed kissing a 15-year old HS student on the CCTV, was arrested when he arrived for work in uniform the next day, and if that wasn't warning enough, his partner was observed on the CCTV, letting a 14-years old HS student (both were female), get in his car at the end of the school day. He was arrested and joined his co-worker on arrival at school the next day. Both got 3-years jail time, the teacher is doing 10 -20 years, and he had the girls consent, in fact, was dating here for quite awhile. She couldn't give consent legally.

One doesn't raise the age of consent on sexual matters, based on the fact that the times have changed and juveniles are exposed to much more than in previous times. The human mind and maturity hasn't changed. Despite the long lives of some of our Founding Father's, the lifespan during colonial times only averaged about 35 years, with all the diseases. Modern teenagers mature biologically, much faster than they do intellectually. Therefore, we have an age of consent law in just about every state, and 18 seems to be the cut off age. Is there any adult on this forum that would put much stock in the opinions and comments of 14 year old posting? I doubt it. You would know they are a child just by reading their words.

What that judge is doing in putting the 19-year old on the Sexual Predator's register, is protecting the next 12-13-14-15-16-17 year old girl he or any other 19-60 year old decides to go after, for the next 25-years, and sending a message to everyone in his state that this type of behavior will NOT be tolerated. Whether the parents wanted the case dismissed, means nothing, and the girls opinion isn't valid either, she can't make that decision - by law. The judge rightly dismissed the opinion of the parents and the girl, because he is protecting society from this type of behavior by others in the future.

That is why we have laws, and why laws have to be obeyed. Teenage girls can make themselves up to look older than they are, and very provocative - but it is the responsibility of the male to insure they are of age, otherwise, you are going to get hit with the full weight of the law, if you even touch them. She might have looked 22 on her web page - but you can't tell me once they met, that the guy couldn't tell she was a minor, all you have to do to determine that is listen to their speech in most cases. Also, what happens when this girl repeats the offense with another stupid 18-19-20 plus year old boy, or man? You think she is going to stop having sexual relations for the next four years, until she turns age 18?

Some people in here are living in a liberal cloud - change the law and let the guilty go, instead of protecting the innocent, that is the 14 year old, and every minor child under the age of 18, and whether she solicited the engagement or not, we follow the law, because the message is clear - hands off, they are children.....

You may not be familiar with the differences in state age of consent laws, but the law is not universal in this country that an 18 year old cannot legally have sex with an under-18 year old. Some states have age of consent at 16, some have different rules for 18-20somethings than for older adults, etc.

As to the idea that a 19 year old must know that a 14 year old is not 17, that's ridiculous. Utterly asinine. Different people mature at different rates, some people may present themselves in a more adult fashion as children than others, and different people have varying abilities to determine the age of others. Without knowing either individual involved, it's nearly impossible to say whether the 19 year old should have known, simply through social interaction, the age of the 14 year old. Have you never known a particularly immature adult that could pass for a child? Hell, most teens on television are played by 20-somethings, and very often they do it fairly convincingly. The same can be true, at least to some extent, in the other direction. It is entirely possible that the girl did a good enough job presenting herself as a 17 year old to pass casual inspection both physically and emotionally.

Also, according to at least one of the articles, there is a provision in the law of this state that allows for leniency for offenders under the age of 21 (I believe). This was a 19 year old, first time offender, and the girl admitted to lying about her age. Add in the girl and mother both asking for the charges to be dropped and I seriously question the judge's decision.

As always, this is based on the facts available, there could well be further information which would change the situation.

The only part of your post which makes any sense whatsoever, is the last paragraph about the first time offender opt-out. The Judge decided not to extend that get-out-of-jail free card to this man. Whatever his reasoning was, it still comes down to protecting children. This guy isn't going to have sex with a child again, and it appears that judge is sending a severe message to every man in Michigan, that sex with minor children won't be tolerated, whether you are 18-19 or 60+ years old. I agree with him completely. This is what the criminal justice system is designed for, retribution and deterrence, not the liberal rehabilitation garbage you are crying crocodile tears over here.

You think the guy is going to stop having sex? We don't know the attitude he presented in court, what his defense was, other than she gave consent, which the child is not capable of doing. Obviously this judge, protecting the state's children by sending the message that you will end up on a sexual predator list for 25-years if you violate children sexually, and at that, he didn't send the guy to jail from what I understand.

Even if we took everything you wrote as gospel (and your tone is more liberal-cloud nonsense - let the guilty go), and we forget about the 18-year old consent rule, which apparently applies in this case, no guy in the world is going to mistake a 14-year old for an 18-year old. You can dress your silly ideas up with rhetoric about how teenager's on television are portrayed by 20-year old actors and actresses, but Hollywood insures their talent receives the absolute best makeup, grooming and makeover, before those people appear in front of a camera. That tosses that argument out the window, it is a sad excuse and a diversion from the real problem anyways.

She is a Freshman in High School, and a child. Why the concern for the parent's opinion regarding asking for leniency for the guy who had a sexual encounter with their way underage daughter? I raised a beautiful daughter, and trust me, at age 14, she was lovely - but nobody would have ever mistaken her for an 18-year old, and we controlled her appearance and clothing style to what a 14-year old should be as a High School Freshman.

What you should be posting about, instead of this liberal horse hockey, is calling for the parents to be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and perhaps having the girl removed by Children's Services from their custody. Obviously they have no control over her. Also, you didn't respond to my question that the girl is sexually active - at age 14, and soliciting sex on the internet - there is another lack of control by the parents in their responsibilities to their daughter. And you want to have a judge accept their opinion and recommendation? Do you really think she is going to quit having sex for the next four years, until she turns 18-and can legally give consent? Of course not - but somebody better be keeping tabs on her activities - whereabouts - friends - internet access and style, in addition to her school work, of another guy is going to fall into her clutches. No matter how you look at this case, the 19-year old male isn't the victim, he is the instigator of the criminal act of illegal sex with a female child. If it deters even one adult male in the state from repeating his mistake, that the judge's decision to hang a sexual predator sign on him for 25-years is justified and fair.....................

You certainly are sure of yourself. Have you met this girl? No? Then how can you possibly know whether or not it is reasonable that she passed herself off as a 17 year old?

If you think it is impossible for a 19 year old boy to mistake a 14 year old girl for a 17 year old girl, then I would guess you have limited experience around teenagers. Then again, considering the self assured nature of your obviously incorrect assertions, perhaps you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit with what you think you already know.

Oh, and I didn't say the boy cannot be punished, rather that the punishment doled out is too severe. When the victim and the victim's parent both want leniency or for no charges to even be pressed, when the law specifically provides an outlet for leniency in this situation, when the boy is a first time offender, it seems harsh to spend the next 25 years on a sex offender list and to have your chosen college education ended for at least a couple of years. Again, there may be facts not available which would change my opinion, but everything written in the articles I read about the case indicate this was an honest mistake and not intentional sexual predation. There was nothing to say the boy was a particular threat to do this again. Putting him on a sex offender list demeans the purpose of such a list.

I find it interesting that you say 'another guy is going to fall into her clutches' in describing the 14 year old, and immediately follow that up by saying no matter how you look at the case the 19 year old isn't the victim. So falling into someone's clutches means what, exactly?

I happen to be a High School teacher for your information.
Do you happen to have a law degree?
When you are elected a judge in some state's or district's criminal court system, you can dispense justice however the law allows, and your own feelings would be valid and considered.
The law doesn't allow rape of minors. Children under the age of 16 in Michigan are minors. The guy went looking for sex on the internet, good way to get caught as a pedophile or predator by the police who monitor Facebook and social media sites like that. The girl did nothing wrong, because she isn't capable of making adult decisions. This is America, we follow the law. Somehow, you can't seem to get that through your head.
The girls feelings and decisions are not recognized in a court of law, because she is a child.
The parents opinion and pleas do not mitigate the rape charge, therefore, the judge didn't concede to them.
The judge passed a perfectly legal and appropriate sentence on this man, and if men all over Michigan, and probably by now, the country, reading about it, don't get the message that sex with minors is rape - they probably will end up the same way.
The judge was lenient - he didn't send the man to prison where he would have really understood, quickly, the true meaning of rape.
Your views are that of an idiot regarding this matter...............

Are you insane? OF COURSE the girl did something wrong, something that SHOULD be made illegal.

Apparently minors are incapable of wrongdoing.

 

[Montrovant]

You may not be familiar with the differences in state age of consent laws, but the law is not universal in this country that an 18 year old cannot legally have sex with an under-18 year old. Some states have age of consent at 16, some have different rules for 18-20somethings than for older adults, etc.

As to the idea that a 19 year old must know that a 14 year old is not 17, that's ridiculous. Utterly asinine. Different people mature at different rates, some people may present themselves in a more adult fashion as children than others, and different people have varying abilities to determine the age of others. Without knowing either individual involved, it's nearly impossible to say whether the 19 year old should have known, simply through social interaction, the age of the 14 year old. Have you never known a particularly immature adult that could pass for a child? Hell, most teens on television are played by 20-somethings, and very often they do it fairly convincingly. The same can be true, at least to some extent, in the other direction. It is entirely possible that the girl did a good enough job presenting herself as a 17 year old to pass casual inspection both physically and emotionally.

Also, according to at least one of the articles, there is a provision in the law of this state that allows for leniency for offenders under the age of 21 (I believe). This was a 19 year old, first time offender, and the girl admitted to lying about her age. Add in the girl and mother both asking for the charges to be dropped and I seriously question the judge's decision.

As always, this is based on the facts available, there could well be further information which would change the situation.

The only part of your post which makes any sense whatsoever, is the last paragraph about the first time offender opt-out. The Judge decided not to extend that get-out-of-jail free card to this man. Whatever his reasoning was, it still comes down to protecting children. This guy isn't going to have sex with a child again, and it appears that judge is sending a severe message to every man in Michigan, that sex with minor children won't be tolerated, whether you are 18-19 or 60+ years old. I agree with him completely. This is what the criminal justice system is designed for, retribution and deterrence, not the liberal rehabilitation garbage you are crying crocodile tears over here.

You think the guy is going to stop having sex? We don't know the attitude he presented in court, what his defense was, other than she gave consent, which the child is not capable of doing. Obviously this judge, protecting the state's children by sending the message that you will end up on a sexual predator list for 25-years if you violate children sexually, and at that, he didn't send the guy to jail from what I understand.

Even if we took everything you wrote as gospel (and your tone is more liberal-cloud nonsense - let the guilty go), and we forget about the 18-year old consent rule, which apparently applies in this case, no guy in the world is going to mistake a 14-year old for an 18-year old. You can dress your silly ideas up with rhetoric about how teenager's on television are portrayed by 20-year old actors and actresses, but Hollywood insures their talent receives the absolute best makeup, grooming and makeover, before those people appear in front of a camera. That tosses that argument out the window, it is a sad excuse and a diversion from the real problem anyways.

She is a Freshman in High School, and a child. Why the concern for the parent's opinion regarding asking for leniency for the guy who had a sexual encounter with their way underage daughter? I raised a beautiful daughter, and trust me, at age 14, she was lovely - but nobody would have ever mistaken her for an 18-year old, and we controlled her appearance and clothing style to what a 14-year old should be as a High School Freshman.

What you should be posting about, instead of this liberal horse hockey, is calling for the parents to be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and perhaps having the girl removed by Children's Services from their custody. Obviously they have no control over her. Also, you didn't respond to my question that the girl is sexually active - at age 14, and soliciting sex on the internet - there is another lack of control by the parents in their responsibilities to their daughter. And you want to have a judge accept their opinion and recommendation? Do you really think she is going to quit having sex for the next four years, until she turns 18-and can legally give consent? Of course not - but somebody better be keeping tabs on her activities - whereabouts - friends - internet access and style, in addition to her school work, of another guy is going to fall into her clutches. No matter how you look at this case, the 19-year old male isn't the victim, he is the instigator of the criminal act of illegal sex with a female child. If it deters even one adult male in the state from repeating his mistake, that the judge's decision to hang a sexual predator sign on him for 25-years is justified and fair.....................

You certainly are sure of yourself. Have you met this girl? No? Then how can you possibly know whether or not it is reasonable that she passed herself off as a 17 year old?

If you think it is impossible for a 19 year old boy to mistake a 14 year old girl for a 17 year old girl, then I would guess you have limited experience around teenagers. Then again, considering the self assured nature of your obviously incorrect assertions, perhaps you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit with what you think you already know.

Oh, and I didn't say the boy cannot be punished, rather that the punishment doled out is too severe. When the victim and the victim's parent both want leniency or for no charges to even be pressed, when the law specifically provides an outlet for leniency in this situation, when the boy is a first time offender, it seems harsh to spend the next 25 years on a sex offender list and to have your chosen college education ended for at least a couple of years. Again, there may be facts not available which would change my opinion, but everything written in the articles I read about the case indicate this was an honest mistake and not intentional sexual predation. There was nothing to say the boy was a particular threat to do this again. Putting him on a sex offender list demeans the purpose of such a list.

I find it interesting that you say 'another guy is going to fall into her clutches' in describing the 14 year old, and immediately follow that up by saying no matter how you look at the case the 19 year old isn't the victim. So falling into someone's clutches means what, exactly?

I happen to be a High School teacher for your information.
Do you happen to have a law degree?
When you are elected a judge in some state's or district's criminal court system, you can dispense justice however the law allows, and your own feelings would be valid and considered.
The law doesn't allow rape of minors. Children under the age of 16 in Michigan are minors. The guy went looking for sex on the internet, good way to get caught as a pedophile or predator by the police who monitor Facebook and social media sites like that. The girl did nothing wrong, because she isn't capable of making adult decisions. This is America, we follow the law. Somehow, you can't seem to get that through your head.
The girls feelings and decisions are not recognized in a court of law, because she is a child.
The parents opinion and pleas do not mitigate the rape charge, therefore, the judge didn't concede to them.
The judge passed a perfectly legal and appropriate sentence on this man, and if men all over Michigan, and probably by now, the country, reading about it, don't get the message that sex with minors is rape - they probably will end up the same way.
The judge was lenient - he didn't send the man to prison where he would have really understood, quickly, the true meaning of rape.
Your views are that of an idiot regarding this matter...............

Are you insane? OF COURSE the girl did something wrong, something that SHOULD be made illegal.

So you are saying ignorance on the part of the 19 year old is an excuse to break the law?

A 19 year old conned by a little 14 year old girl. Pretty embarrassing.

Who said it was an excuse to break the law? There is a difference between thinking a punishment is overly harsh and thinking no punishment should possibly be levied....