"Totally unacceptable behavior" is using your state granted power to enforce your own personal set of morals. You may find hooking up immoral or distasteful, but that, in and of itself, is not illegal. Sleeping with a 14 year old is - and I think the young man has likely learned to ask for id without his stupidity fucking up his entire life. If "horny kids these days and their newfangled technology" is how you see the world, perhaps your opinions belong on a rocker in your front porch instead of a judicial bench.

Does anyone know what happened to the girl who was arrested for statutory rape when she turned 18 because her girlfriend's mom hated that they're lesbians?

I'm for an idiot jackass prosecutor/judge/authoritarian demagogue registry. I don't want any of those malignant shits living in my community. The criminal justice system in this country is worse than that of your average banana republic.

I'm conflicted about this. There certainly are some creepy 19-year-olds deliberately targeting 14-year-olds because they are sex offenders, and they will keep targeting 14-year-olds when they are 49-year-olds. So it's good those laws are on the books. And there is a way for a sane judge to determine the exceptions who shouldn't be registered as sex offenders, as you said, the Holmes law thing. The problem in this particular case is that the judge is a nutcase.

19yo folks who will have sex with someone who claims to be 17 without an ID check are SUPER COMMON. Actual child predators are pretty damn rare. It is utterly predictable that these draconian enforcements will continue to destroy more lives than they help. No study has ever demonstrated any reduction in sex crimes against children associated with these registries. There is no evidence that they work. There is plenty of evidence that they are expensive and often way more severe than the crime warrants (public urination? Teens getting frisky? Come on!).

@4 I'm with you a little bit. Now that I'm in my thirties, it's difficult to tell a HS freshman and senior apart. But when I was 19? Anyone can be fooled, I suppose, but I suspect that
1) Anderson's online activities may have been creepier than we assume - assuming most of us are adults who have used online dating in an ethical, adult manner;
2) We'll probably never see pictures, so who knows if she "looked" 17, but Mr. Anderson probably ignored some blatant warning signs.

Those two shitheads need to be disbarred.

I'm not conflicted about this at all: Anderson turned himself in and plead guilty. He cooperated. He's not trying to get out of any sentencing at all, he's objecting to the completely unnecessary destruction of his entire life for what was a pretty minor infraction. Even when I was 19 it wasn't always easy to tell a 14 year old apart from a 17 year old. Kids develop differently, and exactly none of the parties are claiming he took advantage of her. JFC.

And given there are 12 states where you can end up on the sex offender registry for urinating in public, defending the laws as they stand is a pretty feeble position.

Fourteen years old is a freshman in high school.

Nineteen years old is a sophomore in college.

It may just be five years, but that is a HUGE five years. How many people here would like their daughter who just entered high school sleeping with college kids? When adults have sex with children, that is rape, as children can not consent.

Adults can tell the difference between subtle right and wrong, children may not be able to, and we have to hold the adult responsible, not the child for lying. That is victim blaming.

Perhaps the lifetime sex offender registry is too much punishment, and perhaps the idea of a sex offender registry is counter productive, but this is not a case of a older teen having sex with a slightly younger teen. This is an adult and a child.

'Perhaps the lifetime sex offender registry is too much punishment'

Uh, perhaps? I'm sorry any of you that are 'conflicted' here must have a brain lesion or something. This shit is nothing short of completely outrageous.

'Perhaps' the beheading of apostates is too much punishment, I don't know...Perhaps not.

@9: This was someone who was nineTEEN having sex with someone he thought was sevenTEEN. They were both TEENagers. The girl lied about her age; that's common and a mitigating circumstance. There is no "perhaps" here. The guy committed a very minor infraction, his punishment should reflect this. Not some judge who's too judgey when it comes to consensual sexual behaviour.

Well, you can harass and torment me (wait, you already do that), but my own feeling is that the National Age of Consent is more naturally 14.

Part of heterosexuality is the difference. Two opposites meeting and exchanging not just fluids, but information, knowledge, experience, ideas, viewpoints.

This is as old as the hills. Well, until a certain Agenda (no, that's not what I'm talking about, Mr. Savage) set in and decided to turn everyone into the same humit (Humit -- a unit of humanity).

Not conflicted at all.

Yes, he committed a crime by banging a 14 year old. He should punished for that, and he will be. But punishment should fit the crime. It was a relatively minor crime. He's as guilty of being stupid and not knowing her age as anything else. And his punishment be relatively minor as well.

Putting him on a sex offender registry for life is an insane punishment. It in no way reflects what the purpose of the sex offender registry was intended for: to protect us against dangerous sexual predators and pedophiles. Anderson may be an idiot, but he is not a dangerous sexual predator. This is a gross overreach and misconduct of justice.

@10, 11, 12: When does a person become an adult in your world? 25? 30? 62?

A nineteen year old is an adult. If a nineteen year old killed someone, should they be tried as a minor? Hey, he is only nineteen, practically still a baby!

Fourteen year old children are children. Maybe you do not have a problem with adults having sex with children, but civilized society has come to the conclusion that it is not a good thing. 14 year olds can not enter legal contracts because they are not experienced enough to know what is good for them. This is why they can not drive, vote, use drugs, or care for children of their own. It is quite simple.

Do any of you find it odd that you are arguing that a 14 year old is an adult capable of making such decisions, but a 19 year old can not be held responsible? She lied about her age to an adult who did not care enough to bother to ask for some ID so the rape is her fault? What victim blaming we are doing today!

I was pretty clear that I felt sex offender registries were too much punishment and counter productive, but I guess you guys can not understand that unless you are hit over the head with it like a hammer blow.

A lot of girls appear mostly full grown at 14 or 15. I was mistaken for a college student from the time I was about 14. Girls my age at that time were always "dating" (or whatever) guys at least 2 years our senior.

By the way, I was 14 as a high school freshman, which meant I graduated HS at age 17, but I have been told this is less common now. Apparently 14 is now a typical 8th grader. Doesn't change anything though. 14-y-o boys tend to look like little boys, not so much a 14-y-o girl.

The sex offender registry is confusing from the other side, too. A new neighbor just moved into our nice, suburban, kid-infested neighborhood, and we were all notified. No details, just that he was a sex offender. Whatever that means. Did he get drunk and pass out naked in a school playground, or did he lure kids into his sex dungeon with candy? We don't know. No one wants to ask. So, because 85% of people on the sex offender list aren't actually sex offenders, we're not going to worry too much about it.

It's irritating. The sex offender registry would be a good thing, if it only applied to sex offenders. The fact that it includes this dumb kid makes it worthless. Sure, he should be punished for banging a 14-year-old he just met, I agree. But I don't need to be notified about it 30 years from now when he moves in down the street. It just provides cover for actual sex offenders on the list. Gives them protection. Most people are just going to assume that the sex offender took a piss in public, and try to be good neighbors anyway. And that assumption is gold for the tiny minority who do want to rape kids.

TIL a lot of slog commenters think statuatory rape is no big deal.

@15 You are really stretching if you are arguing that the current, absolutely hysterical and maniacally authoritarian penalties for the vaguest of sex crimes in this country are evidence of a 'civilized society'? Are there any other civilized societies on earth where this sort of ludicrously overblown reaction is the norm? I'd say the answer is clearly no, unless you consider Saudi Arabia to be civilized.

No it is not OK for some kid who is of age to be having sex with another kid who isn't. Not OK does not mean that jail time and a lifetime of pariah status is even remotely a rational punishment.

Your viewpoint seems to be very much like that of the armchair authoritarians that give us the insane drug war. Hey would you want your 14 year old smoking pot? Well obviously if you wouldn't it is right and proper that hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug users and petty dealers be chucked into cages for long stretches. All part of being in a civilized society.

"She lied about her age to an adult who did not care enough to bother to ask for some ID so the rape is her fault?"

@15 - yes. That's it right there. When you meet for NSA sex on dating apps, you need to know you are meeting strangers who may lie to you about a lot of things, including STD's, age, etc. The nineteen year-old is an adult, and needs to take that responsibility seriously, or pay the price. I don't know the story on how a 14 year-old got on the site, and ended up with this dude, but whatever that story is, she does not bear proportionate responsibility, even though she was deceptive. I understand how the victim might feel like she doesn't want anything to happen to this young man, but I am kind of surprised that the victim's mother is supportive of that. Statutory rape is a crime by legal standards for very good reasons.

I think he should bear full responsibility for this as a rape, but I don't think the lifetime listing on the sex offender registry is appropriate. That registry was created for a very specific set of perpetrators and I don't see him as fitting into that category. I think he should be given the option to clean up his act, and have himself removed if he successfully does that. But this is still a rape, this is still a sexual offense against a child, and is very likely opportunistic on the 19 year-old's part. That to me is a big fucking deal.

@15 Theo -

No, the lesson is not that readers don't care about statutory rape. The lesson is that most people understand that mitigating circumstances exist, and that one instance of a crime is not the same as another instance of the same crime. Mr. Anderson probably did ignore some red flags, and if he had been more diligent he may have realized the girl was lying to him about her age. But he did not discover she was 14 and have sex with her anyway. He (perhaps naively) believed her to be 17, and had sex with her. That's not the same as a 19 yr old purposely vetting a 14 year old and grooming them for sex, and should not be treated the same by the justice system.

For comparison, say you have a spare key to your friend's car. You ask him if you could borrow it in a couple weeks. Friend says "yeah, that should be fine," and you both go about your lives. Two weeks later, you come by to pick it up, and don't want to wake your friend, so you take the car. Friend has completely forgotten the conversation about borrowing the car, so when he wakes up, he reports it stolen. Did you take the car? Sure. But that's not really what the law intended to be considered theft. Should you have confirmed your plans? Of course. You were irresponsible not to, and you realize that. But you did not knowingly steal a car, and you would not knowingly steal a car, and if that case ever made it to court (maybe your friend is an asshole), that should be taken into consideration. Some judge should not make an example out of you because he feels it's inappropriate how kids these days share vehicles willy nilly.

Mr. Anderson has admitted to his crime and has taken responsibility for his actions. No one is hammering this in because this is the part where the justice system worked. He discovered he did something wrong--then he did the right thing: turned himself in and cooperated with police. Of course no one wants their young high schoolers having sex with college kids, but in this instance, it would seem this college kid didn't want to be having sex with a young high schooler either. Obviously we're not going to hold the 14 yr old responsible; she lied, but that's not criminal, and she's not legally able to consent to sex. But at the same time, how fair is it to throw the book at the 19 yr old, who only committed a crime because he failed to recognize a lie?

This would have been legal in Canada because we have a "close in age" exception for those between the ages of 12-15. Ie. 12-13 year olds can consent to sex with those up to 2 years older than them, and 14-15 year olds can consent to sex with those up to 5 years older than them. For everyone else, the age of consent is 16. There are, of course, exceptions when exploitation is involved. It's so sad to see someone so severely punished in the USA for something that would have had precisely zero reaction just north of the border.

Whoops, that first part was @19, not @15. The last part was @15.

@15 Actually asking for an ID wouldn't have mattered. In Michigan she could have given him a fake ID and he still would have been committing statutory rape.

She was using a hook up app, which requires users to be above the age of consent, and used that app to hook up with someone (maybe multiple people?) who she lied to about her age. Considering the circumstances this sentence is very cruel; specially considering both the girl and her mother spoke in court, pleading with the judge to drop the charges.

Their situation makes me think of a close call with my highschool girlfriend. We were in the same grade but I turned 18 before she did. In that 3 month stretch where she was still 17 we got caught hooking up by a cop who just sent us home. We went on to date for nearly 2 more years after that, which is unfortunate for her because according to this no-grey-area definition of yours I'm officially a rapist and a sex offender and a pedophile. ..Although, ironically not in Michigan where the AoC is 16.

I have a 14-year-old daughter and until recently she was in middle school, not high school. She looks like a college-aged girl, she's very sophisticated, with a short Audrey Hepburn haircut and very adept with makeup. She's also really built--her chest is larger than mine. If some 19-year-old college-aged man had sex with her, I DEFINITELY would want the option of him being registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life. That should be default, with leniency given for mitigating circumstances like consent. My older daughter is 16--world of difference between 16 and 14. I would have no problem with a 19-year-old dating my older daughter. There's a reason that middle school is segregated from high school.

Hi. So, maybe I'm stupid, but could one of you explain exactly WHY having sex with a 14-yo is wrong?

I remember being 14. It wasn't that long ago. I was so horny I was gnawing on the corner of my desk at school everyday. If some 19 year old wanted to bang me, I would've thought god was telling me he wanted me to be happy.

The Sex Offender Registry actually encourages recidivism. Once you're a leper for life, what's the point of behaving yourself?

Perhaps times have changed since I was hopping on the stagecoach to make the journey to middle school, but I can't imagine a 14 year old having an ID with a DOB on it. I know a lot of schools issue out ID cards these days, but would be surprised if they had a birth date on it.

Marrena,

I completely understand wanting to protect your own, but would you really want to condemn a 19 year old in the circumstances in this case? If your 14 year old told him she was 17 (which, by your description would be believable) and he took her at her word? Or would you want that sentence available for the 19 yr old who KNEW she was 14 but had sex with her anyway?

At least to me, these are very different circumstances, and only one is very meaningful on a sex registry. Because someone who seeks out underage girls and grooms them for sex is dangerous, whereas a naive guy who doesn't question a lie is not. The former is a predator. The latter learns a lesson about trusting strangers on the internet and probably doesn't repeat his mistake.

@25: if your 14 year old daughter lied about her age and used a hookup app to have sex with someone who believed her to be of age, would you still want that person to be registered as a sex offender?

How many people here have ever asked a potential sex partner to show proof of age?

Last summer, several families in my neighborhood had teenage relatives visiting at the same time. One girl, age 13, set her sights on a couple of boys, 18 and 19. It took a fair bit of effort to rein in the girl (who was sneaking out, swiping beer and offering it to the boys) while also clarifying to the boys that the girl was THIRTEEN! and preventing them all from socializing together. It was an unstable brew, in which hormones regularly trumped common sense. There were no villains and no predators. Just summer and night-time and opportunities -- not to mention that everyone was connecting via text all the time. Because there were enough of us parent-types around, nothing happened -- but it could have.

And sure, with sober investigation, a 19-year-old could probably suss out the difference between a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old. But sober investigation isn't really on the menu when teens meet -- just goofy texting and hanging out and fooling around.

I've raised two daughters to adulthood. If one of them at age 14 had managed to have sex with a 19-year-old guy, I would have read the young man the riot act and chased him the hell away -- and I'd try and give the 14-year-old a crash course in common sense and personal wellbeing. But what I would NOT do is call the cops. The whole rhetoric about statutory rape is overblown when everyone involved is a teenager. And putting Zach Anderson on a Predators List is appalling and inexcusable.

@26 it's a big deal precisely because 14 year-olds are run by their hormones. Sexual activity has grown-up consequences like STD's and pregnancy, which can change your life forever. When adults, who have the ability to understand those consequences and take proper responsibility for protecting themselves, hook up with kids who may not, it isn't a level playing field.

@30 - you had me until the very end of your comment. Personally, I think it is quite likely that he didn't really want to know the truth, and probably didn't do much to verify her age. That doesn't quite fall into the "naive kid mistake" category in my opinion. I agree with you that his actions were not likely to be deliberately predatory, but it does seem opportunistic and self-serving. NSA sex does not equal no personal responsibility. We all have our due diligence to perform, and if I were this girl's mother, I would definitely have gotten the police involved.

@31: How many people here have ever asked a potential sex partner to show proof of age?

Maybe that is the real issue here. When a man uses a dating app to find NSA sex with young women, women who he does not know and can't be sure are trustworthy, maybe he needs to take a little more responsibility for finding out the truth before he crosses a state line and commits a crime.

@33 I understood what condoms, pregnancy and STDs were when I was 14 too. 14 is a teenager, not a toddler.

"When adults, who have the ability to understand those consequences and take proper responsibility for protecting themselves..."

Really? Then why do adults continue to get STDs and unwanted pregnancies? By that logic, it would be better for one partner be an adult, rather than 2 dumb kids, no?

I'm not saying sex with 14-yos is a good thing necessarily; I'm just wondering what it is that makes it _morally wrong_. Or is it just one of those things that makes people uncomfortable to think about, so they just decide they've already thought it through instead?

Show of hands: how many bona fide grownups here feel they would have been irreparably damaged by having sex when you were below the age of consent?

@37 - I am speaking from experience as a paramedic and as a rape crisis advocate - early adolescence is a hugely vulnerable time for young women, and rape (whether it be violent rape, date rape, statutory rape, etc.) is not an uncommon experience for young women. I know lots of adolescent girls have good sex education and have access to resources if things go wrong, but many, many do not, and many are at the mercy of families who will blame, punish and shame them for shit like this. Adults have the ability to access information and get health care for themselves. Kids don't.

@34 - It's possible he didn't want to know the truth. That's a very normal (and subconscious) response to information that conflicts with what you want to be true, even for experienced adults. But from the way he owned up it seems like this was a one time only mistake. But regardless, given the circumstances of this case, and knowing that everyone and their mom (literally) is calling for leniency, I feel like the judge is seriously overreaching.

@34: Personally, I think it is quite likely that he didn't really want to know the truth, and probably didn't do much to verify her age.

You don't know any of that; you're just projecting your own biased assumptions onto someone you don't know.

@36: So how many sex partners have you asked for ID?

@38: This particular adolescent girl was so vulnerable that she used an app for NSA sex and lied about her age in order to have sex with an adult. That's foolish but it's pretty far from rape.

The only thing keeping the male participant from being the victim here is that the female participant was too young to know better - precisely the only thing that makes this a criminal issue at all.

What I'm dying to know from very very vera and Theodore Garth is If this many people disagree, should it really be a crime?

And what's with creating a victim when they don't see themselves as one. How is that empowering of women? Vera Seems almost antifeminist and slightly paternalistic to me as that you find early adolescence to be "a hugely vulnerable time for women" but make no mention of adolescent boys.

Frankly, I'm tired of the assumption that girls cannot make decisions about sex at the age of 14, but boys can. I find it insulting to women. I had sex at 14. With my older boyfriend. I initiated it. I'm not a victim and I have a healthy adult sex life. I felt I could make the decision then and I don't regret it one bit. Did i fully understand what sex was? No. I didn't. But none of my decisions at that age were with full understanding of the consequences and I survived. And I'd like to think I've learned from my mistakes, including my sexual mistakes. One can make a sexual mistake and still not be a sex offender or a victim.

Treating girls differently than guys in the sexual realm hurts the progress women have made. I'm offended. I would've been at 14 too.

Can we have a different word for "statutory rape" than "rape"? To me, there is a world of difference between someone who was totally consenting-- but that consent is not legally recognized-- and someone who did not consent at all.

@44: I don't make a distinction between young men and young women - if the situation involved a 19 year old woman and a 14 year old boy, I would still hold the 19 year old accountable.

It is also true that women are disproportionately the targets of violence and predation in this culture. When I say adolescence is a hugely vulnerable time for young women, it is because adolescence is a time when young women are rightly coming into their own agency and starting to make sexual choices, but they are doing so in a culture which is poised to prey on them. The fact that many young women, myself included, were able to navigate adolescence without being victimized does not erase the fact that many young women are not so lucky. Exploring sexuality with your boyfriend is very different than hooking up with strangers.

I also think young men are vulnerable in similar ways, for similar reasons. I've worked with male victims of sexual violence, and it's a very real thing. However, young women can get pregnant, and are more likely to contract an STD from unprotected sex, and so they face more serious consequences from both consensual and non-consensual sex than do young men.

I don't think statutory rape laws are insulting to women. Adolescents are not the same as adults, and they don't have access to the same resources and information that adults do. Many kids are woefully ill-informed, and they suffer when adults act irresponsibly. Listen to a group of 13 year old girls discuss their various pregnancies, and maybe you will feel differently. I've led support groups for such girls, and I think statutory rape laws serve a good purpose.

Newsflash for the judge...you are not on the bench to do anything other than hear and pass judgment on criminal cases. That is it. You are not there to tell people how to live. Society has changed. You may not like it but you do have to adjust. Registering this young man up with a sex offender registry for the rest of his life because he used an app to find a sexual partner is ludicrous. Hey Judge I hope you see this, I hold YOU in contempt. It is probably time for you to retire.

@41: You're right, I am projecting, but not based on some*one*. Based on about 25 years of experience working with both victims and perpetrators of sexual assault. But you are right, it's still a guess.

And I've never asked anyone for ID before sex, because I've known all the people I've had sex with.

@40: You make very good points, and I agree with your argument. Sex offender registries are meant for, and publicly understood to be a response to, a very particular type of sexual predator. I don't think this young man fits that in the least, and I did say this in an earlier comment.

Any insight on how the 14 yr old girl who was fucked by a grown ass man is faring?

Flyover Country, where Real Americans® reign.

But in those instances that you speak wouldn't a regular rape law worked just as well? If consent is the issue, and the 13 yo girl didn't consent, it still would've been rape. And these guys, are they all predators? Or simply poorly informed as well?

statutory rape laws, where consent is taken out of the equation--where someone is deemed ineligible to give consent--can have serious consequences for the "adult." I use that term loosely because in recent years research has shown that brain development doesn't complete until age 30. Adulthood is a progression and the portion of the brain that deals with risk/reward isn't fully developed in an 18 yo or a 19 yo. treating them like a 40 yo is idiotic. We can protect our youth from without sacrificing another lamb.

So Vera, just curious, let's say the same girl thought it would be fun to bring a bunch of pot brownies to a bake sale. People unwittingly buy them and then get busted for possession. Do they deserve to be punished?

What a freak show. This girl lied, she got it together to be in touch with this young man etc etc, don't these judges see that?
Sad, sad story. I'll sign the petition.

Vera, I don't think most people here are saying Anderson shouldn't be punished at all. At least I'm not. He should receive some punishment. But I am saying that I don't think his crime merits being on a sex offender registry for life. That's ridiculous. If we are going to register every 19 year old who consensually bangs a 14 year old on sex offender registries, it renders the registry almost meaningless. I would no longer fear or even worry about sex-offenders because the term would be so loosely and arbitrarily applied.

To have any meaning or relevance, a sex offender registry should apply only to people who are truly dangerous to society. And Anderson doesn't fit that description.

As with so many laws, especially those with mandatory sentencing, like the Three Strikes, or drug crimes, the idea of any crime comprising any sexual activity or even exposure resulting in being labeled a sex offender and then being put on a registry for the rest of your life is one of those things that was well-meant and not well-thought through. And then it becomes political suicide for politicians to not support it because if you don't support it, if you're "soft on crime," then you are virtually considered a child molester, yourself.

@52: You raise some interesting points. The concept of rape culture is a thing because there is a climate of predation at work that affects us all. When your group (male) tends to glorify getting away with the less obvious predatory tactics, then that's what you absorb as OK. I think most young men eventually come to terms and reconcile what they are culturally supported in doing vs. what their inner values tell them is OK to do. I think that's an important process for everyone, male and female, and largely what sexual exploration is all about. I think you are quite right in that this process does not magically complete itself at the age of 18, or whatever, and I think your timeline that this goes on through young adulthood is pretty accurate.

So, no, I don't think all guys are predators. To answer your other question: no, "regular" rape laws are not enough. In many cases, an adult can simply argue that the minor consented, whether that is true or not. But statutory rape laws can be applied despite the he said/she said, and predators can be held accountable as a matter of law. This prevents young women from the additional trauma of having to go through a court proceeding in which they have to somehow prove they didn't consent, which can be very traumatic. I think that's important.

There are young men who target very young girls for their own reasons, who persuade the girls that there is love there, when really, the guys know they are not going to get STD's from young virgins. The girls eventually end up pregnant, and are dropped like hot potatoes. That's entirely predatory, and still, these girls want to believe they were loved, and don't want anything to happen to the guys. It's very painful to witness.

I agree that statutory rape laws do have serious consequences for the adult. And I think that's important. Because without that accountability, the exploitation of young women would be much worse than it is.

Do young men get caught in the system when the laws are applied inappropriately? Yes, they do. Do I think that's a problem? Yes, I do. My personal feeling is that putting this young man on a life-long sex offender list isn't merited, and isn't appropriate. I've said that.

However, I don't have outrage about it. I have outrage when statutory rape laws are not applied appropriately and the children who have suffered horribly are not given the justice they deserve. I have outrage when young men who ARE experienced predators and who know how to work the system manage to get a "Get Out of Jail free" card, and go on to abuse more children.

The problem isn't the statutory rape laws. The problem is that they aren't being applied appropriately in this case. But my personal opinion is that abolishing the laws will have more devastating consequences for those that statutory rape laws are designed to protect.

@55: Yes, spot on. My point is that just because the laws are being applied inappropriately in this case doesn't mean the laws are the problem. Perhaps my passionate long-windedness obscured my message.

Do you guys get that he can't live with his parents anymore now? Did you read that part? In this economy it's hard for 22 year olds to live on their own after college, let alone the 19 year old who may not have even started. His folks may not be able to pay their mortgage plus his rent. He's in a very bad situation. Plus the limitations of jobs available for him now will make it harder for him to afford rent. Hopefully he won't become homeless because of this. This is life destroying. The girl and mother are advocating for a lesser punishment or none at all! He's clearly not a sexual predator interested in children. He did not know he was committing a crime because age of consent is 16 and she said she was 17. Are we forgetting that teens have sex all the time below the age of consent and are fine? Dan himself had sex with an adult as a young teen, many of my friends did as well. I don't understand how this got so extreme without the parents of the girl being the ones pushing for it. Where does this judge get off on ruining a young man's life when he really did nothing wrong or even out of the ordinary? This is awful. Petition signed and shared.

Vera- As a wise man once said, it's better to have ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer.

What you advocate is denying one of their liberty because it's better for someone else's mental health. The right to a trial, the right to confront ones accusers, the right to be presumed innocent are fundamental rights that were embedded in our constitution because people had been deprived of significant liberties without having a fair I trial.

I, unlike you, have outrage when someone is punished unfairly for a crime that many of us have either committed or been victims of. Without even realizing that it was a crime. This 14 yo girl didn't think he should be punished. Again, I think it's a huge mistake to think that girls cannot decide for themselves whether or not they are truly victims? Simply because they are 14. That's patriarchal. Do we do the girls any favor in telling them that they are too fragile and subject to manipulation? Shouldn't we be telling them that they are strong, independent women who deserve nothing but the best from a partner. One that doesn't pressure them into sex. One that encourages them to have friends outside of the relationship. One that doesn't look through their phone. One that's supportive of the things they want to do. Shouldn't we be encouraging women to demand more of the men we associate with. Our brothers. Our fathers. Our sons. And we could do all of that without denying another of their liberty without due process. Showing outrage when a law is inappropriately applied doesn't lessen our empathy for those who have been victimized.

On a final note, dan savage posted an article subsequent to this one where the writer talks about recidivism rates. As someone who works in the criminal justice system, who has read research on recidivism rates and crime trends, I recommend it. The criminal justice system is ill equipped to deal with societal ills. Its reactionary, and most people who commit crimes don't consider the consequences of their actions (they are poor judges of likelihood of getting caught). Therefore, changes to those laws could happen without negative consequences.

Looks like Judge Wiley has a history, too:

http://woodtv.com/2014/03/27/judge-censu…

Actually, Michigan judges in general have a history:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio…

Not for the first time, I'm grateful that I'm not a young person these days. The idea of asking an-about-to-be sex partner for her ID would never have dawned on anyone I knew as a teenager and probably would have been seen as a sign of pervishness. And while a 19 yo having sex with 14 yo may have raised some eyebrows, it sure as hell wouldn't have resulted in a court intervention and a sex offender registration for life. (Caveat, I went to high school in ultra liberal areas and routinely attended events where folks from their mid-teens to early 20s intermingled and, yes, hooked up.)

This may be apropos of nothing, just some little memory that just got triggered. Back around the turn of the millennium, some pals and I took a vacation a snazzy classy expensive seaside resort in Mexico. Walking along the beach we saw many other big ticket resorts with beachside pools and beautiful gardens with food and drink service. A lot of these places were fine with you visiting their facilities if you were a guest at one of the other high-price places on that beach. We flipped through the brochures of some of these high end joints, and at least a couple of them had a policy of Children Not Welcome/Allowed During High Season. This was December/January, definitely high season. The age cutoff these places no longer considered one a child? 14. I remember thinking... why 14? Why not 15, 16, 17, 18? My initial thought was... maybe that's the age, just past puberty, when kids are no longer running around screaming and cannonballing into the pool. Then I thought, maybe 14 is the age of consent in Mexico? Mexico doesn't have a drinking age, I don't think. Then I thought, is 14 the age when a lot of kids turn more sullen and quiet and actually want to put some discreet distance between themselves and their grownups? I never thought to ask, chances are the lower level hotel staff wouldn't have known what to tell me. Maybe they would have. Hmm. Anyway, if anyone happens to know, please enlighten.

to AMP'd: I find your last response to be moving off into a different direction, and not at all representative of my position. I think we've reached the "agree to disagree" point.

@Vera -

I think we in general agree, though I have to go with AMP'd regarding outrage for one instance of inappropriate application of the law not detracting from other abuses, of which there are many. Any time a man goes free because the teenage girl 'acted older than she was' or 'seduced him' I'm also outraged at the failure of our system to protect victims of crime. Any time a female teacher is given a reduced sentence (and society decries even that) for abusing her male students because teenage boys should be grateful for the attention, I'm outraged at a system which assumes the male always wants sex and is a hero, not a victim. Our justice system rarely gives the victim a fair shake because our views of sexuality and consent are so screwed up. That just makes it all the more ridiculous that in a case where leniency on the perpetrator actually makes sense, the judge further perverts the intention of the statute to promote his personal agenda. Not only do statutory rape laws so often fail to protect victims, they can also be used to unnecessarily ruin the lives of people who are not predators at all.

This girl by 14 yrs of age would know the difference between a lie and the truth.
She followed this thru as much as the boy did, so what, he gets punished because she is a liar and she dobbed him in? Something very fishy about the story and the standards.
Obviously to safeguard themselves males need to not follow this path at all. Don't trust girls is the take out for me. Silly silly girl.

@Xilo: Very much appreciate your articulate thoughtfulness. Nice to have a real back and forth. You are quite right in that leniency makes sense in this case. I know many people feel outrage about Mr. Anderson's plight. My point is that it is quite possible to support and stand beside Mr. Anderson from a place that is not based in outrage. Not because any of this is at all OK, but because Mr. Anderson is going to be OK. Despite his bad luck with the judge, he is white, heterosexual, young and male, with a family that supports him and also has the means to, literally, make a federal case on his behalf. He has the good fortune to have the support of his victim, to the point where she has taken on much of the responsibility herself (to her own detriment), and his victim's family. He even has the good fortune to be so poorly treated by a judge who has a history of being legally sanctioned already. All this when he is on the wrong side of the law, and of common sense.

I am pretty sure that however this plays out, Mr. Anderson is going to be OK. He has an excellent chance of getting his legal consequences reduced or removed. And if he is not able to do that, he has several advantages that will support him even through a wrongful punishment.

It is when people of privilege face the same ridiculous consequences that those with lesser privilege have been dealing with for quite some time that the ridiculous consequences are finally challenged. And I think the issue in this case is the judge. This judge needs to go. I hope to hell they are able to get this judge removed from office, because he is no doubt causing a great deal of damage in many lives.

But, what can also happen when there is a great deal of privilege is that the person(s) involved take care of themselves (get their individual circumstances changed) while leaving the broken system behind to wreak havoc in the lives of the less fortunate. Mr. Anderson would have more of my personal support if he were using this as a platform for real judicial change. I may be mistaken, but I'm not seeing that he is taking on that level of activism. It's seems like it's all about him.

For those of you who replied to my previous comment, please read what I said. The issue here isn't a problem with the laws, the issue is a problem with the judge. I can see a situation where my 14-year-old daughter might be the instigator and have lied and in that case leniency is called for. But there already is a way for extenuating circumstances to get an offender off the sex registry. The problem was the judge applied the law incorrectly.

The difference between 14 and 16 is one of emotional maturity, not sexual maturity, at least in the case of girls. Sure my younger daughter is aware of the risks of STD's and pregnancy and presumably is interested in sex. The problem with such a big age difference is the power imbalance.

Vera; Victim? How is this girl a victum?
I don't buy that. Kids know what's going down, girls know what's going down. She's a Victim of a system that allows young females to punch way above their weight. She is a Victim of the Patriarchy, I don't agree she is this boy's Victim. I feel he was her Victim.

@70: Lava, Laws are the laws, and "mistake of age" clauses exist precisely because this stuff happens all the time, and there is some belief that a child can offer consent. Generally, the law has said otherwise, but not always.

I know the girl was deceptive, but her lack of insight into the consequences of that are the very mark of adolescence, and what makes her, whether she thinks she is or not, whether anyone thinks she is or not, the legally defined victim of statutory rape in this case.

When a pregnancy occurs, the man is on the line for child support for eighteen years. Period. The law recognizes that adult are still responsible for their actions, even when they were the result of foolish or naive choices.

Mr. Alexander would be foolish to rely on the word of a woman he just met about birth control. He is just as foolish to rely on her word about her age. His bad choices don't excuse him from being an adult, with adult responsibilities, and adult liabilities.

@Marrena: You're looking at it wrong. Say your daughter hooks up with someone who lies about their age. Do you want your daughter's life to be destroyed forever?

Do you agree that if your daughter doesn't ask all of her sex partners for ID, she should be forced to be homeless and jobless, forever?

@72 If my younger daughter were 19 and she preyed on a 14-year-old girl, yes she should be a social pariah for the rest of her life so that she couldn't target other young girls. If she accidentally hooked up with a 14-year-old who lied about her age, there are already existing laws for those extenuating circumstances, laws that the judge did not apply correctly because the judge is a douchebag.

He didn't prey on a 14-year-old, and you know it, and everyone involved with the case knows it too. He was lied to.

If one of your daughters is lied to by a sex partner, should she be forced to be homeless, forever? As punishment for the crime of... being lied to?

Should she have to roll the dice on getting a judge who isn't an asshole? If someone lies to your daughter, and then she meets a judge who's an asshole, is it then right and proper for her to be made permanently homeless and unemployable?

"Hope the judge isn't a douchebag" is a terrible way to prevent injustice. That's why literally every person who actually wants to prevent injustice favors methods that aren't based on bullshit and wishful thinking.

The first thing that EVERY pedo says is "She lied about her age". That's why it takes the discretion of a judge to determine extenuating circumstances. If a child has been groomed long enough by a predator, they may even "confess" that they lied about their age.

Zero people involved with the case think he's a pedo, or that he "groomed" her (WTF?) or any of the other things you're trying to project onto this in order to justify a grotesque injustice.

I notice that you're flailing for bullshit, rather than answering the question: If this happened to your daughter, would you think it was right?

Let's add the caveat that I absolutely do not believe your daughter is going to demand proof of age from all of her sex partners--or any--and that therefore your daughter is going to commit exactly the same "crime" of not confirming anyone's age.

@74: Do you find it odd you are using "the bitch set him up!" logic to argue that a 19 year old adult should not be held accountable for their actions, but a 14 year old child should?

This is just bare faced misogyny. Incredible.

Eudaemonic: I'm with Theodore. You're going off the deep end here. Even Mr. Alexander admits what he did was a rape, and is wiling to assume that responsibility. The sticking point is how much responsibility is reasonable under the circumstances. Considering he has the family resources to file a federal appeal, and get his case written up in the NYT, etc. etc., I am pretty sure he is not going to end up homeless and jobless forever, no matter how this turns out.

@76 I don't think what happened to the man was right and I have never said it was. You seem to have reading comprehension problems. I've said all along that the responsibility for handling this case properly fell to the judge, who had a severe lapse in judgment. The judge is at fault here, that is very clear. The system should stay as is and the judge should be penalized.

Do you find it odd that you're attempting to justify some kid's life being destroyed when he didn't do much of anything wrong? I really don't care whether people like you think I'm going off the deep end.

Answer the question: Would you be okay with this happening to someone you did care about?

Everyone is enthusiastic when it comes to destroying the lives of innocent people, provided those people are in a demographic they don't care about.

Vera, when was the last time you demanded to see a partner's ID? Given that you don't do that, why shouldn't you be on the sex offender list?

Why does it not occur to you that someone you care about might some day be subject to the legal standard you're advocating? Are you just completely unable to empathize with other people? Or are you just so used to living in your bubble of white-woman privilege--of being exempt from criminal prosecution--that you're just literally unable to imagine being subject to the same laws as everyone else?

@79: If what you're saying is true, then you believe your daughter's ability to stay off the sex offender registry should be purely based on having the luck to get a judge that doesn't have a severe lapse in judgment.

That's what "the system should stay as is" means. Your daughters aren't going to demand ID when they hook up, so you think luck should be the only thing that keeps them out of this? I hope you're lying.

The message here is that you needed to pick a better lie, because that one doesn't reflect very well on you. Really, you think your daughters' lives should be completely subject to the whims of a random judge? Holy shit, you're a terrible parent. Pick a lie that makes you sound less scummy, or just admit the real reason you're taking the bullshit position you're taking.

I am appalled at the level of victim-blaming going on about this case, even here from long-time sloggers. I can understand why people feel conflicted - I obviously have conflicting feelings myself. I think penalties need to be reasonable and appropriate to the circumstances. Bad judges create horrific outcomes for all sorts of people. Mr. Alexander seems like a good kid who messed up, but he also seems overly concerned with himself and his own outcome. While that's understandable to a point, it kind of smacks of all those other "nice boys" from well-off families whose parents stepped forward to argue that they shouldn't have their lives ruined by the teenage mistake of date rape, or gang rape, or whatever horror they were involved in.

Maybe that's why some people feel conflicted. Because those nice boys, with their family pictures and their ability to get anybody, even the victims of their crime, to give them a pass - well, sometimes those boys aren't really very nice.

From the Steubenville rape case, not so long ago - emphasis mine:

Saltsman v. Goddard concerned an effort by two parents of a teenage boy from Steubenville, Ohio, to stop blogger Alexandria Goddard's website from publishing allegedly defamatory posts about their son, Cody Saltsman. The parents sued Goddard and a dozen anonymous posters in October 2012; a legal blogger labeled it a SLAPP suit.[27] The lawsuit asked for an injunction against the blogger, a public apology stating that the boy was not involved in the rape, and $25,000 in damages.[28] The case was dismissed with prejudice in December 2012, after Goddard agreed to post a statement that the boy was remorseful about his role in the aftermath of the Steubenville High School rape case.

@82: Mr. Alexander seems like a good kid who messed up, but he also seems overly concerned with himself and his own outcome.

His life is being destroyed for no reason, and you fucking think he's overly concerned with himself?

Holy shit. Holy. Shit. What the fuck is wrong with you?

You don't get to destroy people just because they're born looking a bit like some other people who did something bad, and you would fucking well know this if you were even a little less of a bigoted piece of shit.

@very_very_vera I find many of your comments here quite troubling, particularly your belief that Mr. Anderson is going to be "OK," because he is, among other reasons, "white, heterosexual, young and male." As the original New York Times article reported, people placed on sex offender registries face extraordinary challenges finding a place to live, completing their education, and obtaining employment. Consequently, many of these individuals end up homeless, and are not "OK." You comments appear to suggest that since people of color, overwhelmingly men, have been caught in the maw of an unfair judicial system, you're less inclined to be outraged when the victim of our system is white. While you're right that people of color have been extraordinarily victimized by the police, prosecutors, and the courts, Mr. Anderson, and individuals like him, shouldn't be asked to pay a price to atone for those judicial sins.

I also finding it troubling that you require Mr. Anderson satisfy a minimum level of activism on behalf of others to merit your empathy. I do wonder about your experience with the judicial system. A defendant in a criminal proceeding is not well situated to being a campaign for legal reform. Legal proceeding are immensely costly, time-consuming, and emotionally draining. Notwithstanding, his parents have been meeting with legislators and the media, and are forging connection with other families in this situation.

I hope that everyone reads the New York Times article to which Dan has linked. Both the judge, Dennis M. Wiley, and prosecutor, Jerry Vigansky, make rather outrageous comments regard online dating and sexual mores.

To quote Judge Wiley: “You went online, to use a fisherman’s expression, trolling for women, to meet and have sex with,” he said. “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.”

Mr. Vigansky told the judge in court, this generation seems to think it is “O.K. to go online to find somebody and then to quickly hook up for sexual gratification. That’s not a good message to send into the community.”

These are people, in positions of power, that want to criminalize and police your sexual freedom. To be clear, Judge Wiley's comments are in no way cabined to the facts of this case. Indeed, he appear to be punishing the defendant for the act of casual sex, more so than for having sex with a minor. And what he calls "totally inappropriate," I call a fundamental right to privacy for adults to engage in consensual sex without government interference.

Dan has often rallied readers with calls for tolerance based on the fact that many intolerant members of society, at heart, want to dictate sexual freedoms of all Americans, including heterosexual adults. In their unvarnished comments, I think you can see that quite clearly in what Judge Wiley and Mr. Vigansky had to say about sex.

I'm late to this thread, but what I think this calls for is a good old-fashioned poll: what should the 19-year-old's punishment be? It could have perhaps 5 choices, ranging from rape conviction plus SO Registry on one end to a stern talking-to on the other. I'd bet we'd actually see a great deal of consensus on the appropriate punishment, current semi-acrimonious debates notwithstanding.

@80: My posts above are clear that I do not agree with the sex offender registry or the punishment given to the adult who committed this crime, so you can stop with the goalpost moving and strawman bashing.

My point is, why is the 14 year old child to blame,and why is the 19 year old adult innocent? What other crimes committed against children by adults are the child's fault? When a child is beaten by an adult for being loud, is it the child's fault? I mean, they were being really loud, right?

Or is it just when the the child is female? Or is it just this one case?

Oh, and most adults do not need to ask to see ID for their sexual partners because most adults are not looking online to have anonymous sex with people young enough to be possibly 14 year old children. Most can tell the difference between an adult and a child, why can't you?

@81 I mean exactly what I said. I think the system is good as is and was ruined by one bad apple judge. Your approach is similar to what Florida tried to do with homicide with the Stand Your Ground laws. Pleading ignorance of the victim's age in a statutory rape case is similar to a killer saying "I feared for my life". Once that is encoded into law as a get-out-of-jail card, every perp is going to use it.

Marrena, so you do want your daughter's life being completely subject to the random whims of a randomly-selected judge? You're either lying or you're the worst parent who ever lived. Which is it?

I notice that you're still failing to answer the question of whether you would want your own kids being subject to the same system you advocate for other people's. Why is that? Is it cowardice, or are you just hoping to confuse the issue by throwing out more bullshit?

Why not admit that there was no perp here? Two teenagers had consensual sex. Your kids will one day have consensual sex, probably as teenagers. What should be their punishment? Be honest; if you think their lives should be destroyed, have the guts to say so.

I'm the worst parent who ever lived. Yes I would want my OWN kids to be subject to the same system.

Eudaemonic, may I ask if you have Asperger's? None of my business, but I am curious.

@84: I think I've been pretty clear about what my background is - victim advocacy, for many years. It's mostly medical advocacy in the immediate aftermath of an assault, but I've spent a lot of time with police/DA's who do the immediate legal intakes after assaults. I've also worked with family systems where the offender was a family member, and with groups of young (mostly) women who need long-term support services.

I have a really hard time with letting offenders off the hook with a "it was a totally minor offense" because I've seen what kids go through when they are assaulted, even if the assault was not forcible. I am also fully aware that privilege of all ilk, but primarily financial privilege, play a very big part in how cases are handled. I did read the article, and what jumped out at me was that the prosecutor mentioned that there were two other recent cases that were similar, and he wanted the judge to apply the same remedy. What happened with those two young men? Where's their parade?

I've been pretty clear I think the issue in this case is a bad judge. I even posted links and referenced his past CRIMINAL sanctions. It appears Mr. Alexander has a very strong case for appeal. But nothing requires me to be his personal cheerleader, just because I think he has a strong position. My dander doesn't spring up just because he is facing serious consequences for committing a very real crime. But then again, I'm older now. My dander isn't what is used to be.

@Marrena. I'm not sure how you can suggest that the system is "good" and flawed only in application by a "bad apple" judge, when the evidence is that people have been placed on this list for reasons beyond sex with a minor. Laws regarding sex offender registries were enacted on the premise that society need to kept track of the locations of dangerous sex offenders, but there are substantial numbers of people on these list who have not committed a sex crime.

Lance, great comment. Much common ground is available for those who seek it.

@92, I was referring specifically to this particular type of offense, statutory rape where the perp didn't know the age of the victim. The other types of offenses like public urination clearly do not warrant being on the sex offender registry.

@92: Maybe we would benefit from separating out the issues a little.

First is that the sex offender list as a punitive tool has serious problems. Seems lot be a lot of support for this one.

Second is what responsibility does the 14 year old girl have for this particular incident? Lots of wide-ranging opinions here.

Third is, what is an appropriate sentence in this particular situation. Seems like a lot of consensus on this point.

Others may have more points they want to list.

@89: Good luck with visiting your kids in prison. It would be interesting if you could be more honest about the real reason you and I both know that your own kids won't be subject to this law, which gives you the leeway to pretend that you'd find that acceptable.

@90: Correct, it's none of your business, but no. I'm familiar with liars, though, and not inclined to play along with the rationalizations of bigots. I guess that looks similar to you? I decided a long time ago that I wasn't going to be one of those who know and say nothing. I'm also familiar with bigoted shits calling me crazy for not supporting bigotry, though, and it doesn't intimidate me as much as you're hoping.

@91 No one was assaulted. Jesus christ, what's wrong with you?

Are you able to feel empathy for people who weren't born identical to yourself? I've known people who do victim advocacy and aren't bigots, so that's no excuse.

Eudaemonic: I've known people who can stand up and tell the truth without insulting people for having a different opinion. You're not being assertive, you're being aggressive and vitriolic. You're putting forth no effort to seek any understanding. People don't owe you answers to your highly specific (and vicious) questions just because you demand them. What you are doing is twisting people's words and triumphantly calling them names, because somehow you believe you see the TRUTH about them. What you are showing us is the truth about you.

Vera, I don't need to "seek" understanding from you, because I already have it.
Dear bigots: You aren't as complicated as you think, and your attempts to hide your motives aren't as successful as you hope.

All people are people. No exceptions. None. This isn't that complicated, and assholes should just get the fuck over their perpetual quest to find exceptions. Every time you think you've finally succeeded, and found a class of people who don't really count as people? You're wrong. Every time.

Your argument that "It's okay to persecute Those People, because some of them are bad" has never been true. It never will be true. Abandon it. Life's a lot easier once you give up on trying to justify bigotry--justifying your beliefs is so much easier when you don't have to lie any more. What you guys never seem to realize is that to get there you need to change your beliefs rather than just come up with better lies.

Thank you, SublimeAfterglow, for trying to bring this particular case back to the issue of unchecked judicial abuse and anti-sex moralizing that it is really about.

@86 @82 Where is there "victim blaming" going on? She joined an app for hooking up with people then used it to meet and hook up with someone who she lied to about her age. <-- That?
No one is saying that she needs to be punished, just that in this situation the person she hooked up with doesn't deserve to be punished either. Or at least punished minimally and to not be labeled a rapist and a pedophile. If she had been the age she said she was it would have been legal. Even at her current age it still would have been legal in Canada and many other countries.

@91 "My dander doesn't spring up just because he is facing serious consequences for committing a very real crime."

I asked this before, just a hypothetical, A 14 year old girl thinks it would be fun to bring pot brownies to a bake sale. You buy some and on your way home a cop discovers the pot brownies. There is just enough marijuana in them for the maximum penalty to be life in prison. The girl admits to selling you the brownies and that you bought them unwittingly, but the judge is attempting to give you life in prison. How much punishment do you deserve? How much would your dander spring up suddenly being in that situation?

@100 - I didn't answer you, because I find it ridiculous. People who buy brownies at a kid's bake sale are not reasonably expected to have them tested for drugs, which is the only way a person could accurately detect drugs in their baked goods. People who use dating apps to hook up with strangers young enough to be 14 are not only reasonably expected to make sure they are not, in fact, hooking up with a 14 year old, they are legally required to do so.

But, if we are entering the theater of the ridiculous, and pretending that somehow I am in the position of facing mandatory minimum sentencing for drug possession, which for a first time offense would somehow be life, of course I would find that unjust. Just like I said I found dude's situation unjust. The fact that I pointed out that he has a pretty damn good case already, and doesn't really seem to need my help doesn't negate that.

@100, and actually, no, there's not that many places where this particular situation would be legal.

Here's a few comments I find victim-blaming, some from this thread, and some from the FB comments for this article. You may not agree that statutory rape should be a crime, and I think people can make cogent arguments for such a change without resorting to slandering the kid.

He didn't prey on a 14-year-old, and you know it, and everyone involved with the case knows it too. He was lied to.
Victim? How is this girl a victum?
I don't buy that. Kids know what's going down, girls know what's going down.

Why is the girl, who was using a dating app filled with false information, able to walk? She baited him and clearly knew what she was up to.

So, nothing happens when a girl lies about her age? That seems to have sparked this whole problem! I hope she feels terrible.

Well the bitch needed it and she should go on the same list for misleading the boy on.

Ever notice how the bigots here just won't answer "What if this happened to someone like you?"

It's like how their predecessors wouldn't answer "Do you think white people should be treated that way?" Pointing out that they think different rules should apply to their in-group and their out-group apparently flusters them, and sends them scurrying for new lies. Have the courage of your convictions, guys; just admit that you think other, lesser people should be persecuted.

Vera, the reason you won't answer the question is because the question makes it extremely clear that you're a bigoted piece of garbage. If you get arrested for drug possession in a way that is completely not your fault, I hope someone goes on and on about how you seem "selfish," for being too concerned about your own situation.

The horror! Just because your life is being destroyed for no reason and through basically no fault of your own, you have the temerity to think your own life matters! Rather than sacrificing yourself for the benefit of people who weren't harmed, aren't the victims of anything, don't need any concern, and don't benefit in any way from your life being destroyed for no reason. It's almost as though you thought you were a person!
Can't have that. Send her to prison, forever. After all, according to you, it's what you deserve.

@102: She decided to trick someone into having sex with her. She is not a victim, for fuck's sake!

What the hell is wrong with you? Why is it so important to you to falsely portray a girl who had consensual sex as a victim? Do you think women are people?

If you did think women were people, you'd acknowledge that a decision a girl makes is a decision she made, not anyone else. But that's not what this is about, obviously.

After all... anything to destroy a boy. So what if he's innocent; he has to be punished. Just because. That'll teach him for picking the wrong gender to be born as! And having the temerity to engage in consensual sex while trusting his partner! If someone challenges me, I'll just rapidly change my stated motivations for wanting him destroyed! After all, the pretext really doesn't matter.

The only way this makes sense is if men have a legal duty to assume that all women are lying pieces of shit. After all, he's being punished for not assuming that. But I can see why people like Vera think this, because it helps them normalize their own behavior.