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

[Montrovant]

You seem to have a really hard time differentiating between the ideas of too harsh a sentence and no sentence at all. I accept that the guy should be found guilty, but for all your harping on this being the law, you seem to not care that the law specifically gives a chance for leniency to people in this guy's situation and it was ignored. Why? What happened in this case that made using the leniency option written into the law unpalatable for the judge?

You have no trouble telling how old someone is? Good for you. Do you actually think that everyone has this talent of yours? I can tell you in no uncertain terms that not everyone can tell age so easily (and to be honest, I question your own confidence in your ability to do so). You also seem to discount the possibility that some people are more or less mature than others of the same age.

This isn't all the fault of the girl, but she certainly appears to have deceived the 19 year old based on the articles. The punishment is unfair to him because of its severity. This guy is made an example of.....why? Is making an example a sound basis for someone's sentencing? Is that being treated equally under the law or being singled out by the judge?

How many raped children will this deter? Very few, I'm thinking. I doubt the average 19 year old will even hear of this case, let alone change their ways based on it.

I have no trouble differentiating the age of 14 year old girls from adults. They are High School babies, just listen to them talk sometime. Also, watch how they attempt to dress themselves up to make themselves look older, it is laughable most of the time. It isn't rocket science, you have the same ability - you just won't post it because it doesn't jive with your interpretation of the crime. Exceptions to it, sure - but the odds that any adult, whether 19-65 wouldn't "make" the girl as a 14-year old minor, and back away from the sexual encounter, slim. As possibly a 17-year old, perhaps. But, again, tell me what law school you graduated from that puts you in the position to question a sitting judge in a rape case where a 19-year old had sexual relations with a 14-year old. His mindset and his intention to commit such an act of raping that child, are specifically outlined in the Michigan law as not being allowed as a defense, despite the law also containing a leniency clause.

You don't understand how serious a problem this happens to be, but, let me divert the discussion just a bit, only to prove a point you keep missing - the seriousness of the crime.

If this was a white man having sex with a 14-year old black child, would your opinion of the sentence be different?
Would society and the media look upon it differently?

If this was a black man having sex with a 14-year old white child, would your opinion of the sentence be different?
Would society and the media look upon it differently?

We can toss this topic back and forth for 50 plus more posts, or until a moderator steps in and closes the thread, and your refusal to accept that 19-year old adults raping 14-year old girls, which is the only thing this is about, is dead wrong, and the guy got exactly what he deserved, because he solicited sex on the internet and didn't take any precautions to insure the victim had reached the age of consent. Writing that girls can make themselves up to look older to get into club's with false ID's to party isn't the story line here - big deal - I know what a 14-year old girl looks like and how they act and speak, and this guy does to, and ignored it. Once you make the mistake - you can't have a do-over - he got off easy........

You certainly are full of yourself.

Perhaps you can tell any 14 year old from a 17 year old. That you think the same is true of everyone is laughable. I know that I certainly cannot accurately judge age by looking at someone, nor casual talking to them. I have seen young girls that could easily pass for young adults physically. I have talked to young girls who seemed mature beyond their years. You seem to think that not only are all 14 year old girls basically the same, but that all 19 year olds have the ability to tell the age difference between a 14 year old and 17 year old through casual contact, no matter how the 14 year old presents themself. I don't know why you have that belief.

Sure, it's possible this guy knew or suspected that the girl was underage. Based on the information available, however, there is nothing to indicate that is true. So again I ask, if this boy was not intentionally preying on a minor, if he has no previous criminal offenses, and if Michigan law specifically provides for leniency for him in this case, what is the compelling reason to deny that leniency?

I'm also curious what law school you graduated from that puts you in the position to confirm a sitting judge? More importantly, why should anyone need a law degree to question a judge's decision? This is a message board, we're not making a legal case before a court. Giving our opinion on matters such as these is the entire premise behind the board.

Oh, and just how do you calculate the odds that a 19 year old would not 'make' the girl as a 14 year old?

As to your racial questions, I don't actually know the races of the parties involved. I don't recall if they were given in the articles and it is immaterial to my opinion. I can't speak for the media or society.

I also wonder, if I were to find a case in which the circumstances were identical (or nearly so) but the judge gave a lesser sentence, would you still consider that the guy got exactly what he deserved? Do you think the sentence should change with varying circumstances, or is this exactly the correct sentence for any instance of a 19 year old having sex with a 14 year old? Do you not believe in mitigating circumstances?

Diversion, diversion, diversion - your opinion is off task and topic. The case is an adult raping a 14 year old girl, the law doesn't allow for any mistake when the child is that age. It does allow for leniency at age 16, not 14. Even so, I work with enough teenager's to figure out their approximate ages - ten months a year. That you can't tell the difference is scary. Also, if it was your daughter engaged, at age 14, having sex with a 19-year old male adult - would you be in that court room pleading for him to be let off and the charges dropped? Unless you are in the habit of searching for sex on the internet and a child predator yourself, certainly not. Nobody cares about the leniency law, the judge didn't, he threw out the objections, and took swift and appropriate action. If your compassion isn't with the underage children, but with the sexual predator's, of which this guy is now registered as, there is something seriously wrong with your thinking. You seem to think the parents of the child have some say in absolving the guy - when in fact, the child should be taken away from them for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The girls mindset and actions are not considered, by reason of law, not fairness. The judge ruled accordingly regarding the case, by law, he is under no obligation to defend his sentence, particularly from the media, parents, lawyers, prosecutor's or internet posters. Getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car, with no intention of harming anybody, happens as we write. That drunk driver's kill off more people than cancer yearly, and are sent to jail for vehicular homicide, for years, routine. You can't introduce intent, or lack of intent into any DUI vehicular homicide case as a defense. Neither can you introduce Mistake - I didn't know she was only 14 year's old, after soliciting her and meeting her for sexual conduct, on the internet. The law in Michigan says it is not a defense - apparently your legal mind thinks it is. How unfortunate for the underage female children who come into contact with you, with your attitude of forgiveness for rape of a child............

You clearly have no idea about the leniency provided for in the law that I have been speaking of. It has nothing to do with the girl being 14 rather than 16, it has to do with the age of the boy. According to the article, in fact, the prosecution lawyer violated the plea agreement by reminding the judge that he had ignored the leniency clause in the past.
I can't say I'm overly surprised you don't seem to understand what I've been saying in regards to leniency in this case; you have shown that you think you know not only your own abilities to judge age, but those of every other adult male on the planet.

Are you claiming the girl's mother is 'in the habit of searching for sex on the internet and a child predator' because she asked for leniency or to have the charges dropped?

Yes, the judge's sentence appears to be within the bounds of the law. That doesn't make it appropriate, merely legal.

The judge seems to have decided that his own moral judgements are reasonable basis for rendering sentence, based on his quotes from the article, "You went online, to use a fisherman's expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever." Is there a provision in Michigan law for increasing sentences based on the moral appropriateness of someone's behavior? Or are circumstances outside the bounds of the law only relevant when the judge wants them to be?

And one more time here : I am not saying that this boy needed to be absolved of all responsibility in this case. I am saying that ignoring the leniency provision in the law in a case that seems fairly clearly to have not been a malicious offense for a first time, 19 year old offender, and forcing this 19 year old to quit his current college education, is overly harsh. I also think that Michigan would do well to change the laws so that mitigating circumstances are more easily taken into account, but even without that, this seems to me to be a judge who is more concerned with his own moral judgement than with the proper application of the law.

And that is the judge's decision, perfectly legal. If he wants to accept the leniency clause he can do so or ignore it based on his own moral position as to the serious nature of the crime, the rape of a child. The moral judgement that sex with a 14 year old should be punished with the criminal listed for 25 years as a sexual predator, perfectly all right, he deserved it. So the next time some 19-year or 20- year old idiot decides to go on-line and solicit for a sexual partner - he will think twice about it, before jumping the gun, and discovering she isn't of the legal age of consent. You also continually repeat writing about the leniency clause and ignore the fact that MISTAKE is not a legal defense in Michigan law and can't be used as such, despite your repeatedly bringing it up as appropriate in this crime.

More liberal garbage to excuse illegal and unethical behavior. We don't have sex with children despite what you liberals think is acceptable. You want to change the laws of Michigan, move there, and run for office and try to change the law. The judge knows better than any of us what this guy deserved, exercised his legal authority appropriately, and I agree with him. You, on the other hand, approve of raping children. Sad commentary about your morals.

I see you consider arguing with yourself a pleasant diversion.

I never said what the judge did was illegal. I said I found it overly harsh and inappropriate based on the available facts.

I never said the 19 year old should not be punished or have any legal culpability. Again, I said the punishment given was too harsh considering the circumstances.

You again don't seem to understand the leniency provided for in Michigan law and described in the article linked in the OP. According to that, because the offender is under 21 and a first time offender he can avoid the 25 year sex offender listing. That is what I have been talking about, having nothing to do with whether what he did was a mistake or intentional.

Whether what he did was intentional and how that should affect him being on the sex offender list is another issue. Putting someone who was deceived into believing he was having sex with a 17 year old onto the sex offender list cheapens it, lessens the power or meaning of the list. We're not talking about a serial rapist, a pedophile, or even a malicious statutory rapist. We're talking about a 19 year old who was fooled by an underage girl into thinking she was older than she was. That might make him foolish but I don't believe it warrants being listed as a sex offender for 25 years. His crime was comparatively minor and I don't think that the community is protected by his inclusion on the list.

I never said sex with children is acceptable. I certainly never said I approve of raping children. If your argument is so weak that you need to put words in my mouth, so to speak, perhaps you ought to rethink your position.

And considering your stated opinions here, I am very comfortable with you disapproving of my morals.

 

[JoeB131]

Making sex offender lists that broad negates the purpose of having them at all.

Not really. You know that guy did SOMETHING.

 

[JoeB131]

[Q

Yep. I work with a "sex offender". He was 20, he had too much Corona, and he took a whiz in someone's shrubbery.

What classy people you hang out with.

But I'll bet that discourages other people in his trailer park from doing that.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Making sex offender lists that broad negates the purpose of having them at all.

Yep. I work with a "sex offender". He was 20, he had too much Corona, and he took a whiz in someone's shrubbery.

Perfect example of how the registry is wasted.

 

[martybegan]

Making sex offender lists that broad negates the purpose of having them at all.

Not really. You know that guy did SOMETHING.

yes really. If they are on the list I want to know he/she did something really bad, not being 19 and having sex with someone he thought was 17 and was actually 14, or someone who got caught for "exposure" because they were drunk and took a piss on a wall.

Rapists, people who actually WANT to have sex with 14 year olds, pedophiles, flashers, etc, those are the people who should be on the list.

 

[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.

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!

Once again genius, a 14 yo doesn't have the life experience of a 21 yo. Passing to buy beer is not the same as passing yourself off as an adult. You clearly fall into the 'thinks with little head' camp.

And yet (one more time for the slow kid), in the dozens of times she did it, she never, one single time got found out! Not just to buy beer...hell, she got pulled over by a cop! Her ID said she was 21, she was 16...and he was none the wiser. Yes, it is certainly possible for a 14 year old to pass for 17!

And yet the pudding between the ears can't grasp that a dick doesn't have a conscience. If someone looks like they could be old enough and junior takes over you deserve what you get. A 14yo isn't an adult and can't act like one. Passing an id for beer isn't the same unless that's all you care about. That's why normal people get to know someone a little first.

 

[Stan Fan]

I have no trouble differentiating the age of 14 year old girls from adults. They are High School babies, just listen to them talk sometime. Also, watch how they attempt to dress themselves up to make themselves look older, it is laughable most of the time. It isn't rocket science, you have the same ability - you just won't post it because it doesn't jive with your interpretation of the crime. Exceptions to it, sure - but the odds that any adult, whether 19-65 wouldn't "make" the girl as a 14-year old minor, and back away from the sexual encounter, slim. As possibly a 17-year old, perhaps. But, again, tell me what law school you graduated from that puts you in the position to question a sitting judge in a rape case where a 19-year old had sexual relations with a 14-year old. His mindset and his intention to commit such an act of raping that child, are specifically outlined in the Michigan law as not being allowed as a defense, despite the law also containing a leniency clause.

You don't understand how serious a problem this happens to be, but, let me divert the discussion just a bit, only to prove a point you keep missing - the seriousness of the crime.

If this was a white man having sex with a 14-year old black child, would your opinion of the sentence be different?
Would society and the media look upon it differently?

If this was a black man having sex with a 14-year old white child, would your opinion of the sentence be different?
Would society and the media look upon it differently?

We can toss this topic back and forth for 50 plus more posts, or until a moderator steps in and closes the thread, and your refusal to accept that 19-year old adults raping 14-year old girls, which is the only thing this is about, is dead wrong, and the guy got exactly what he deserved, because he solicited sex on the internet and didn't take any precautions to insure the victim had reached the age of consent. Writing that girls can make themselves up to look older to get into club's with false ID's to party isn't the story line here - big deal - I know what a 14-year old girl looks like and how they act and speak, and this guy does to, and ignored it. Once you make the mistake - you can't have a do-over - he got off easy........

You certainly are full of yourself.

Perhaps you can tell any 14 year old from a 17 year old. That you think the same is true of everyone is laughable. I know that I certainly cannot accurately judge age by looking at someone, nor casual talking to them. I have seen young girls that could easily pass for young adults physically. I have talked to young girls who seemed mature beyond their years. You seem to think that not only are all 14 year old girls basically the same, but that all 19 year olds have the ability to tell the age difference between a 14 year old and 17 year old through casual contact, no matter how the 14 year old presents themself. I don't know why you have that belief.

Sure, it's possible this guy knew or suspected that the girl was underage. Based on the information available, however, there is nothing to indicate that is true. So again I ask, if this boy was not intentionally preying on a minor, if he has no previous criminal offenses, and if Michigan law specifically provides for leniency for him in this case, what is the compelling reason to deny that leniency?

I'm also curious what law school you graduated from that puts you in the position to confirm a sitting judge? More importantly, why should anyone need a law degree to question a judge's decision? This is a message board, we're not making a legal case before a court. Giving our opinion on matters such as these is the entire premise behind the board.

Oh, and just how do you calculate the odds that a 19 year old would not 'make' the girl as a 14 year old?

As to your racial questions, I don't actually know the races of the parties involved. I don't recall if they were given in the articles and it is immaterial to my opinion. I can't speak for the media or society.

I also wonder, if I were to find a case in which the circumstances were identical (or nearly so) but the judge gave a lesser sentence, would you still consider that the guy got exactly what he deserved? Do you think the sentence should change with varying circumstances, or is this exactly the correct sentence for any instance of a 19 year old having sex with a 14 year old? Do you not believe in mitigating circumstances?

Diversion, diversion, diversion - your opinion is off task and topic. The case is an adult raping a 14 year old girl, the law doesn't allow for any mistake when the child is that age. It does allow for leniency at age 16, not 14. Even so, I work with enough teenager's to figure out their approximate ages - ten months a year. That you can't tell the difference is scary. Also, if it was your daughter engaged, at age 14, having sex with a 19-year old male adult - would you be in that court room pleading for him to be let off and the charges dropped? Unless you are in the habit of searching for sex on the internet and a child predator yourself, certainly not. Nobody cares about the leniency law, the judge didn't, he threw out the objections, and took swift and appropriate action. If your compassion isn't with the underage children, but with the sexual predator's, of which this guy is now registered as, there is something seriously wrong with your thinking. You seem to think the parents of the child have some say in absolving the guy - when in fact, the child should be taken away from them for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The girls mindset and actions are not considered, by reason of law, not fairness. The judge ruled accordingly regarding the case, by law, he is under no obligation to defend his sentence, particularly from the media, parents, lawyers, prosecutor's or internet posters. Getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car, with no intention of harming anybody, happens as we write. That drunk driver's kill off more people than cancer yearly, and are sent to jail for vehicular homicide, for years, routine. You can't introduce intent, or lack of intent into any DUI vehicular homicide case as a defense. Neither can you introduce Mistake - I didn't know she was only 14 year's old, after soliciting her and meeting her for sexual conduct, on the internet. The law in Michigan says it is not a defense - apparently your legal mind thinks it is. How unfortunate for the underage female children who come into contact with you, with your attitude of forgiveness for rape of a child............

You clearly have no idea about the leniency provided for in the law that I have been speaking of. It has nothing to do with the girl being 14 rather than 16, it has to do with the age of the boy. According to the article, in fact, the prosecution lawyer violated the plea agreement by reminding the judge that he had ignored the leniency clause in the past.
I can't say I'm overly surprised you don't seem to understand what I've been saying in regards to leniency in this case; you have shown that you think you know not only your own abilities to judge age, but those of every other adult male on the planet.

Are you claiming the girl's mother is 'in the habit of searching for sex on the internet and a child predator' because she asked for leniency or to have the charges dropped?

Yes, the judge's sentence appears to be within the bounds of the law. That doesn't make it appropriate, merely legal.

The judge seems to have decided that his own moral judgements are reasonable basis for rendering sentence, based on his quotes from the article, "You went online, to use a fisherman's expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever." Is there a provision in Michigan law for increasing sentences based on the moral appropriateness of someone's behavior? Or are circumstances outside the bounds of the law only relevant when the judge wants them to be?

And one more time here : I am not saying that this boy needed to be absolved of all responsibility in this case. I am saying that ignoring the leniency provision in the law in a case that seems fairly clearly to have not been a malicious offense for a first time, 19 year old offender, and forcing this 19 year old to quit his current college education, is overly harsh. I also think that Michigan would do well to change the laws so that mitigating circumstances are more easily taken into account, but even without that, this seems to me to be a judge who is more concerned with his own moral judgement than with the proper application of the law.

And that is the judge's decision, perfectly legal. If he wants to accept the leniency clause he can do so or ignore it based on his own moral position as to the serious nature of the crime, the rape of a child. The moral judgement that sex with a 14 year old should be punished with the criminal listed for 25 years as a sexual predator, perfectly all right, he deserved it. So the next time some 19-year or 20- year old idiot decides to go on-line and solicit for a sexual partner - he will think twice about it, before jumping the gun, and discovering she isn't of the legal age of consent. You also continually repeat writing about the leniency clause and ignore the fact that MISTAKE is not a legal defense in Michigan law and can't be used as such, despite your repeatedly bringing it up as appropriate in this crime.

More liberal garbage to excuse illegal and unethical behavior. We don't have sex with children despite what you liberals think is acceptable. You want to change the laws of Michigan, move there, and run for office and try to change the law. The judge knows better than any of us what this guy deserved, exercised his legal authority appropriately, and I agree with him. You, on the other hand, approve of raping children. Sad commentary about your morals.

I see you consider arguing with yourself a pleasant diversion.

I never said what the judge did was illegal. I said I found it overly harsh and inappropriate based on the available facts.

I never said the 19 year old should not be punished or have any legal culpability. Again, I said the punishment given was too harsh considering the circumstances.

You again don't seem to understand the leniency provided for in Michigan law and described in the article linked in the OP. According to that, because the offender is under 21 and a first time offender he can avoid the 25 year sex offender listing. That is what I have been talking about, having nothing to do with whether what he did was a mistake or intentional.

Whether what he did was intentional and how that should affect him being on the sex offender list is another issue. Putting someone who was deceived into believing he was having sex with a 17 year old onto the sex offender list cheapens it, lessens the power or meaning of the list. We're not talking about a serial rapist, a pedophile, or even a malicious statutory rapist. We're talking about a 19 year old who was fooled by an underage girl into thinking she was older than she was. That might make him foolish but I don't believe it warrants being listed as a sex offender for 25 years. His crime was comparatively minor and I don't think that the community is protected by his inclusion on the list.

I never said sex with children is acceptable. I certainly never said I approve of raping children. If your argument is so weak that you need to put words in my mouth, so to speak, perhaps you ought to rethink your position.

And considering your stated opinions here, I am very comfortable with you disapproving of my morals.

It is not that you don't agree with it, it is a matter that you just don't understand it in any manner or shape whatsoever.

Mistake - Not A Defense Under Michigan Law, even if the girl enticed or advertised herself as available for sexual activity through electronic devices (internet), or any other means as being age 16 or over.

Conviction of Sexual Criminal Misconduct in the 4th Degree in Michigan (Statutory Rape), $500 fine, 2-years in prison. That penalty wasn't assessed by the judge on the 19-year old. That takes care of your leniency argument as far as I am concerned, the judge had other intentions regarding this crime.

All person's convicted of sexual misconduct laws in Michigan are required to be registered as sexual predator's. There are no exceptions.

Entire burden of proof that the girl was, in fact, at, or over the age of 16 (Michigan's age of consent), rested with the defendant, there is no other mitigating circumstances allowed under the law. The judge did not consider the "Romeo & Juliet" laws as applicable in this case. If the defendant was 18 - perhaps you have an argument - he was a year above the age of reason as an adult, at age 19, and engaged in what Michigan law identifies as Child Enticement, by going on the internet (electronic solicitation) in an attempt to satisfy his sexual desires. That alone makes it a crime in Michigan, even if the guy never kept an appointment with the 14-year old to consummate the arrangement.

The defendant lived in Michigan, the child lived in Indiana, the crime took place in Michigan, arranged by the defendant through child enticement via the electronic social media (internet). Defendant is guilty of two crimes - Statutory Rape and Child Enticement under Michigan law. The latter crime wasn't charged.

The activities of a minor child advertising herself as 17-years old, and available for sexual favors, on the internet (electronic solicitation), may not be considered as a defense, because the entire burden of proof rests on the defendant, the minor child is incapable of giving consent. "Opinion" - not known fact - the fact the defendant committed two sexual crimes in this matter could easily have been a determining factor in the judge's decision.

Fact - upon conviction of a crime of sexual misconduct (rape or enticement), Michigan requires you be placed on the Sexual Predator's List. You have no case legally - you have no basis for leniency. "Opinion" - I do not believe 19-year old's should be soliciting for sexual favors on social media, and consummating that solicitation by raping 14-year old's. That you can't seem to understand what a minor female child looks like, unfortunate, most people have no difficulty with it. Pity.

"Opinion" The law isn't perfect in many cases, in many states. However, judge's are the deciding factor in matters pertaining to the law, not the prosecution, not the victim (whose opinion in this matter isn't even allowed to be considered in court), not the parents pleas for leniency either.

There was a case in Quinnipac, Massachusetts where an adult teenager raped the girl next door - also a minor, same as this case. He served 5-8 years in prison, was released, I believe in 3-years, and placed on the Sexual Predator List, and returned home to live with his parents after his prison term.

The neighbor, whose daughter was the victim of the rape also was still living at home, and those victim's wanted to sell their home - however, because the man lived in the neighborhood, routine title searches located the fact that he was on file as a known Sexual Predator, and that information, by Massachusetts laws, had to be conveyed to potential buyers of the victim's home. Of course, nobody was interested in purchasing a home adjacent to a known sexual predator, and the two families ended up living adjacent to each other. Imagine the horror for the victim's family regarding that arrangement - absolutely and perfectly legal - totally and understandably unfair to them - impossible to rectify legally, when the criminal refused to move.

BTW, former NBA star Allen Iverson of the Philadelphia 76'ers was convicted of deadly assault in a racial motivated brawl at a bowling alley in Virginia when he was 17-years old, and tried as an adult, because he hit another kid full force, over the head, with a metal folding chair, used sideways, causing severe injury. Video tape of the brawl showed Iverson wasn't responsible for starting it, and wasn't in any danger of being injured, his attack was motivated and intentional.

He was sentenced to 8-years in jail and sent there. The Virginia Governor at the time (knowing his basketball skills and the fact he probably was going to be drafted in the first round by an NBA team), commuted the sentence - saying attempted murder was too harsh a penalty. Iverson walked out of jail a free man - the others in the brawl stayed in jail serving their sentences. Fair enough for you? I mean, Iverson was only 17 year's old when he attempted to murder another teenager deliberately - your 19-year old champion criminal raped a 14-year old ???

All for leniency in the law, when it applies - you didn't check my introduction post, my background is law enforcement and teaching - so my observation skills and daily interface with teenagers are considered to be better than the average citizen's. We will agree to disagree. I dislike raping children - you, by your continued defense of the criminal, apparently approve of it. Do you approve of leniency for 19-year old robbers and murderers, who claim they had no INTENT to kill? Guessing your tender heart doesn't extend out to them, despite their tender age, yet a 14-year old raped female? You have no compassion for her, and disagree with the decision of a judge with, I am guessing, no legal experience on your side...........

 

[Stan Fan]

Making sex offender lists that broad negates the purpose of having them at all.

Not really. You know that guy did SOMETHING.

yes really. If they are on the list I want to know he/she did something really bad, not being 19 and having sex with someone he thought was 17 and was actually 14, or someone who got caught for "exposure" because they were drunk and took a piss on a wall.

Rapists, people who actually WANT to have sex with 14 year olds, pedophiles, flashers, etc, those are the people who should be on the list.

So you are a mind reader and know exactly what this guy was thinking? Raping a 14-year old isn't really bad? He solicited the sexual encounter via electronic social media, (Crime of Sexual Enticement in Michigan), than met and consummated the crime in Michigan, (Statutory Rape) by enticing her to cross state lines from Indiana, and therefore is guilty of the rape under Michigan law, automatically requiring he be listed on a sexual predator list, by law. He intended to have sex, you can't put it out that he was looking for a 17-year old, or even assume he was looking for an 18-year old, or 16-year old (age of consent in Michigan). He enticed her over state lines also, and she turns out to be 14-years old. Can't tell me you can't tell the difference, and getting a fake ID is usually every teenager's first crime, so they can drink beer, not have sex................

 

[martybegan]

Making sex offender lists that broad negates the purpose of having them at all.

Not really. You know that guy did SOMETHING.

yes really. If they are on the list I want to know he/she did something really bad, not being 19 and having sex with someone he thought was 17 and was actually 14, or someone who got caught for "exposure" because they were drunk and took a piss on a wall.

Rapists, people who actually WANT to have sex with 14 year olds, pedophiles, flashers, etc, those are the people who should be on the list.

So you are a mind reader and know exactly what this guy was thinking? Raping a 14-year old isn't really bad? He solicited the sexual encounter via electronic social media, (Crime of Sexual Enticement in Michigan), than met and consummated the crime in Michigan, (Statutory Rape) by enticing her to cross state lines from Indiana, and therefore is guilty of the rape under Michigan law, automatically requiring he be listed on a sexual predator list, by law. He intended to have sex, you can't put it out that he was looking for a 17-year old, or even assume he was looking for an 18-year old, or 16-year old (age of consent in Michigan). He enticed her over state lines also, and she turns out to be 14-years old. Can't tell me you can't tell the difference, and getting a fake ID is usually every teenager's first crime, so they can drink beer, not have sex................

First, rambling responses usually are not the way to go, try to be more concise.

Second, he should be punished for statutory rape, because its the law, and statutory law does not take intent into account. What he should not be punished with is being placed on the offenders list, because 1) the sex was consensual, not forced, 2) all parties agree he thought the girl was of age) 3) the parents, who since the girl is a minor speak for her, wanted the charges dropped.

 

[Iceweasel]

What he should not be punished with is being placed on the offenders list, because 1) the sex was consensual, not forced, 2) all parties agree he thought the girl was of age) 3) the parents, who since the girl is a minor speak for her, wanted the charges dropped.

Minors cannot legally consent.

 

[martybegan]

What he should not be punished with is being placed on the offenders list, because 1) the sex was consensual, not forced, 2) all parties agree he thought the girl was of age) 3) the parents, who since the girl is a minor speak for her, wanted the charges dropped.

Minors cannot legally consent.

Not legally, but there is a difference between with consent and without consent even in the example of statutory rape in the case of a post-pubescent individual.

And we have to add the fact that the parents were asking for this whole thing to be dropped.

 

[Montrovant]

You certainly are full of yourself.

Perhaps you can tell any 14 year old from a 17 year old. That you think the same is true of everyone is laughable. I know that I certainly cannot accurately judge age by looking at someone, nor casual talking to them. I have seen young girls that could easily pass for young adults physically. I have talked to young girls who seemed mature beyond their years. You seem to think that not only are all 14 year old girls basically the same, but that all 19 year olds have the ability to tell the age difference between a 14 year old and 17 year old through casual contact, no matter how the 14 year old presents themself. I don't know why you have that belief.

Sure, it's possible this guy knew or suspected that the girl was underage. Based on the information available, however, there is nothing to indicate that is true. So again I ask, if this boy was not intentionally preying on a minor, if he has no previous criminal offenses, and if Michigan law specifically provides for leniency for him in this case, what is the compelling reason to deny that leniency?

I'm also curious what law school you graduated from that puts you in the position to confirm a sitting judge? More importantly, why should anyone need a law degree to question a judge's decision? This is a message board, we're not making a legal case before a court. Giving our opinion on matters such as these is the entire premise behind the board.

Oh, and just how do you calculate the odds that a 19 year old would not 'make' the girl as a 14 year old?

As to your racial questions, I don't actually know the races of the parties involved. I don't recall if they were given in the articles and it is immaterial to my opinion. I can't speak for the media or society.

I also wonder, if I were to find a case in which the circumstances were identical (or nearly so) but the judge gave a lesser sentence, would you still consider that the guy got exactly what he deserved? Do you think the sentence should change with varying circumstances, or is this exactly the correct sentence for any instance of a 19 year old having sex with a 14 year old? Do you not believe in mitigating circumstances?

Diversion, diversion, diversion - your opinion is off task and topic. The case is an adult raping a 14 year old girl, the law doesn't allow for any mistake when the child is that age. It does allow for leniency at age 16, not 14. Even so, I work with enough teenager's to figure out their approximate ages - ten months a year. That you can't tell the difference is scary. Also, if it was your daughter engaged, at age 14, having sex with a 19-year old male adult - would you be in that court room pleading for him to be let off and the charges dropped? Unless you are in the habit of searching for sex on the internet and a child predator yourself, certainly not. Nobody cares about the leniency law, the judge didn't, he threw out the objections, and took swift and appropriate action. If your compassion isn't with the underage children, but with the sexual predator's, of which this guy is now registered as, there is something seriously wrong with your thinking. You seem to think the parents of the child have some say in absolving the guy - when in fact, the child should be taken away from them for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The girls mindset and actions are not considered, by reason of law, not fairness. The judge ruled accordingly regarding the case, by law, he is under no obligation to defend his sentence, particularly from the media, parents, lawyers, prosecutor's or internet posters. Getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car, with no intention of harming anybody, happens as we write. That drunk driver's kill off more people than cancer yearly, and are sent to jail for vehicular homicide, for years, routine. You can't introduce intent, or lack of intent into any DUI vehicular homicide case as a defense. Neither can you introduce Mistake - I didn't know she was only 14 year's old, after soliciting her and meeting her for sexual conduct, on the internet. The law in Michigan says it is not a defense - apparently your legal mind thinks it is. How unfortunate for the underage female children who come into contact with you, with your attitude of forgiveness for rape of a child............

You clearly have no idea about the leniency provided for in the law that I have been speaking of. It has nothing to do with the girl being 14 rather than 16, it has to do with the age of the boy. According to the article, in fact, the prosecution lawyer violated the plea agreement by reminding the judge that he had ignored the leniency clause in the past.
I can't say I'm overly surprised you don't seem to understand what I've been saying in regards to leniency in this case; you have shown that you think you know not only your own abilities to judge age, but those of every other adult male on the planet.

Are you claiming the girl's mother is 'in the habit of searching for sex on the internet and a child predator' because she asked for leniency or to have the charges dropped?

Yes, the judge's sentence appears to be within the bounds of the law. That doesn't make it appropriate, merely legal.

The judge seems to have decided that his own moral judgements are reasonable basis for rendering sentence, based on his quotes from the article, "You went online, to use a fisherman's expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever." Is there a provision in Michigan law for increasing sentences based on the moral appropriateness of someone's behavior? Or are circumstances outside the bounds of the law only relevant when the judge wants them to be?

And one more time here : I am not saying that this boy needed to be absolved of all responsibility in this case. I am saying that ignoring the leniency provision in the law in a case that seems fairly clearly to have not been a malicious offense for a first time, 19 year old offender, and forcing this 19 year old to quit his current college education, is overly harsh. I also think that Michigan would do well to change the laws so that mitigating circumstances are more easily taken into account, but even without that, this seems to me to be a judge who is more concerned with his own moral judgement than with the proper application of the law.

And that is the judge's decision, perfectly legal. If he wants to accept the leniency clause he can do so or ignore it based on his own moral position as to the serious nature of the crime, the rape of a child. The moral judgement that sex with a 14 year old should be punished with the criminal listed for 25 years as a sexual predator, perfectly all right, he deserved it. So the next time some 19-year or 20- year old idiot decides to go on-line and solicit for a sexual partner - he will think twice about it, before jumping the gun, and discovering she isn't of the legal age of consent. You also continually repeat writing about the leniency clause and ignore the fact that MISTAKE is not a legal defense in Michigan law and can't be used as such, despite your repeatedly bringing it up as appropriate in this crime.

More liberal garbage to excuse illegal and unethical behavior. We don't have sex with children despite what you liberals think is acceptable. You want to change the laws of Michigan, move there, and run for office and try to change the law. The judge knows better than any of us what this guy deserved, exercised his legal authority appropriately, and I agree with him. You, on the other hand, approve of raping children. Sad commentary about your morals.

I see you consider arguing with yourself a pleasant diversion.

I never said what the judge did was illegal. I said I found it overly harsh and inappropriate based on the available facts.

I never said the 19 year old should not be punished or have any legal culpability. Again, I said the punishment given was too harsh considering the circumstances.

You again don't seem to understand the leniency provided for in Michigan law and described in the article linked in the OP. According to that, because the offender is under 21 and a first time offender he can avoid the 25 year sex offender listing. That is what I have been talking about, having nothing to do with whether what he did was a mistake or intentional.

Whether what he did was intentional and how that should affect him being on the sex offender list is another issue. Putting someone who was deceived into believing he was having sex with a 17 year old onto the sex offender list cheapens it, lessens the power or meaning of the list. We're not talking about a serial rapist, a pedophile, or even a malicious statutory rapist. We're talking about a 19 year old who was fooled by an underage girl into thinking she was older than she was. That might make him foolish but I don't believe it warrants being listed as a sex offender for 25 years. His crime was comparatively minor and I don't think that the community is protected by his inclusion on the list.

I never said sex with children is acceptable. I certainly never said I approve of raping children. If your argument is so weak that you need to put words in my mouth, so to speak, perhaps you ought to rethink your position.

And considering your stated opinions here, I am very comfortable with you disapproving of my morals.

It is not that you don't agree with it, it is a matter that you just don't understand it in any manner or shape whatsoever.

Mistake - Not A Defense Under Michigan Law, even if the girl enticed or advertised herself as available for sexual activity through electronic devices (internet), or any other means as being age 16 or over.

Conviction of Sexual Criminal Misconduct in the 4th Degree in Michigan (Statutory Rape), $500 fine, 2-years in prison. That penalty wasn't assessed by the judge on the 19-year old. That takes care of your leniency argument as far as I am concerned, the judge had other intentions regarding this crime.

All person's convicted of sexual misconduct laws in Michigan are required to be registered as sexual predator's. There are no exceptions.

Entire burden of proof that the girl was, in fact, at, or over the age of 16 (Michigan's age of consent), rested with the defendant, there is no other mitigating circumstances allowed under the law. The judge did not consider the "Romeo & Juliet" laws as applicable in this case. If the defendant was 18 - perhaps you have an argument - he was a year above the age of reason as an adult, at age 19, and engaged in what Michigan law identifies as Child Enticement, by going on the internet (electronic solicitation) in an attempt to satisfy his sexual desires. That alone makes it a crime in Michigan, even if the guy never kept an appointment with the 14-year old to consummate the arrangement.

The defendant lived in Michigan, the child lived in Indiana, the crime took place in Michigan, arranged by the defendant through child enticement via the electronic social media (internet). Defendant is guilty of two crimes - Statutory Rape and Child Enticement under Michigan law. The latter crime wasn't charged.

The activities of a minor child advertising herself as 17-years old, and available for sexual favors, on the internet (electronic solicitation), may not be considered as a defense, because the entire burden of proof rests on the defendant, the minor child is incapable of giving consent. "Opinion" - not known fact - the fact the defendant committed two sexual crimes in this matter could easily have been a determining factor in the judge's decision.

Fact - upon conviction of a crime of sexual misconduct (rape or enticement), Michigan requires you be placed on the Sexual Predator's List. You have no case legally - you have no basis for leniency. "Opinion" - I do not believe 19-year old's should be soliciting for sexual favors on social media, and consummating that solicitation by raping 14-year old's. That you can't seem to understand what a minor female child looks like, unfortunate, most people have no difficulty with it. Pity.

"Opinion" The law isn't perfect in many cases, in many states. However, judge's are the deciding factor in matters pertaining to the law, not the prosecution, not the victim (whose opinion in this matter isn't even allowed to be considered in court), not the parents pleas for leniency either.

There was a case in Quinnipac, Massachusetts where an adult teenager raped the girl next door - also a minor, same as this case. He served 5-8 years in prison, was released, I believe in 3-years, and placed on the Sexual Predator List, and returned home to live with his parents after his prison term.

The neighbor, whose daughter was the victim of the rape also was still living at home, and those victim's wanted to sell their home - however, because the man lived in the neighborhood, routine title searches located the fact that he was on file as a known Sexual Predator, and that information, by Massachusetts laws, had to be conveyed to potential buyers of the victim's home. Of course, nobody was interested in purchasing a home adjacent to a known sexual predator, and the two families ended up living adjacent to each other. Imagine the horror for the victim's family regarding that arrangement - absolutely and perfectly legal - totally and understandably unfair to them - impossible to rectify legally, when the criminal refused to move.

BTW, former NBA star Allen Iverson of the Philadelphia 76'ers was convicted of deadly assault in a racial motivated brawl at a bowling alley in Virginia when he was 17-years old, and tried as an adult, because he hit another kid full force, over the head, with a metal folding chair, used sideways, causing severe injury. Video tape of the brawl showed Iverson wasn't responsible for starting it, and wasn't in any danger of being injured, his attack was motivated and intentional.

He was sentenced to 8-years in jail and sent there. The Virginia Governor at the time (knowing his basketball skills and the fact he probably was going to be drafted in the first round by an NBA team), commuted the sentence - saying attempted murder was too harsh a penalty. Iverson walked out of jail a free man - the others in the brawl stayed in jail serving their sentences. Fair enough for you? I mean, Iverson was only 17 year's old when he attempted to murder another teenager deliberately - your 19-year old champion criminal raped a 14-year old ???

All for leniency in the law, when it applies - you didn't check my introduction post, my background is law enforcement and teaching - so my observation skills and daily interface with teenagers are considered to be better than the average citizen's. We will agree to disagree. I dislike raping children - you, by your continued defense of the criminal, apparently approve of it. Do you approve of leniency for 19-year old robbers and murderers, who claim they had no INTENT to kill? Guessing your tender heart doesn't extend out to them, despite their tender age, yet a 14-year old raped female? You have no compassion for her, and disagree with the decision of a judge with, I am guessing, no legal experience on your side...........

Let me just make one point rather than reply to your entire rambling diatribe.

According to the OP article there is a provision in Michigan law to keep young, first time offenders off of the sex offenders list. Here's the quote : "You see, in Michigan there is a leniency provision for first-time offenders under age 21. It keeps them off the registry.". Now perhaps the article is wrong, but that certainly contradicts your statements that this young man could not receive any leniency. That also clearly points out what I have been saying and you have been misconstruing or ignoring.

Oh, and thank you for continuing to put words in my mouth. Nitwit.

 

[GHook93]

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? .

Always black and white with you. No adults shouldn't get a free pass, but the circumstances of the event should be taken into consideration. If a young girl looks older, holds herself out as of age and a reasonable person would believe she was of age, then it should be a defense. Now it's very unlikely a 14 yr old girl could pass for 17, so if it was unreasonable to a normal person then the defense may not be utilized.

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

Red herring argument.

 

[Stan Fan]

Making sex offender lists that broad negates the purpose of having them at all.

Not really. You know that guy did SOMETHING.

yes really. If they are on the list I want to know he/she did something really bad, not being 19 and having sex with someone he thought was 17 and was actually 14, or someone who got caught for "exposure" because they were drunk and took a piss on a wall.

Rapists, people who actually WANT to have sex with 14 year olds, pedophiles, flashers, etc, those are the people who should be on the list.

So you are a mind reader and know exactly what this guy was thinking? Raping a 14-year old isn't really bad? He solicited the sexual encounter via electronic social media, (Crime of Sexual Enticement in Michigan), than met and consummated the crime in Michigan, (Statutory Rape) by enticing her to cross state lines from Indiana, and therefore is guilty of the rape under Michigan law, automatically requiring he be listed on a sexual predator list, by law. He intended to have sex, you can't put it out that he was looking for a 17-year old, or even assume he was looking for an 18-year old, or 16-year old (age of consent in Michigan). He enticed her over state lines also, and she turns out to be 14-years old. Can't tell me you can't tell the difference, and getting a fake ID is usually every teenager's first crime, so they can drink beer, not have sex................

First, rambling responses usually are not the way to go, try to be more concise.

Second, he should be punished for statutory rape, because its the law, and statutory law does not take intent into account. What he should not be punished with is being placed on the offenders list, because 1) the sex was consensual, not forced, 2) all parties agree he thought the girl was of age) 3) the parents, who since the girl is a minor speak for her, wanted the charges dropped.

First my response is on-task and on-topic with the thread - rambling? Only if you have difficulty with reading comprehension. You certainly don't know the law.

Second - since he committed two crimes - Statutory Rape and Sexual Enticement Of A Minor, nothing you posted, or have ever posted, is pertinent to the discussion. You approve of leniency for raping children, that is your case.......

 

[martybegan]

Making sex offender lists that broad negates the purpose of having them at all.

Not really. You know that guy did SOMETHING.

yes really. If they are on the list I want to know he/she did something really bad, not being 19 and having sex with someone he thought was 17 and was actually 14, or someone who got caught for "exposure" because they were drunk and took a piss on a wall.

Rapists, people who actually WANT to have sex with 14 year olds, pedophiles, flashers, etc, those are the people who should be on the list.

So you are a mind reader and know exactly what this guy was thinking? Raping a 14-year old isn't really bad? He solicited the sexual encounter via electronic social media, (Crime of Sexual Enticement in Michigan), than met and consummated the crime in Michigan, (Statutory Rape) by enticing her to cross state lines from Indiana, and therefore is guilty of the rape under Michigan law, automatically requiring he be listed on a sexual predator list, by law. He intended to have sex, you can't put it out that he was looking for a 17-year old, or even assume he was looking for an 18-year old, or 16-year old (age of consent in Michigan). He enticed her over state lines also, and she turns out to be 14-years old. Can't tell me you can't tell the difference, and getting a fake ID is usually every teenager's first crime, so they can drink beer, not have sex................

First, rambling responses usually are not the way to go, try to be more concise.

Second, he should be punished for statutory rape, because its the law, and statutory law does not take intent into account. What he should not be punished with is being placed on the offenders list, because 1) the sex was consensual, not forced, 2) all parties agree he thought the girl was of age) 3) the parents, who since the girl is a minor speak for her, wanted the charges dropped.

First my response is on-task and on-topic with the thread - rambling? Only if you have difficulty with reading comprehension. You certainly don't know the law.

Second - since he committed two crimes - Statutory Rape and Sexual Enticement Of A Minor, nothing you posted, or have ever posted, is pertinent to the discussion. You approve of leniency for raping children, that is your case.......

its statutory raping, and not leniency, just not ruining someones life when he had no intent of committing the crime he is accused of.

He should go to jail for a set time as punishment, then let go. that's it.

 

[Stan Fan]

Diversion, diversion, diversion - your opinion is off task and topic. The case is an adult raping a 14 year old girl, the law doesn't allow for any mistake when the child is that age. It does allow for leniency at age 16, not 14. Even so, I work with enough teenager's to figure out their approximate ages - ten months a year. That you can't tell the difference is scary. Also, if it was your daughter engaged, at age 14, having sex with a 19-year old male adult - would you be in that court room pleading for him to be let off and the charges dropped? Unless you are in the habit of searching for sex on the internet and a child predator yourself, certainly not. Nobody cares about the leniency law, the judge didn't, he threw out the objections, and took swift and appropriate action. If your compassion isn't with the underage children, but with the sexual predator's, of which this guy is now registered as, there is something seriously wrong with your thinking. You seem to think the parents of the child have some say in absolving the guy - when in fact, the child should be taken away from them for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The girls mindset and actions are not considered, by reason of law, not fairness. The judge ruled accordingly regarding the case, by law, he is under no obligation to defend his sentence, particularly from the media, parents, lawyers, prosecutor's or internet posters. Getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car, with no intention of harming anybody, happens as we write. That drunk driver's kill off more people than cancer yearly, and are sent to jail for vehicular homicide, for years, routine. You can't introduce intent, or lack of intent into any DUI vehicular homicide case as a defense. Neither can you introduce Mistake - I didn't know she was only 14 year's old, after soliciting her and meeting her for sexual conduct, on the internet. The law in Michigan says it is not a defense - apparently your legal mind thinks it is. How unfortunate for the underage female children who come into contact with you, with your attitude of forgiveness for rape of a child............

You clearly have no idea about the leniency provided for in the law that I have been speaking of. It has nothing to do with the girl being 14 rather than 16, it has to do with the age of the boy. According to the article, in fact, the prosecution lawyer violated the plea agreement by reminding the judge that he had ignored the leniency clause in the past.
I can't say I'm overly surprised you don't seem to understand what I've been saying in regards to leniency in this case; you have shown that you think you know not only your own abilities to judge age, but those of every other adult male on the planet.

Are you claiming the girl's mother is 'in the habit of searching for sex on the internet and a child predator' because she asked for leniency or to have the charges dropped?

Yes, the judge's sentence appears to be within the bounds of the law. That doesn't make it appropriate, merely legal.

The judge seems to have decided that his own moral judgements are reasonable basis for rendering sentence, based on his quotes from the article, "You went online, to use a fisherman's expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever." Is there a provision in Michigan law for increasing sentences based on the moral appropriateness of someone's behavior? Or are circumstances outside the bounds of the law only relevant when the judge wants them to be?

And one more time here : I am not saying that this boy needed to be absolved of all responsibility in this case. I am saying that ignoring the leniency provision in the law in a case that seems fairly clearly to have not been a malicious offense for a first time, 19 year old offender, and forcing this 19 year old to quit his current college education, is overly harsh. I also think that Michigan would do well to change the laws so that mitigating circumstances are more easily taken into account, but even without that, this seems to me to be a judge who is more concerned with his own moral judgement than with the proper application of the law.

And that is the judge's decision, perfectly legal. If he wants to accept the leniency clause he can do so or ignore it based on his own moral position as to the serious nature of the crime, the rape of a child. The moral judgement that sex with a 14 year old should be punished with the criminal listed for 25 years as a sexual predator, perfectly all right, he deserved it. So the next time some 19-year or 20- year old idiot decides to go on-line and solicit for a sexual partner - he will think twice about it, before jumping the gun, and discovering she isn't of the legal age of consent. You also continually repeat writing about the leniency clause and ignore the fact that MISTAKE is not a legal defense in Michigan law and can't be used as such, despite your repeatedly bringing it up as appropriate in this crime.

More liberal garbage to excuse illegal and unethical behavior. We don't have sex with children despite what you liberals think is acceptable. You want to change the laws of Michigan, move there, and run for office and try to change the law. The judge knows better than any of us what this guy deserved, exercised his legal authority appropriately, and I agree with him. You, on the other hand, approve of raping children. Sad commentary about your morals.

I see you consider arguing with yourself a pleasant diversion.

I never said what the judge did was illegal. I said I found it overly harsh and inappropriate based on the available facts.

I never said the 19 year old should not be punished or have any legal culpability. Again, I said the punishment given was too harsh considering the circumstances.

You again don't seem to understand the leniency provided for in Michigan law and described in the article linked in the OP. According to that, because the offender is under 21 and a first time offender he can avoid the 25 year sex offender listing. That is what I have been talking about, having nothing to do with whether what he did was a mistake or intentional.

Whether what he did was intentional and how that should affect him being on the sex offender list is another issue. Putting someone who was deceived into believing he was having sex with a 17 year old onto the sex offender list cheapens it, lessens the power or meaning of the list. We're not talking about a serial rapist, a pedophile, or even a malicious statutory rapist. We're talking about a 19 year old who was fooled by an underage girl into thinking she was older than she was. That might make him foolish but I don't believe it warrants being listed as a sex offender for 25 years. His crime was comparatively minor and I don't think that the community is protected by his inclusion on the list.

I never said sex with children is acceptable. I certainly never said I approve of raping children. If your argument is so weak that you need to put words in my mouth, so to speak, perhaps you ought to rethink your position.

And considering your stated opinions here, I am very comfortable with you disapproving of my morals.

It is not that you don't agree with it, it is a matter that you just don't understand it in any manner or shape whatsoever.

Mistake - Not A Defense Under Michigan Law, even if the girl enticed or advertised herself as available for sexual activity through electronic devices (internet), or any other means as being age 16 or over.

Conviction of Sexual Criminal Misconduct in the 4th Degree in Michigan (Statutory Rape), $500 fine, 2-years in prison. That penalty wasn't assessed by the judge on the 19-year old. That takes care of your leniency argument as far as I am concerned, the judge had other intentions regarding this crime.

All person's convicted of sexual misconduct laws in Michigan are required to be registered as sexual predator's. There are no exceptions.

Entire burden of proof that the girl was, in fact, at, or over the age of 16 (Michigan's age of consent), rested with the defendant, there is no other mitigating circumstances allowed under the law. The judge did not consider the "Romeo & Juliet" laws as applicable in this case. If the defendant was 18 - perhaps you have an argument - he was a year above the age of reason as an adult, at age 19, and engaged in what Michigan law identifies as Child Enticement, by going on the internet (electronic solicitation) in an attempt to satisfy his sexual desires. That alone makes it a crime in Michigan, even if the guy never kept an appointment with the 14-year old to consummate the arrangement.

The defendant lived in Michigan, the child lived in Indiana, the crime took place in Michigan, arranged by the defendant through child enticement via the electronic social media (internet). Defendant is guilty of two crimes - Statutory Rape and Child Enticement under Michigan law. The latter crime wasn't charged.

The activities of a minor child advertising herself as 17-years old, and available for sexual favors, on the internet (electronic solicitation), may not be considered as a defense, because the entire burden of proof rests on the defendant, the minor child is incapable of giving consent. "Opinion" - not known fact - the fact the defendant committed two sexual crimes in this matter could easily have been a determining factor in the judge's decision.

Fact - upon conviction of a crime of sexual misconduct (rape or enticement), Michigan requires you be placed on the Sexual Predator's List. You have no case legally - you have no basis for leniency. "Opinion" - I do not believe 19-year old's should be soliciting for sexual favors on social media, and consummating that solicitation by raping 14-year old's. That you can't seem to understand what a minor female child looks like, unfortunate, most people have no difficulty with it. Pity.

"Opinion" The law isn't perfect in many cases, in many states. However, judge's are the deciding factor in matters pertaining to the law, not the prosecution, not the victim (whose opinion in this matter isn't even allowed to be considered in court), not the parents pleas for leniency either.

There was a case in Quinnipac, Massachusetts where an adult teenager raped the girl next door - also a minor, same as this case. He served 5-8 years in prison, was released, I believe in 3-years, and placed on the Sexual Predator List, and returned home to live with his parents after his prison term.

The neighbor, whose daughter was the victim of the rape also was still living at home, and those victim's wanted to sell their home - however, because the man lived in the neighborhood, routine title searches located the fact that he was on file as a known Sexual Predator, and that information, by Massachusetts laws, had to be conveyed to potential buyers of the victim's home. Of course, nobody was interested in purchasing a home adjacent to a known sexual predator, and the two families ended up living adjacent to each other. Imagine the horror for the victim's family regarding that arrangement - absolutely and perfectly legal - totally and understandably unfair to them - impossible to rectify legally, when the criminal refused to move.

BTW, former NBA star Allen Iverson of the Philadelphia 76'ers was convicted of deadly assault in a racial motivated brawl at a bowling alley in Virginia when he was 17-years old, and tried as an adult, because he hit another kid full force, over the head, with a metal folding chair, used sideways, causing severe injury. Video tape of the brawl showed Iverson wasn't responsible for starting it, and wasn't in any danger of being injured, his attack was motivated and intentional.

He was sentenced to 8-years in jail and sent there. The Virginia Governor at the time (knowing his basketball skills and the fact he probably was going to be drafted in the first round by an NBA team), commuted the sentence - saying attempted murder was too harsh a penalty. Iverson walked out of jail a free man - the others in the brawl stayed in jail serving their sentences. Fair enough for you? I mean, Iverson was only 17 year's old when he attempted to murder another teenager deliberately - your 19-year old champion criminal raped a 14-year old ???

All for leniency in the law, when it applies - you didn't check my introduction post, my background is law enforcement and teaching - so my observation skills and daily interface with teenagers are considered to be better than the average citizen's. We will agree to disagree. I dislike raping children - you, by your continued defense of the criminal, apparently approve of it. Do you approve of leniency for 19-year old robbers and murderers, who claim they had no INTENT to kill? Guessing your tender heart doesn't extend out to them, despite their tender age, yet a 14-year old raped female? You have no compassion for her, and disagree with the decision of a judge with, I am guessing, no legal experience on your side...........

Let me just make one point rather than reply to your entire rambling diatribe.

According to the OP article there is a provision in Michigan law to keep young, first time offenders off of the sex offenders list. Here's the quote : "You see, in Michigan there is a leniency provision for first-time offenders under age 21. It keeps them off the registry.". Now perhaps the article is wrong, but that certainly contradicts your statements that this young man could not receive any leniency. That also clearly points out what I have been saying and you have been misconstruing or ignoring.

Oh, and thank you for continuing to put words in my mouth. Nitwit.

The judge decided this two time criminal (Statutory Rape) (Sexual Enticement via social media), didn't warrant that leniency clause, and he would know the circumstances and the law better than anybody, and is the deciding factor. What you liberal hand slappers of criminal's don't understand is the child's actions do not exist and can not even be introduced in the court room for defense per Michigan law, because she is 14 - that ends any discussion of her culpability. The parents carry no weight that would abrogate the responsibility of the 19-year old rapist, who by law, is required to ensure that any sexual encounter with a female, no matter how it was arranged, is solely responsible for determining whether that female is able to give legal consent. The child is 14 - she can't give consent nitwits.....152 plus posts into this discussion, and you guys still don't understand that raping children is the central and only theme of this particular case.......

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You clearly have no idea about the leniency provided for in the law that I have been speaking of. It has nothing to do with the girl being 14 rather than 16, it has to do with the age of the boy. According to the article, in fact, the prosecution lawyer violated the plea agreement by reminding the judge that he had ignored the leniency clause in the past.
I can't say I'm overly surprised you don't seem to understand what I've been saying in regards to leniency in this case; you have shown that you think you know not only your own abilities to judge age, but those of every other adult male on the planet.

Are you claiming the girl's mother is 'in the habit of searching for sex on the internet and a child predator' because she asked for leniency or to have the charges dropped?

Yes, the judge's sentence appears to be within the bounds of the law. That doesn't make it appropriate, merely legal.

The judge seems to have decided that his own moral judgements are reasonable basis for rendering sentence, based on his quotes from the article, "You went online, to use a fisherman's expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with. That seems to be part of our culture now: meet, hook up, have sex, sayonara. Totally inappropriate behavior. There is no excuse for this whatsoever." Is there a provision in Michigan law for increasing sentences based on the moral appropriateness of someone's behavior? Or are circumstances outside the bounds of the law only relevant when the judge wants them to be?

And one more time here : I am not saying that this boy needed to be absolved of all responsibility in this case. I am saying that ignoring the leniency provision in the law in a case that seems fairly clearly to have not been a malicious offense for a first time, 19 year old offender, and forcing this 19 year old to quit his current college education, is overly harsh. I also think that Michigan would do well to change the laws so that mitigating circumstances are more easily taken into account, but even without that, this seems to me to be a judge who is more concerned with his own moral judgement than with the proper application of the law.

And that is the judge's decision, perfectly legal. If he wants to accept the leniency clause he can do so or ignore it based on his own moral position as to the serious nature of the crime, the rape of a child. The moral judgement that sex with a 14 year old should be punished with the criminal listed for 25 years as a sexual predator, perfectly all right, he deserved it. So the next time some 19-year or 20- year old idiot decides to go on-line and solicit for a sexual partner - he will think twice about it, before jumping the gun, and discovering she isn't of the legal age of consent. You also continually repeat writing about the leniency clause and ignore the fact that MISTAKE is not a legal defense in Michigan law and can't be used as such, despite your repeatedly bringing it up as appropriate in this crime.

More liberal garbage to excuse illegal and unethical behavior. We don't have sex with children despite what you liberals think is acceptable. You want to change the laws of Michigan, move there, and run for office and try to change the law. The judge knows better than any of us what this guy deserved, exercised his legal authority appropriately, and I agree with him. You, on the other hand, approve of raping children. Sad commentary about your morals.

I see you consider arguing with yourself a pleasant diversion.

I never said what the judge did was illegal. I said I found it overly harsh and inappropriate based on the available facts.

I never said the 19 year old should not be punished or have any legal culpability. Again, I said the punishment given was too harsh considering the circumstances.

You again don't seem to understand the leniency provided for in Michigan law and described in the article linked in the OP. According to that, because the offender is under 21 and a first time offender he can avoid the 25 year sex offender listing. That is what I have been talking about, having nothing to do with whether what he did was a mistake or intentional.

Whether what he did was intentional and how that should affect him being on the sex offender list is another issue. Putting someone who was deceived into believing he was having sex with a 17 year old onto the sex offender list cheapens it, lessens the power or meaning of the list. We're not talking about a serial rapist, a pedophile, or even a malicious statutory rapist. We're talking about a 19 year old who was fooled by an underage girl into thinking she was older than she was. That might make him foolish but I don't believe it warrants being listed as a sex offender for 25 years. His crime was comparatively minor and I don't think that the community is protected by his inclusion on the list.

I never said sex with children is acceptable. I certainly never said I approve of raping children. If your argument is so weak that you need to put words in my mouth, so to speak, perhaps you ought to rethink your position.

And considering your stated opinions here, I am very comfortable with you disapproving of my morals.

It is not that you don't agree with it, it is a matter that you just don't understand it in any manner or shape whatsoever.

Mistake - Not A Defense Under Michigan Law, even if the girl enticed or advertised herself as available for sexual activity through electronic devices (internet), or any other means as being age 16 or over.

Conviction of Sexual Criminal Misconduct in the 4th Degree in Michigan (Statutory Rape), $500 fine, 2-years in prison. That penalty wasn't assessed by the judge on the 19-year old. That takes care of your leniency argument as far as I am concerned, the judge had other intentions regarding this crime.

All person's convicted of sexual misconduct laws in Michigan are required to be registered as sexual predator's. There are no exceptions.

Entire burden of proof that the girl was, in fact, at, or over the age of 16 (Michigan's age of consent), rested with the defendant, there is no other mitigating circumstances allowed under the law. The judge did not consider the "Romeo & Juliet" laws as applicable in this case. If the defendant was 18 - perhaps you have an argument - he was a year above the age of reason as an adult, at age 19, and engaged in what Michigan law identifies as Child Enticement, by going on the internet (electronic solicitation) in an attempt to satisfy his sexual desires. That alone makes it a crime in Michigan, even if the guy never kept an appointment with the 14-year old to consummate the arrangement.

The defendant lived in Michigan, the child lived in Indiana, the crime took place in Michigan, arranged by the defendant through child enticement via the electronic social media (internet). Defendant is guilty of two crimes - Statutory Rape and Child Enticement under Michigan law. The latter crime wasn't charged.

The activities of a minor child advertising herself as 17-years old, and available for sexual favors, on the internet (electronic solicitation), may not be considered as a defense, because the entire burden of proof rests on the defendant, the minor child is incapable of giving consent. "Opinion" - not known fact - the fact the defendant committed two sexual crimes in this matter could easily have been a determining factor in the judge's decision.

Fact - upon conviction of a crime of sexual misconduct (rape or enticement), Michigan requires you be placed on the Sexual Predator's List. You have no case legally - you have no basis for leniency. "Opinion" - I do not believe 19-year old's should be soliciting for sexual favors on social media, and consummating that solicitation by raping 14-year old's. That you can't seem to understand what a minor female child looks like, unfortunate, most people have no difficulty with it. Pity.

"Opinion" The law isn't perfect in many cases, in many states. However, judge's are the deciding factor in matters pertaining to the law, not the prosecution, not the victim (whose opinion in this matter isn't even allowed to be considered in court), not the parents pleas for leniency either.

There was a case in Quinnipac, Massachusetts where an adult teenager raped the girl next door - also a minor, same as this case. He served 5-8 years in prison, was released, I believe in 3-years, and placed on the Sexual Predator List, and returned home to live with his parents after his prison term.

The neighbor, whose daughter was the victim of the rape also was still living at home, and those victim's wanted to sell their home - however, because the man lived in the neighborhood, routine title searches located the fact that he was on file as a known Sexual Predator, and that information, by Massachusetts laws, had to be conveyed to potential buyers of the victim's home. Of course, nobody was interested in purchasing a home adjacent to a known sexual predator, and the two families ended up living adjacent to each other. Imagine the horror for the victim's family regarding that arrangement - absolutely and perfectly legal - totally and understandably unfair to them - impossible to rectify legally, when the criminal refused to move.

BTW, former NBA star Allen Iverson of the Philadelphia 76'ers was convicted of deadly assault in a racial motivated brawl at a bowling alley in Virginia when he was 17-years old, and tried as an adult, because he hit another kid full force, over the head, with a metal folding chair, used sideways, causing severe injury. Video tape of the brawl showed Iverson wasn't responsible for starting it, and wasn't in any danger of being injured, his attack was motivated and intentional.

He was sentenced to 8-years in jail and sent there. The Virginia Governor at the time (knowing his basketball skills and the fact he probably was going to be drafted in the first round by an NBA team), commuted the sentence - saying attempted murder was too harsh a penalty. Iverson walked out of jail a free man - the others in the brawl stayed in jail serving their sentences. Fair enough for you? I mean, Iverson was only 17 year's old when he attempted to murder another teenager deliberately - your 19-year old champion criminal raped a 14-year old ???

All for leniency in the law, when it applies - you didn't check my introduction post, my background is law enforcement and teaching - so my observation skills and daily interface with teenagers are considered to be better than the average citizen's. We will agree to disagree. I dislike raping children - you, by your continued defense of the criminal, apparently approve of it. Do you approve of leniency for 19-year old robbers and murderers, who claim they had no INTENT to kill? Guessing your tender heart doesn't extend out to them, despite their tender age, yet a 14-year old raped female? You have no compassion for her, and disagree with the decision of a judge with, I am guessing, no legal experience on your side...........

Let me just make one point rather than reply to your entire rambling diatribe.

According to the OP article there is a provision in Michigan law to keep young, first time offenders off of the sex offenders list. Here's the quote : "You see, in Michigan there is a leniency provision for first-time offenders under age 21. It keeps them off the registry.". Now perhaps the article is wrong, but that certainly contradicts your statements that this young man could not receive any leniency. That also clearly points out what I have been saying and you have been misconstruing or ignoring.

Oh, and thank you for continuing to put words in my mouth. Nitwit.

The judge decided this two time criminal (Statutory Rape) (Sexual Enticement via social media), didn't warrant that leniency clause, and he would know the circumstances and the law better than anybody, and is the deciding factor. What you liberal hand slappers of criminal's don't understand is the child's actions do not exist and can not even be introduced in the court room for defense per Michigan law, because she is 14 - that ends any discussion of her culpability. The parents carry no weight that would abrogate the responsibility of the 19-year old rapist, who by law, is required to ensure that any sexual encounter with a female, no matter how it was arranged, is solely responsible for determining whether that female is able to give legal consent. The child is 14 - she can't give consent nitwits.....152 plus posts into this discussion, and you guys still don't understand that raping children is the central and only theme of this particular case.......

A 14 year old CAN be convicted of a crime you idiot.

 

[Stan Fan]

And that is the judge's decision, perfectly legal. If he wants to accept the leniency clause he can do so or ignore it based on his own moral position as to the serious nature of the crime, the rape of a child. The moral judgement that sex with a 14 year old should be punished with the criminal listed for 25 years as a sexual predator, perfectly all right, he deserved it. So the next time some 19-year or 20- year old idiot decides to go on-line and solicit for a sexual partner - he will think twice about it, before jumping the gun, and discovering she isn't of the legal age of consent. You also continually repeat writing about the leniency clause and ignore the fact that MISTAKE is not a legal defense in Michigan law and can't be used as such, despite your repeatedly bringing it up as appropriate in this crime.

More liberal garbage to excuse illegal and unethical behavior. We don't have sex with children despite what you liberals think is acceptable. You want to change the laws of Michigan, move there, and run for office and try to change the law. The judge knows better than any of us what this guy deserved, exercised his legal authority appropriately, and I agree with him. You, on the other hand, approve of raping children. Sad commentary about your morals.

I see you consider arguing with yourself a pleasant diversion.

I never said what the judge did was illegal. I said I found it overly harsh and inappropriate based on the available facts.

I never said the 19 year old should not be punished or have any legal culpability. Again, I said the punishment given was too harsh considering the circumstances.

You again don't seem to understand the leniency provided for in Michigan law and described in the article linked in the OP. According to that, because the offender is under 21 and a first time offender he can avoid the 25 year sex offender listing. That is what I have been talking about, having nothing to do with whether what he did was a mistake or intentional.

Whether what he did was intentional and how that should affect him being on the sex offender list is another issue. Putting someone who was deceived into believing he was having sex with a 17 year old onto the sex offender list cheapens it, lessens the power or meaning of the list. We're not talking about a serial rapist, a pedophile, or even a malicious statutory rapist. We're talking about a 19 year old who was fooled by an underage girl into thinking she was older than she was. That might make him foolish but I don't believe it warrants being listed as a sex offender for 25 years. His crime was comparatively minor and I don't think that the community is protected by his inclusion on the list.

I never said sex with children is acceptable. I certainly never said I approve of raping children. If your argument is so weak that you need to put words in my mouth, so to speak, perhaps you ought to rethink your position.

And considering your stated opinions here, I am very comfortable with you disapproving of my morals.

It is not that you don't agree with it, it is a matter that you just don't understand it in any manner or shape whatsoever.

Mistake - Not A Defense Under Michigan Law, even if the girl enticed or advertised herself as available for sexual activity through electronic devices (internet), or any other means as being age 16 or over.

Conviction of Sexual Criminal Misconduct in the 4th Degree in Michigan (Statutory Rape), $500 fine, 2-years in prison. That penalty wasn't assessed by the judge on the 19-year old. That takes care of your leniency argument as far as I am concerned, the judge had other intentions regarding this crime.

All person's convicted of sexual misconduct laws in Michigan are required to be registered as sexual predator's. There are no exceptions.

Entire burden of proof that the girl was, in fact, at, or over the age of 16 (Michigan's age of consent), rested with the defendant, there is no other mitigating circumstances allowed under the law. The judge did not consider the "Romeo & Juliet" laws as applicable in this case. If the defendant was 18 - perhaps you have an argument - he was a year above the age of reason as an adult, at age 19, and engaged in what Michigan law identifies as Child Enticement, by going on the internet (electronic solicitation) in an attempt to satisfy his sexual desires. That alone makes it a crime in Michigan, even if the guy never kept an appointment with the 14-year old to consummate the arrangement.

The defendant lived in Michigan, the child lived in Indiana, the crime took place in Michigan, arranged by the defendant through child enticement via the electronic social media (internet). Defendant is guilty of two crimes - Statutory Rape and Child Enticement under Michigan law. The latter crime wasn't charged.

The activities of a minor child advertising herself as 17-years old, and available for sexual favors, on the internet (electronic solicitation), may not be considered as a defense, because the entire burden of proof rests on the defendant, the minor child is incapable of giving consent. "Opinion" - not known fact - the fact the defendant committed two sexual crimes in this matter could easily have been a determining factor in the judge's decision.

Fact - upon conviction of a crime of sexual misconduct (rape or enticement), Michigan requires you be placed on the Sexual Predator's List. You have no case legally - you have no basis for leniency. "Opinion" - I do not believe 19-year old's should be soliciting for sexual favors on social media, and consummating that solicitation by raping 14-year old's. That you can't seem to understand what a minor female child looks like, unfortunate, most people have no difficulty with it. Pity.

"Opinion" The law isn't perfect in many cases, in many states. However, judge's are the deciding factor in matters pertaining to the law, not the prosecution, not the victim (whose opinion in this matter isn't even allowed to be considered in court), not the parents pleas for leniency either.

There was a case in Quinnipac, Massachusetts where an adult teenager raped the girl next door - also a minor, same as this case. He served 5-8 years in prison, was released, I believe in 3-years, and placed on the Sexual Predator List, and returned home to live with his parents after his prison term.

The neighbor, whose daughter was the victim of the rape also was still living at home, and those victim's wanted to sell their home - however, because the man lived in the neighborhood, routine title searches located the fact that he was on file as a known Sexual Predator, and that information, by Massachusetts laws, had to be conveyed to potential buyers of the victim's home. Of course, nobody was interested in purchasing a home adjacent to a known sexual predator, and the two families ended up living adjacent to each other. Imagine the horror for the victim's family regarding that arrangement - absolutely and perfectly legal - totally and understandably unfair to them - impossible to rectify legally, when the criminal refused to move.

BTW, former NBA star Allen Iverson of the Philadelphia 76'ers was convicted of deadly assault in a racial motivated brawl at a bowling alley in Virginia when he was 17-years old, and tried as an adult, because he hit another kid full force, over the head, with a metal folding chair, used sideways, causing severe injury. Video tape of the brawl showed Iverson wasn't responsible for starting it, and wasn't in any danger of being injured, his attack was motivated and intentional.

He was sentenced to 8-years in jail and sent there. The Virginia Governor at the time (knowing his basketball skills and the fact he probably was going to be drafted in the first round by an NBA team), commuted the sentence - saying attempted murder was too harsh a penalty. Iverson walked out of jail a free man - the others in the brawl stayed in jail serving their sentences. Fair enough for you? I mean, Iverson was only 17 year's old when he attempted to murder another teenager deliberately - your 19-year old champion criminal raped a 14-year old ???

All for leniency in the law, when it applies - you didn't check my introduction post, my background is law enforcement and teaching - so my observation skills and daily interface with teenagers are considered to be better than the average citizen's. We will agree to disagree. I dislike raping children - you, by your continued defense of the criminal, apparently approve of it. Do you approve of leniency for 19-year old robbers and murderers, who claim they had no INTENT to kill? Guessing your tender heart doesn't extend out to them, despite their tender age, yet a 14-year old raped female? You have no compassion for her, and disagree with the decision of a judge with, I am guessing, no legal experience on your side...........

Let me just make one point rather than reply to your entire rambling diatribe.

According to the OP article there is a provision in Michigan law to keep young, first time offenders off of the sex offenders list. Here's the quote : "You see, in Michigan there is a leniency provision for first-time offenders under age 21. It keeps them off the registry.". Now perhaps the article is wrong, but that certainly contradicts your statements that this young man could not receive any leniency. That also clearly points out what I have been saying and you have been misconstruing or ignoring.

Oh, and thank you for continuing to put words in my mouth. Nitwit.

The judge decided this two time criminal (Statutory Rape) (Sexual Enticement via social media), didn't warrant that leniency clause, and he would know the circumstances and the law better than anybody, and is the deciding factor. What you liberal hand slappers of criminal's don't understand is the child's actions do not exist and can not even be introduced in the court room for defense per Michigan law, because she is 14 - that ends any discussion of her culpability. The parents carry no weight that would abrogate the responsibility of the 19-year old rapist, who by law, is required to ensure that any sexual encounter with a female, no matter how it was arranged, is solely responsible for determining whether that female is able to give legal consent. The child is 14 - she can't give consent nitwits.....152 plus posts into this discussion, and you guys still don't understand that raping children is the central and only theme of this particular case.......

A 14 year old CAN be convicted of a crime you idiot.

She didn't commit any crime in the State of Michigan. She was from Indiana, and the rapist enticed her into crossing state lines for the purpose of sexual favor's. Sexual enticement, even if the crime wasn't consummated is also a crime in Michigan, they didn't charge him with the second crime, and the judge didn't (fortunately for him), give him the two years in jail he could have got for Statutory Rape of a 14-year old girl. He was convicted of Statutory Rape - and Michigan law requires automatic inclusion on the Sexual Predator List. You want to pursue the 14-year old for anything, use Indiana Juvenile Delinquent laws, you can't use Michigan's. Gawd you folks are dense.........

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I see you consider arguing with yourself a pleasant diversion.

I never said what the judge did was illegal. I said I found it overly harsh and inappropriate based on the available facts.

I never said the 19 year old should not be punished or have any legal culpability. Again, I said the punishment given was too harsh considering the circumstances.

You again don't seem to understand the leniency provided for in Michigan law and described in the article linked in the OP. According to that, because the offender is under 21 and a first time offender he can avoid the 25 year sex offender listing. That is what I have been talking about, having nothing to do with whether what he did was a mistake or intentional.

Whether what he did was intentional and how that should affect him being on the sex offender list is another issue. Putting someone who was deceived into believing he was having sex with a 17 year old onto the sex offender list cheapens it, lessens the power or meaning of the list. We're not talking about a serial rapist, a pedophile, or even a malicious statutory rapist. We're talking about a 19 year old who was fooled by an underage girl into thinking she was older than she was. That might make him foolish but I don't believe it warrants being listed as a sex offender for 25 years. His crime was comparatively minor and I don't think that the community is protected by his inclusion on the list.

I never said sex with children is acceptable. I certainly never said I approve of raping children. If your argument is so weak that you need to put words in my mouth, so to speak, perhaps you ought to rethink your position.

And considering your stated opinions here, I am very comfortable with you disapproving of my morals.

It is not that you don't agree with it, it is a matter that you just don't understand it in any manner or shape whatsoever.

Mistake - Not A Defense Under Michigan Law, even if the girl enticed or advertised herself as available for sexual activity through electronic devices (internet), or any other means as being age 16 or over.

Conviction of Sexual Criminal Misconduct in the 4th Degree in Michigan (Statutory Rape), $500 fine, 2-years in prison. That penalty wasn't assessed by the judge on the 19-year old. That takes care of your leniency argument as far as I am concerned, the judge had other intentions regarding this crime.

All person's convicted of sexual misconduct laws in Michigan are required to be registered as sexual predator's. There are no exceptions.

Entire burden of proof that the girl was, in fact, at, or over the age of 16 (Michigan's age of consent), rested with the defendant, there is no other mitigating circumstances allowed under the law. The judge did not consider the "Romeo & Juliet" laws as applicable in this case. If the defendant was 18 - perhaps you have an argument - he was a year above the age of reason as an adult, at age 19, and engaged in what Michigan law identifies as Child Enticement, by going on the internet (electronic solicitation) in an attempt to satisfy his sexual desires. That alone makes it a crime in Michigan, even if the guy never kept an appointment with the 14-year old to consummate the arrangement.

The defendant lived in Michigan, the child lived in Indiana, the crime took place in Michigan, arranged by the defendant through child enticement via the electronic social media (internet). Defendant is guilty of two crimes - Statutory Rape and Child Enticement under Michigan law. The latter crime wasn't charged.

The activities of a minor child advertising herself as 17-years old, and available for sexual favors, on the internet (electronic solicitation), may not be considered as a defense, because the entire burden of proof rests on the defendant, the minor child is incapable of giving consent. "Opinion" - not known fact - the fact the defendant committed two sexual crimes in this matter could easily have been a determining factor in the judge's decision.

Fact - upon conviction of a crime of sexual misconduct (rape or enticement), Michigan requires you be placed on the Sexual Predator's List. You have no case legally - you have no basis for leniency. "Opinion" - I do not believe 19-year old's should be soliciting for sexual favors on social media, and consummating that solicitation by raping 14-year old's. That you can't seem to understand what a minor female child looks like, unfortunate, most people have no difficulty with it. Pity.

"Opinion" The law isn't perfect in many cases, in many states. However, judge's are the deciding factor in matters pertaining to the law, not the prosecution, not the victim (whose opinion in this matter isn't even allowed to be considered in court), not the parents pleas for leniency either.

There was a case in Quinnipac, Massachusetts where an adult teenager raped the girl next door - also a minor, same as this case. He served 5-8 years in prison, was released, I believe in 3-years, and placed on the Sexual Predator List, and returned home to live with his parents after his prison term.

The neighbor, whose daughter was the victim of the rape also was still living at home, and those victim's wanted to sell their home - however, because the man lived in the neighborhood, routine title searches located the fact that he was on file as a known Sexual Predator, and that information, by Massachusetts laws, had to be conveyed to potential buyers of the victim's home. Of course, nobody was interested in purchasing a home adjacent to a known sexual predator, and the two families ended up living adjacent to each other. Imagine the horror for the victim's family regarding that arrangement - absolutely and perfectly legal - totally and understandably unfair to them - impossible to rectify legally, when the criminal refused to move.

BTW, former NBA star Allen Iverson of the Philadelphia 76'ers was convicted of deadly assault in a racial motivated brawl at a bowling alley in Virginia when he was 17-years old, and tried as an adult, because he hit another kid full force, over the head, with a metal folding chair, used sideways, causing severe injury. Video tape of the brawl showed Iverson wasn't responsible for starting it, and wasn't in any danger of being injured, his attack was motivated and intentional.

He was sentenced to 8-years in jail and sent there. The Virginia Governor at the time (knowing his basketball skills and the fact he probably was going to be drafted in the first round by an NBA team), commuted the sentence - saying attempted murder was too harsh a penalty. Iverson walked out of jail a free man - the others in the brawl stayed in jail serving their sentences. Fair enough for you? I mean, Iverson was only 17 year's old when he attempted to murder another teenager deliberately - your 19-year old champion criminal raped a 14-year old ???

All for leniency in the law, when it applies - you didn't check my introduction post, my background is law enforcement and teaching - so my observation skills and daily interface with teenagers are considered to be better than the average citizen's. We will agree to disagree. I dislike raping children - you, by your continued defense of the criminal, apparently approve of it. Do you approve of leniency for 19-year old robbers and murderers, who claim they had no INTENT to kill? Guessing your tender heart doesn't extend out to them, despite their tender age, yet a 14-year old raped female? You have no compassion for her, and disagree with the decision of a judge with, I am guessing, no legal experience on your side...........

Let me just make one point rather than reply to your entire rambling diatribe.

According to the OP article there is a provision in Michigan law to keep young, first time offenders off of the sex offenders list. Here's the quote : "You see, in Michigan there is a leniency provision for first-time offenders under age 21. It keeps them off the registry.". Now perhaps the article is wrong, but that certainly contradicts your statements that this young man could not receive any leniency. That also clearly points out what I have been saying and you have been misconstruing or ignoring.

Oh, and thank you for continuing to put words in my mouth. Nitwit.

The judge decided this two time criminal (Statutory Rape) (Sexual Enticement via social media), didn't warrant that leniency clause, and he would know the circumstances and the law better than anybody, and is the deciding factor. What you liberal hand slappers of criminal's don't understand is the child's actions do not exist and can not even be introduced in the court room for defense per Michigan law, because she is 14 - that ends any discussion of her culpability. The parents carry no weight that would abrogate the responsibility of the 19-year old rapist, who by law, is required to ensure that any sexual encounter with a female, no matter how it was arranged, is solely responsible for determining whether that female is able to give legal consent. The child is 14 - she can't give consent nitwits.....152 plus posts into this discussion, and you guys still don't understand that raping children is the central and only theme of this particular case.......

A 14 year old CAN be convicted of a crime you idiot.

She didn't commit any crime in the State of Michigan. She was from Indiana, and the rapist enticed her into crossing state lines for the purpose of sexual favor's. Sexual enticement, even if the crime wasn't consummated is also a crime in Michigan, they didn't charge him with the second crime, and the judge didn't (fortunately for him), give him the two years in jail he could have got for Statutory Rape of a 14-year old girl. He was convicted of Statutory Rape - and Michigan law requires automatic inclusion on the Sexual Predator List. You want to pursue the 14-year old for anything, use Indiana Juvenile Delinquent laws, you can't use Michigan's. Gawd you folks are dense.........

She certainly DID commit a crime.

She aided and abetted the guy in committing statutory rape.

Don't confuse she wasn't charged with she didn't commit a crime.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Supplement_to_2006_edition_-_Winter_2007_191037_7.pdf

 

[Stan Fan]

It is not that you don't agree with it, it is a matter that you just don't understand it in any manner or shape whatsoever.

Mistake - Not A Defense Under Michigan Law, even if the girl enticed or advertised herself as available for sexual activity through electronic devices (internet), or any other means as being age 16 or over.

Conviction of Sexual Criminal Misconduct in the 4th Degree in Michigan (Statutory Rape), $500 fine, 2-years in prison. That penalty wasn't assessed by the judge on the 19-year old. That takes care of your leniency argument as far as I am concerned, the judge had other intentions regarding this crime.

All person's convicted of sexual misconduct laws in Michigan are required to be registered as sexual predator's. There are no exceptions.

Entire burden of proof that the girl was, in fact, at, or over the age of 16 (Michigan's age of consent), rested with the defendant, there is no other mitigating circumstances allowed under the law. The judge did not consider the "Romeo & Juliet" laws as applicable in this case. If the defendant was 18 - perhaps you have an argument - he was a year above the age of reason as an adult, at age 19, and engaged in what Michigan law identifies as Child Enticement, by going on the internet (electronic solicitation) in an attempt to satisfy his sexual desires. That alone makes it a crime in Michigan, even if the guy never kept an appointment with the 14-year old to consummate the arrangement.

The defendant lived in Michigan, the child lived in Indiana, the crime took place in Michigan, arranged by the defendant through child enticement via the electronic social media (internet). Defendant is guilty of two crimes - Statutory Rape and Child Enticement under Michigan law. The latter crime wasn't charged.

The activities of a minor child advertising herself as 17-years old, and available for sexual favors, on the internet (electronic solicitation), may not be considered as a defense, because the entire burden of proof rests on the defendant, the minor child is incapable of giving consent. "Opinion" - not known fact - the fact the defendant committed two sexual crimes in this matter could easily have been a determining factor in the judge's decision.

Fact - upon conviction of a crime of sexual misconduct (rape or enticement), Michigan requires you be placed on the Sexual Predator's List. You have no case legally - you have no basis for leniency. "Opinion" - I do not believe 19-year old's should be soliciting for sexual favors on social media, and consummating that solicitation by raping 14-year old's. That you can't seem to understand what a minor female child looks like, unfortunate, most people have no difficulty with it. Pity.

"Opinion" The law isn't perfect in many cases, in many states. However, judge's are the deciding factor in matters pertaining to the law, not the prosecution, not the victim (whose opinion in this matter isn't even allowed to be considered in court), not the parents pleas for leniency either.

There was a case in Quinnipac, Massachusetts where an adult teenager raped the girl next door - also a minor, same as this case. He served 5-8 years in prison, was released, I believe in 3-years, and placed on the Sexual Predator List, and returned home to live with his parents after his prison term.

The neighbor, whose daughter was the victim of the rape also was still living at home, and those victim's wanted to sell their home - however, because the man lived in the neighborhood, routine title searches located the fact that he was on file as a known Sexual Predator, and that information, by Massachusetts laws, had to be conveyed to potential buyers of the victim's home. Of course, nobody was interested in purchasing a home adjacent to a known sexual predator, and the two families ended up living adjacent to each other. Imagine the horror for the victim's family regarding that arrangement - absolutely and perfectly legal - totally and understandably unfair to them - impossible to rectify legally, when the criminal refused to move.

BTW, former NBA star Allen Iverson of the Philadelphia 76'ers was convicted of deadly assault in a racial motivated brawl at a bowling alley in Virginia when he was 17-years old, and tried as an adult, because he hit another kid full force, over the head, with a metal folding chair, used sideways, causing severe injury. Video tape of the brawl showed Iverson wasn't responsible for starting it, and wasn't in any danger of being injured, his attack was motivated and intentional.

He was sentenced to 8-years in jail and sent there. The Virginia Governor at the time (knowing his basketball skills and the fact he probably was going to be drafted in the first round by an NBA team), commuted the sentence - saying attempted murder was too harsh a penalty. Iverson walked out of jail a free man - the others in the brawl stayed in jail serving their sentences. Fair enough for you? I mean, Iverson was only 17 year's old when he attempted to murder another teenager deliberately - your 19-year old champion criminal raped a 14-year old ???

All for leniency in the law, when it applies - you didn't check my introduction post, my background is law enforcement and teaching - so my observation skills and daily interface with teenagers are considered to be better than the average citizen's. We will agree to disagree. I dislike raping children - you, by your continued defense of the criminal, apparently approve of it. Do you approve of leniency for 19-year old robbers and murderers, who claim they had no INTENT to kill? Guessing your tender heart doesn't extend out to them, despite their tender age, yet a 14-year old raped female? You have no compassion for her, and disagree with the decision of a judge with, I am guessing, no legal experience on your side...........

Let me just make one point rather than reply to your entire rambling diatribe.

According to the OP article there is a provision in Michigan law to keep young, first time offenders off of the sex offenders list. Here's the quote : "You see, in Michigan there is a leniency provision for first-time offenders under age 21. It keeps them off the registry.". Now perhaps the article is wrong, but that certainly contradicts your statements that this young man could not receive any leniency. That also clearly points out what I have been saying and you have been misconstruing or ignoring.

Oh, and thank you for continuing to put words in my mouth. Nitwit.

The judge decided this two time criminal (Statutory Rape) (Sexual Enticement via social media), didn't warrant that leniency clause, and he would know the circumstances and the law better than anybody, and is the deciding factor. What you liberal hand slappers of criminal's don't understand is the child's actions do not exist and can not even be introduced in the court room for defense per Michigan law, because she is 14 - that ends any discussion of her culpability. The parents carry no weight that would abrogate the responsibility of the 19-year old rapist, who by law, is required to ensure that any sexual encounter with a female, no matter how it was arranged, is solely responsible for determining whether that female is able to give legal consent. The child is 14 - she can't give consent nitwits.....152 plus posts into this discussion, and you guys still don't understand that raping children is the central and only theme of this particular case.......

A 14 year old CAN be convicted of a crime you idiot.

She didn't commit any crime in the State of Michigan. She was from Indiana, and the rapist enticed her into crossing state lines for the purpose of sexual favor's. Sexual enticement, even if the crime wasn't consummated is also a crime in Michigan, they didn't charge him with the second crime, and the judge didn't (fortunately for him), give him the two years in jail he could have got for Statutory Rape of a 14-year old girl. He was convicted of Statutory Rape - and Michigan law requires automatic inclusion on the Sexual Predator List. You want to pursue the 14-year old for anything, use Indiana Juvenile Delinquent laws, you can't use Michigan's. Gawd you folks are dense.........

She certainly DID commit a crime.

She aided and abetted the guy in committing statutory rape.

Don't confuse she wasn't charged with she didn't commit a crime.

Nothing you posted in the Michigan manual substantiates the fact that this 14 year old girl aided and abetted in the commission of a sex crime. She is incapable of consent, and the crime because she is a child, underage. The 19-year old boy solicited information from social media in an attempt to engage in Criminal Sexual Conduct - they didn't charge him with it - but they should have. The only thing she could have been charged with is Juvenile Delinquency - in Indiana - not Michigan..........

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Supplement_to_2006_edition_-_Winter_2007_191037_7.pdf