I agree with Token's first post in general, but the guy did ten years for the original crime, which would suggest something far more serious than underage sex with a consenting partner who was not much younger than him.
Remember, 'facing 20 years' (as per your example from Atlanta) is not the same as 'doing 20 years'. A sentence will reflect the seriousness of the crime, so the maximum sentence (which is clearly being reported here) will be reserved for the most serious breaches of the law. That's not to say the law sometimes gets things badly wrong and forces sentences which are out of all proportion to the crime, but these are the exception rather than the rule. It's reasonably safe to say a ten-year sentence implies a serious crime, especially as the guy doesn't seem to be advertising what he did as a reason why he shouldn't be restricted from living near school bus stops.
1. I'm not so sure. 25-26 yr-old teachers have gotten 10 and 20 years for sex with 16 and 17 yr old students. Yes, a slightly different situation, but only slightly. I guess we'd need some stats on this, but my guess is his sentence depends on a number of factors such as what could be thrown at him, how hard the prosecutors were pushing it (and for what political reasons), the judge's prejudices, etc. And we give people more than 10 years for posession of an ounce of pot...how serious is that?
2. Sorry, I mispoke. By "facing" I meant, he'd been convicted and sentenced and was about to be moved from a juvenile facility into a state pen, to "face" that 20 years. Sorry for the miscommunication. The issue here was, as it so often is, how left-liberal/feminist the sentencing judge is and how hard the prosecutor is pushing it for political gain and or to satisfy his/her own left-liberal feminist agenda.
Again, on this particular crime, our nation is about as bassakward as you can be. On the one hand, our culture, today, tells us that girls are sexually available from about age 10 up, and encourages girls from that age (and younger) to look the part as much as they are able. On the other hand, the same culture tells us that any man who pays attention to the female form is a "perv" and if he's more than a few years older than the woman (whether she's 10 or 30) he's admiring, that makes him a "dirty old man," or worse, a "molester."
Now, of course, we all lie about it, as we must. We are told that it is "wrong" for a man of any age to notice the sweet, nubile young thing wearing a micro miniskirt, spike heels and a breast-baring top, even more so if he's say, 40 and she's 17. And so we men have been training ourselves for the past 40 years to steal glances at such a girl and say "well, that's just turrible that young ladies dress this way! I'm shocked and apalled!" Actually, as a lifetime member of the DOMPC (Dirty Old Man Perv Club--well, at least since I was 12 or 13 years of age), I am rather appreciative of such raiment on the right form, and always have been. I like looking at attractive women whether they are my age, or 25 or 30 years younger...or even older than me, and if they are dressed sexy/seductively, more's the better!
There, I said it, it's out! I admit it: I am a normal human male animal! I do exactly what my Creator or nature designed me to do: use my eyes to identify females of my species who I find "attractive" in a sexual sense because ultimately, I am like any other animal and primarily designed to attempt at almost any cost to pass my genetic material on.
Shame on me!!!
But at least I can man up to the truth, eh?
With this sort of schizoid cultural sense, it's no wonder we have so many problems with sex in America (next, we take on alcohol!), and the West in general. Could be worse (and of course my next words will mark me as an intolerant bigot and perhaps racist, too)...we could be Muslim. Talk about twisted up over sex.
Tokie
