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

[Montrovant]

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...............

You are a high school teacher who thinks it is impossible for a 19 year old boy to be fooled by a 14 year old girl into thinking she is 17?

I understand that this is a country of laws. What you seem unwilling to accept is that the law often allows for variations in sentencing and in this particular case, the facts seemed to warrant a lighter sentence. In fact, there is a sentencing law specifically designed for cases like this to allow more lenient sentencing. The victims asked for leniency. The judge decided not to grant it but I have yet to see on what basis it was denied. Making an example of this boy seems like a pretty thin reasoning; why him? What makes this particular case worthy of making an example?

The sentence may have been legal but the argument is about the appropriateness.

And perhaps you would do well to avoid calling others idiots in the same post where you say that a girl lying about her age and having sex with an older boy, causing him to end up arrested, jailed, forced to forgo his current educational path, and put on a sex offender list for 25 years is not doing anything wrong. Legally she may have done nothing wrong (and despite being a minor, she can do things wrong legally) but morally?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

Some of you people need to learn to debate.

Ignorance of the law would be if the man had said "I didn't even know what the age of consent was" that is NOT the case here.

In THIS case we have a guy who thought he was within the law.

Let's say a town had a law that says the speed limit through town was 35 and then they put up a sign that read speed limit 45.

Now let's say you got stopped in town for doing 40 mph and get a ticket.

Would you pay the ticket with a smile, or would you go to court and argue that you can't be guilty of breaking the law when you were deceived into believing you were following the law?

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Some of you people need to learn to debate.

Ignorance of the law would be if the man had said "I didn't even know what the age of consent was" that is NOT the case here.

In THIS case we have a guy who thought he was within the law.

Let's say a town had a law that says the speed limit through town was 35 and then they put up a sign that read speed limit 45.

Now let's say you got stopped in town for doing 40 mph and get a ticket.

Would you pay the ticket with a smile, or would you go to court and argue that you can't be guilty of breaking the law when you were deceived into believing you were following the law?

If his speedometer said he was going 55 mph and he was doing 65 and he got a ticket, he'd still pay the fine.

I have a tough time believing that he didn't have a clue as to her age.

You example would fit if the law said sex was legal at 14 and it was actually 18.

 

[Iceweasel]

As to the idea that a 19 year old must know that a 14 year old is not 17, that's ridiculous. Utterly asinine.

You're an idiot if you can't spot a 14 year old.

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.

To you perhaps. But...see above.

 

[Iceweasel]

Some of you people need to learn to debate.

Ignorance of the law would be if the man had said "I didn't even know what the age of consent was" that is NOT the case here.

In THIS case we have a guy who thought he was within the law.

Let's say a town had a law that says the speed limit through town was 35 and then they put up a sign that read speed limit 45.

Now let's say you got stopped in town for doing 40 mph and get a ticket.

Would you pay the ticket with a smile, or would you go to court and argue that you can't be guilty of breaking the law when you were deceived into believing you were following the law?

If the posted sign says 45 then everyone is going to think that's the speed. I'm sure there's a law governing traffic signs.

But if you were right the guy can say a 10 year claimed she's 30. No one will buy it. If a gal is 14 she's going to look VERY young regardless and if you are dipping your wand into stuff that you think is barely legal you deserve it when you assume wrong and get caught.

 

[Ame®icano]

How about holding the girl responsible for her deception? How about the judge not going nuts when the family of the girl agreed that the boy shouldn't be prosecuted? And how many dates should your gov't require before two consenting adults (as the girl portrayed herself) are allowed to decide to have sex?

I would say five dates. Any girl who gives it up on the first date is nothing but trouble.

sorry, man, the law is pretty clearly written, you have sex with a minor, you are a sex offender. Not seeing a problem here.

But I'm one of these meanyheads who just hates your freedom... or something.

Sorry for being off topic. Just a friendly reminder that The Constitution is pretty clearly written too. However it doesnt bother you to shit all over it in the other thread about gun rights.

 

[Katzndogz]

14 year old girls don't look that young any more. With make up a 14 year old can look 20.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry for being off topic. Just a friendly reminder that The Constitution is pretty clearly written too. However it doesnt bother you to shit all over it in the other thread about gun rights.

The constitution is overrated.

More to the point, this person got due process. He broke a law (having sex with a 14 year old). A judge imposed a sentence that was not even the top penalty he could have imposed. He could have sent the guy TO PRISON. He didn't.

 

[Iceweasel]

14 year old girls don't look that young any more. With make up a 14 year old can look 20.

If you're a cradle robber.

 

[Montrovant]

The comparison isn't perfect, but I wonder.....have those of you convinced that this 14 year old could never have passed for 17 heard of Traci Lords?

 

[gallantwarrior]

So what's your solution? Give a 19 year old a pass for having sex with a 14 year old because she looks old for her age?

How about taking some time to get to know a girl before you have sex with her. You know, meet her parents and shit? That would have solved a lot of problems here.

Dang it, Joe! I have to agree with you again. What's that, twice this month...shit!!

 

[Jarlaxle]

14 year old girls don't look that young any more. With make up a 14 year old can look 20.

If you're a cradle robber.

One more time: I went to school with a girl who used her older sister's ID. She had ZERO trouble passing for 20 at 15, or 21 at 16! She did it for 3 years, and NEVER got caught!

 

[Jarlaxle]

The comparison isn't perfect, but I wonder.....have those of you convinced that this 14 year old could never have passed for 17 heard of Traci Lords?

I suspect not...or they are covering their ears and hollering, "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! at the top of their lungs.

 

[whitehall]

Only 90 days? That's what we used to call statutory rape. Why are milleniums so ignorant about the facts of life after half a century of sex ed?

 

[Montrovant]

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?

When I finally got on Facebook it was a way to find an old friend I hadn't spoken to in years. Since then I just use it to chat a bit with friends from out of state.

And even if it is nothing more than people who think the mundane things they do are interesting to anyone else, that's certainly not grounds to ban it.

 

[BullKurtz]

When I finally got on Facebook it was a way to find an old friend I hadn't spoken to in years. Since then I just use it to chat a bit with friends from out of state.

And even if it is nothing more than people who think the mundane things they do are interesting to anyone else, that's certainly not grounds to ban it.

I don't advocate banning it....that was a goof. But I think most everybody would agree fighting videos and teenage shaming/ bullying have no place in an open society. And then there's ISIS recruiting around the world.....why do they have accounts when they'd ban the social media they're using to win new followers? FB and Twitter should clean their own houses.

 

[Stan Fan]

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...............

You are a high school teacher who thinks it is impossible for a 19 year old boy to be fooled by a 14 year old girl into thinking she is 17?

I understand that this is a country of laws. What you seem unwilling to accept is that the law often allows for variations in sentencing and in this particular case, the facts seemed to warrant a lighter sentence. In fact, there is a sentencing law specifically designed for cases like this to allow more lenient sentencing. The victims asked for leniency. The judge decided not to grant it but I have yet to see on what basis it was denied. Making an example of this boy seems like a pretty thin reasoning; why him? What makes this particular case worthy of making an example?

The sentence may have been legal but the argument is about the appropriateness.

And perhaps you would do well to avoid calling others idiots in the same post where you say that a girl lying about her age and having sex with an older boy, causing him to end up arrested, jailed, forced to forgo his current educational path, and put on a sex offender list for 25 years is not doing anything wrong. Legally she may have done nothing wrong (and despite being a minor, she can do things wrong legally) but morally?

We are not discussing morality here, we are discussing legality. Whatever Michigan's laws are, even with a leniency clause, can not excuse a 19-year old adult male having sex with a 14-year old female. If she was 16, she could have given consent - but not at 14, not recognized by law. If you think 14-year old's, engaging in sexual activity is not a problem, than your view are skewed. All your lib sympathy rests with the adult male criminal, not smart enough to differentiate between a 14-year old girl and an 18-year old girl. Not smart enough to understand you don't go onto the internet and arrange meeting's with unknown females for sexual favors either. If I remember correctly, the girl lived in another state, but close to the male, so as a minor, incapable of giving consent, she crossed state lines for sexual activity. We don't know if she went to him, or he picked her up in her home state. If he did, and crossed state lines, he violated the Federal Mann Act of transporting a female across state lines for sexual purposes, that makes it a Federal charge. Serious enough for you? You misplaced sympathies are touching - but nonsense. I have absolutely no trouble telling, with a year, of the ages of most females in public simply by looking at them, and listening to their vocabulary. Fourteen year old teenage girls have a fourteen year old's vocabulary, that alone should have alerted the 19-year old male criminal that the pickup was misrepresenting herself. Mistake - and you can also read that as tricked - the part of my post you didn't read or respond to - is NOT a legal defense in Michigan's Statutory Rape Laws. My concern, and I am sure the judge was probably thinking the exact same way, is, no matter whether the 14 year old was promiscuous or not, no 19-year old male, no matter how they met, or what excuse he used for it, is permitted to have sex with a 14-year old. You keep writing that the child is at fault, and the sentence is unfair. Unfair to who? He stepped on his (you know what), and now he has 25-years to live with the mistake - and the judge made an example of him. End of story bud, damn, hope you don't have children, particularly teenage girl(s). If you did, you wouldn't have ever let one of them get into the position this girl did by using the internet to advertise herself as available for sex to anyone responding. In fact, at age 14, she isn't even permitted to engage in sexual activity. One 19-year old is made an example of by the legal authorities - well done - who knows how many raped children this will deter?.................

 

[Stan Fan]

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?

When I finally got on Facebook it was a way to find an old friend I hadn't spoken to in years. Since then I just use it to chat a bit with friends from out of state.

And even if it is nothing more than people who think the mundane things they do are interesting to anyone else, that's certainly not grounds to ban it.

Facebook is dangerous, particularly for impressionable teenagers and middle school children, and it is not a secure site. I can get on anybody's Facebook page easily, simply by paying someone who has access as a friend to it, to let me on. For investigative purposes for jobs, police and the FBI automatically can access your Facebook Page simply by contacting Facebook. They can also access your arrest records, even those of minor's for investigative purposes, and do so, and your school records also.

Children do stupid things, college kids, and probably high school kids also, come down here to Florida, or go over to Mexico on a Spring Break cruise; party, engage in wet tee shirt contests; sex on the beach; erotic dancing; pickups with people they have never even met; binge drink themselves into a stupor (occasionally dying of alcohol poisoning); drive while drunk or under the influence of narcotics and get themselves arrested; all the things our young-innocent children know they shouldn't do. They then are stupid enough to post their activities up on Facebook pages, letting the world know.

Checking an applicant's Facebook Page is a standard investigative technique of police, college admissions counselors, Human Resources Manager's, etc. If you are a high school graduate at 19, and want to go to college, and the school admissions office checks your Facebook page and finds you advertised yourself at age 14, as available for sexual encounter's with any and all interested - your college admittance is out the window. There is no legal protection for minors on Facebook. At 14, this child's mistake is worse than the guy who contacted her. He is an adult, capable of making reasonable decisions regarding his future, and he threw it away for sex, and it turned out to be an underage child. The girl, at an age when she has all of her life decision's still before her, has also thrown it away engaging in advertising herself as available for sexual activity, even though legally, she isn't capable of giving consent, which is obviously implied by putting her profile up on Facebook. It is social media, and not just innocent chat...........

 

[Steinlight]

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...............

You are a high school teacher who thinks it is impossible for a 19 year old boy to be fooled by a 14 year old girl into thinking she is 17?

I understand that this is a country of laws. What you seem unwilling to accept is that the law often allows for variations in sentencing and in this particular case, the facts seemed to warrant a lighter sentence. In fact, there is a sentencing law specifically designed for cases like this to allow more lenient sentencing. The victims asked for leniency. The judge decided not to grant it but I have yet to see on what basis it was denied. Making an example of this boy seems like a pretty thin reasoning; why him? What makes this particular case worthy of making an example?

The sentence may have been legal but the argument is about the appropriateness.

And perhaps you would do well to avoid calling others idiots in the same post where you say that a girl lying about her age and having sex with an older boy, causing him to end up arrested, jailed, forced to forgo his current educational path, and put on a sex offender list for 25 years is not doing anything wrong. Legally she may have done nothing wrong (and despite being a minor, she can do things wrong legally) but morally?

We are not discussing morality here, we are discussing legality. Whatever Michigan's laws are, even with a leniency clause, can not excuse a 19-year old adult male having sex with a 14-year old female. If she was 16, she could have given consent - but not at 14, not recognized by law. If you think 14-year old's, engaging in sexual activity is not a problem, than your view are skewed. All your lib sympathy rests with the adult male criminal, not smart enough to differentiate between a 14-year old girl and an 18-year old girl. Not smart enough to understand you don't go onto the internet and arrange meeting's with unknown females for sexual favors either. If I remember correctly, the girl lived in another state, but close to the male, so as a minor, incapable of giving consent, she crossed state lines for sexual activity. We don't know if she went to him, or he picked her up in her home state. If he did, and crossed state lines, he violated the Federal Mann Act of transporting a female across state lines for sexual purposes, that makes it a Federal charge. Serious enough for you? You misplaced sympathies are touching - but nonsense. I have absolutely no trouble telling, with a year, of the ages of most females in public simply by looking at them, and listening to their vocabulary. Fourteen year old teenage girls have a fourteen year old's vocabulary, that alone should have alerted the 19-year old male criminal that the pickup was misrepresenting herself. Mistake - and you can also read that as tricked - the part of my post you didn't read or respond to - is NOT a legal defense in Michigan's Statutory Rape Laws. My concern, and I am sure the judge was probably thinking the exact same way, is, no matter whether the 14 year old was promiscuous or not, no 19-year old male, no matter how they met, or what excuse he used for it, is permitted to have sex with a 14-year old. You keep writing that the child is at fault, and the sentence is unfair. Unfair to who? He stepped on his (you know what), and now he has 25-years to live with the mistake - and the judge made an example of him. End of story bud, damn, hope you don't have children, particularly teenage girl(s). If you did, you wouldn't have ever let one of them get into the position this girl did by using the internet to advertise herself as available for sex to anyone responding. In fact, at age 14, she isn't even permitted to engage in sexual activity. One 19-year old is made an example of by the legal authorities - well done - who knows how many raped children this will deter?.................

So when were you diagnosed with autism?

 

[Stan Fan]

Some of you people need to learn to debate.

Ignorance of the law would be if the man had said "I didn't even know what the age of consent was" that is NOT the case here.

In THIS case we have a guy who thought he was within the law.

Let's say a town had a law that says the speed limit through town was 35 and then they put up a sign that read speed limit 45.

Now let's say you got stopped in town for doing 40 mph and get a ticket.

Would you pay the ticket with a smile, or would you go to court and argue that you can't be guilty of breaking the law when you were deceived into believing you were following the law?

If the posted sign says 45 then everyone is going to think that's the speed. I'm sure there's a law governing traffic signs.

But if you were right the guy can say a 10 year claimed she's 30. No one will buy it. If a gal is 14 she's going to look VERY young regardless and if you are dipping your wand into stuff that you think is barely legal you deserve it when you assume wrong and get caught.

Thank you................