source
quote:
“This young man was six weeks short of his 16th birthday and it was completely consensual on both sides and I said that on the bench,” Superior Court Judge Suzanne V. DelVecchio said...
In this case I do not think that a jail sentence is justified. However, the prosecution wanted a stronger sentence, not because of the statutary rape but because:
quote:
“I certainly respect the judge’s decision. We disagree with it. We think he should have gone to jail for abusing his authority as a teacher,” said Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz.
The man committed rape based on falling short of an arbitrary age line by about 42 days, I think therefore that that the minimum sentence possible should be applied since this is the minimum way in which one can commit statutary rape. Consensual sex, just short of being 16.
As for the other case...I don't think its relevant since it is not dealing with either homosexuality nor is it dealing with statutary rape. The other case is child abuse (I believe he was charged with sexual abuse of a child).
This case is interesting actually...and the judge has brought to our attention a big problem with the system. There was a choice the judge had between councelling with highly stringent conditions (breaking these conditions would mean a life sentence) or a small (8 years?) prison sentence with no help.
The judge decided treatment was preferable to delaying the problem by about 10 years or so. This decision has
led directly to a new ruling where all sex offenders recieve mandatory councelling, meaning a judge does not have to make this either or decision.
™ Version 4.2
