Jericho941 wrote:Judge is an asshole, though.
That's hard to say without more knowledge of what all is involved. Did he have discretion? What are the clear lines for what's OK? I don't know.
I admit I feel sorry for the guy's plight, but that's what the article was designed to achieve - teh feeellllzzzz. Maybe I got suckered.
I'd think that the girl's admitting that she lied should be an extenuating factor, but was 19 on 17 legal? I don't know that either.
The whole purpose of statutory rape laws is to protect minors from adults, not to fight against the tide of teen promiscuity. Rule on the law, not your hangups.
To protect minors from adults, you need to draw a line somewhere, and then stick with it. This guy appears to have crossed the line, in fact.
In statutory rape cases, it might work better to have a table or something. Maybe establish an age of consent and if everyone is over that, then OK. If they're both under, no more than a two (?) year age difference or it's some sort of predation? 18 on 13 would cross lots of lines for me.
No crossing the line allowed? The age of consent has to mean age of consent or it means nothing.
Note to self: start reading sig lines. They're actually quite amusing. :D