An 18-Year-Old Had Consensual Sex With a 16-Year-Old. He Went to Jail for 6 Years.
In her new book From Rage to Reason, Emily Horowitz explains what's wrong with the sex offense registry.

When Henry was 18, he had sex with a 16-year-old he met on a dating app who said they were 18 too. The 16-year-old's parents found out, summoned the cops, and Henry was charged with a sex offense. He took a plea: no jail time, and seven years on the sex offense registry.
Henry's story is one of about 60 that appear in a new book by sociologist Emily Horowitz: From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts Not Fear. If you believe that our country's sex offense registries should actually make kids safer, this book will leave you shaking with frustration.
At the time of his arrest, Henry was attending community college. He was immediately expelled but appealed and was allowed to graduate. Being on the registry made it nearly impossible to find work, however.
After three years with little income—and several hundred dollars a year in payments for court-mandated polygraph tests—Henry moved back in with his parents. The neighbors got up in arms, so all three of them moved to Henry's grandmother's house.
"Probation authorities stipulated that Henry had to post signs on each entrance of her house that read, 'no persons under seventeen allowed on this property,'" writes Horowitz. That meant his cousins could no longer visit.
At last, Henry found a good job. But when he gave his probation officer his office address, he was told it was too close to a school. Many registries have location requirements that forbid registrants from living, or sometimes working, near any place kids might congregate: a school, a daycare, or a park. (These residency restrictions are worthless when it comes to enhancing public safety.)
Henry begged his probation officer to let him keep this hard-won job. The officer said he could continue working until a judge ruled on his request. But when Henry got to court, writes Horowitz:
"[H]e was told he was in violation of his probation. The judge said he should have quit immediately upon learning from probation that the office was located too close to a school. Henry explained that he didn't quit because of his pending appeal, as he'd been out of work for months and, additionally, it was a term of his probation that he be employed.
"At this point, Henry had only three years left of probation. Due to his infraction, however, the judge issued the harshest ruling possible, sentencing Henry to six years in state prison. The only good thing, he says, is that 'the minute I went to prison, my grandma could take those signs down.'"
That's just one story from Horowitz's book; there are many others. In some of those stories, the registrant did in fact commit serious, disturbing crimes.
"Perpetrators should be punished and held accountable," writes Horowitz.
But that does not mean the sex offense registry is effective. Despite the myth of "frightening and high" rearrests, decades of scientific studies have consistently found that recidivism for sex crimes is lower than for almost all other criminal offenses. Registration has not further reduced recidivism, according to studies.
The registry is a mishmash of punitive rules and mandates, often including counseling, sometimes for life. While several of Horowitz's interviewees were grateful for what their therapy helped them understand about themselves and their crimes, others got treatment that seemed suspiciously prurient.
For instance, one registrant told Horowitz that he and his fellow group therapy participants were required to "report all sexual thoughts, including dreams, to their providers during group sessions."
"He says he once watched a treatment provider berate someone for an 'inappropriate' dream," she writes.
This man sent Horowitz a note, describing other sessions:
"In one group, the counselor said we were allowed the 'two-second rule.' This applied if we saw an attractive woman walking by. It would be appropriate/healthy behavior to 'look' for two seconds. We were 'allowed' to masturbate to thoughts of age-appropriate adults. The rules change with each counselor/group/treatment center."
At another treatment center:
"[W]e were told we couldn't masturbate to thoughts of former loved ones. Since they were no longer in our lives, it was inappropriate. We now had to write a fantasy script, with a specific two-page instruction on how to write it properly. We would then present our writing in group, of our detailed sexually appropriate fantasy, and read it aloud."
After weeks of corrections and rewrites, he told Horowitz, "We would then be granted permission to use the approved fantasy script to masturbate to."
Horowitz knows that expressing any sympathy for the plight of people found guilty of sexual crimes—who are among America's most hated criminals—makes her a target for hate as well, as if she shrugs off the trauma of sexual abuse.
She doesn't. She is a mom of four. She wants the best for them, and for all children. She wrote this book in the hopes that future sex offense laws and punishment will do what they're supposed to do: actually make kids safer.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This article highlights a deeply concerning issue in our legal system. It's clear that there are instances where individuals are being disproportionately punished for consensual relationships, and Emily Horowitz's new book, "From Rage to Reason," delves into this problem with critical insights. The case of an 18-year-old receiving a six-year jail sentence for consensual sex with a 16-year-old is a stark example of how the current sex offender registry system can have unintended and severe consequences.
Hi AI,
Could you please write a block-buster novel for me, and a movie script to go with it?
More than one legally concerning issue. How about the lack of a judge's respect for an appeal on an issue, treating it as settled while the appeal is pending? How about the lack of mens rea as a requirement for criminality?
Mens rea and rule of law have been dead for a long time.
You can be sent to prison for the rest of your life for violating regulations you didn't know about written by unelected bureaucrats, meanwhile those who enforce the law can claim ignorance as an excuse.
Fuck You That's Why shall be the whole of the law.
This is probably feeding trolls, but:
He did not get six years for having sex with a 16 year old; he got no jail time for the sexual offense. He got six years for violating parole.
Just like Jean Valjean was pursued for violating parole, not for stealing bread.
"He got six years for violating parole."
For not quitting the only job he could find which was too close to a school.
Except quitting the job would also have been a parole violation.
Probation.
I'm with you.
The rhetorical obfuscation doesn't achieve the purported aims of reducing the wrongful punitive nature of the offender registry nor better protecting children.
Right up to the 6 yrs. in prison issue, it seemed solidly libertarian to me. (Presumably) Honest mistake, no jail, finishes his degree, has to be more careful about sex partners and the law going forward... 7 yrs. may've been excessive but 6 mos. probation for someone like Joseph Rosenbaum doesn't seem correct either.
Perhaps, in this specific case, the fact that the "victim" reached the age of consent and/or ability to file charges within the probationary period could've been a factor mitigating sentencing but, any way about it the notion "He went to jail for having sex with her." obliterates the nuance.
Probations goal for sex offenders is ALWAYS send them to prison.
And he wouldn't have been on probation without the sex charge, so this is a distinction without much of a difference.
And he wouldn't have had the sex charge if he hadn't been born. The distinction is fundamental as far as the law is concerned, but 'Kid sent to prison for six years for being born' doesn't generate the clicks.
The title is misleading, but I totally agree with the sentiment.
It is a stark example of folly and government power.
But statutory rape is not a new law, nor is the inability to use lack of knowledge of one party’s age usually allowed as a defense. It’s another form of attack on men (I mean, in the words of our President – “C’mon guys, how many 18 y/o women have ever been prosecuted for bumping ugglies with a 16 y/o guy?”)
Life is tough. It’s tougher when you’re stupid. Rules to live by: (1) don’t stick your dick in crazy (2) don’t stick your dick in people you don’t know, either; if things go south, it will always – repeat, always – be the guy’s fault.
Don't stick your dick crazy? That puts ALL women off limits!
Geez, it's not like he coerced her into life-changing, irreversible surgery.
Don't forget the life expectancy shortening drugs.
her
Bigot!
So was it a threesome or what?
That used to be considered a grammatical error, but the alphabet people did away with grammar.
Good riddance. Grammar is racist.
Most foreign languages are hopelessly sexist.
Um, no. While not terribly common, the singular "they" has been part of the English language for centuries.
Your obsession is unhealthy.
Government Almighty is now telling SOME of us, what we can and cannot masturbate to! How long till Government Almighty micro-manages us ALL for this? Remote-controlled (or brain-scanner-controlled) shock collars, for wrong thoughts, anyone?
"Team R" will only be allowed to whack off to Spermy Daniels And The Donald, and "Team D" will only be allowed to whack off to the sounds of taxpayers SCREAMING in agony!
Team D will enjoy their fun time way more then Team R will.
Not so. Team R dogma states that life begins at erection. However, it also holds that wankers should not be hunted down and prosecuted. That is a liability reserved for females.
Lenore once again offers us a refreshing visit with actual reality. A book review is also a welcome alternative to an increasingly illiterate teevee society.
Surprisingly lucid comment. Thanks!
Why isn't a reliance defense effective here? The officer in charge of his probation told him he could continue working. If he's supposed to take orders concerning his probation from someone other than his probation officer, who?
Anyway, life situations like these are made for self-employment and remote work. We're in an age where few things need to be done at a site any more.
Why isn’t a reliance defense effective here?
Because when the conduct is fundamentally disapproved of, the justice system doesn't care. Consider those people who were punished for voting illegally despite being told by officials they could vote.
I am sure there are other examples in different legal domains.
re: "We’re in an age where few things need to be done at a site any more"
Which is irrelevant a) because the events in this story happened well before covid forced everyone to figure out how to work remotely, b) because many of us are realizing that the covid lessons were wrong and that many things do have to be done on-site for best results and c) because it doesn't fucking matter that there's a work-around to government injustice - it's still injustice!
These laws were intended to prevent creepy older men from targeting little kids I’m pretty sure, not some 18 yo dude banging a 16 yo-but the law is the law dammit!
Meanwhile, actual predators can continue doing their thing at places like preschools where the kids aren’t likely to report them, as happened at a day care some friends of ours kid goes to.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart
This Website➤---------------➤ http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Covehe5, are you related to a coffefee?
And someone can cover up predatory behaviour for years, and offer himself as a candidate for Speaker of the House. Gym Jordan is more of a criminal - both legally and morally - than this kid, IMO.
I believe less than 5% of sex crimes are by a stranger or a known sex offender.
All of this bullshit is predicated on old religious standards that we no longer even recognize. Virginity is nothing more than a claim being made that you have no std’s - which killed back in the day. Not to mention women were considered property - lower than slaves. There’s no reason for this 18 year old to be in trouble over some vindictive believers beholden to goatherder myths from 2kya. And the judge is just a pos who hasn’t had enough one on one time with a woodchipper.
They always get us with the fear of our kids. Fuck your precious kids. If you can’t keep your kid away from a predator, YOU are the problem.
All of this bullshit is predicated on old religious standards that we no longer even recognize.
Go fuck yourself for trying to prey on, if not make, other people more retarded than you.
Are you confessing with that comment or bragging?
Fuck your precious kids.
"This man wants to fuck your children, and makes arguments in favor of that being legal."
Why age 18? It is just an arbitrary number that is not universal in every state. Men are attracted to post pubscent women by nature, not age. I mean the nonsicko pedophiles are. At a hotel once we were all commenting on a beautiful woman at the pool when the coach strolled by and said she was 16. None of us even considered she was 16. She looked 22!
Over time the offenses that cause somebody to be placed on the Register have expanded. Several years ago there were rumors of Gay Men meeting at a local State Park to have sex in the restrooms. The Park immediately closed the restrooms. Then the rumor changed to Gay Men having sex on the hiking trails. The State Police formed a task force to investigate this, but, found nothing. Under the threat of losing their funding, the task force started issuing citations for indecent exposure. The indecent exposure was from fishermen and hikers relieving themselves in the woods because the restrooms were closed. In the meantime the County Sex Offender Registry was in danger of losing it's funding, because not enough people were committing the type of crimes that caused them to be placed on it. So some lawyer in the District Attorney's Office came up with the bright idea of placing the men who got cited for Indecent Exposure in the Park on the Registry. It took almost 10 years to get them removed from it.
This is the problem with do-somethingism. Whenever someone calls for a new law in response to a moral panic, or high profile crime, they don’t realise that they are also committing a lot of money and manpower to prosecute the offenders, and since the state has a mission and resources it has to spend to look like it is indeed doing something, it will have to broaden the scope of what the crime is.
The truth of what I glibly asserted when I was about 14, that all bureaus, agencies, departments and offices of government seem to be more concerned with expanding their own budgets than serving the citizens. is once again confirmed. Their total unconcern with damage to peoples' lives is beyond what my youthful cynicism could have predicted, though.
"Pournelle's Law"
Pretty sure jimc5499 is fabricating a bit of his own moral panic akin to how one social worker told one lesbian she was being discriminated against by the hospital treating her partner without the slightest shred of evidence and suddenly, within 6 mos. every homosexual in the country personally knew some other homosexual in the country who was kept out of an ER or OR by the legion of homophobic doctors who, nefariously, would work diligently to save the life of a homosexual and then turn around and utterly defeat homosexuality in all of it's evil by refusing to let their partner see the homosexual whose life they just saved.
the County Sex Offender Registry was in danger of losing it’s funding, because not enough people were committing the type of crimes that caused them to be placed on it
WTF are you even talking about? Do you even know? People convicted of crimes in a State Park being charged by the County and put on a... County. Sex. Offender. Registry? and not one of the 50 State Sex Offender Registries which would be funded by the State for any number of Registrants larger than zero and for which crimes in a State Park would fall squarely under? Further, the County not just earmarked money specifically for the Sex Offender Registry (and not just blanket funding the DAs office) but then also specifically forbade the DA from spending office money on the Registry such that he had to whimsically put people who, again broke the law in a State Park, on the County Registry?
Are you fucking retarded?
I mean, it's archaic bullshit but at the same time take a chick out a couple times before you get her pants off & this doesn't happen.
Yeah. Not only is it archaic, but the reaction to it is getting a bit archaic (and bleeding heart). Unless she works for the CIA any girl claiming "I'm 18." is going to have FB/Insta photos of her Quinceañera from 3 yrs. ago, friends who've posted birthday wishes, parents who are pretty openly approving of getting to know their daughters friends before things get more serious, etc.
7 yrs. on the registry for actually sleeping with someone who was underage and still getting your degree... not quite the same thing as the Dad who gets divorced or loses custody because he got arrested urinating, not in front of anyone, but in public or the single Mom who let her kids play in the park while she got ice cream across the street or whatever.
^^^^ yes! spend ten minutes in online research before running out the door. if she's not (they's not?), she's 100x stupider than him
Three things. First, in most states, this would be a perfectly legal relationship. Age of consent is 16 in half the country, and Romeo and Juliet laws exist for this very reason.
Secondly, High schoolers are not known for good relationship judgement or caution where women are concerned
However, what gets to me most is that active deception is not considered a defense. It doesn't even matter if you check her ID. If you gives you a fake one, it's still considered the man's fault.
For us older gents, the "stay away from anyone who even could possibly be that young" is easy advice. No so much for a guy trying to date his own age group.
How aggressive was the girl? I would have had a real hard time saying no at 18.
I would have had a real hard time saying no at 18.
That was back when you could pick a girl up while driving your car with an open beer in your hand, everybody got chickenpox from each other, the CIA hadn’t invented HIV yet, everyone got married before they were 25, and if you accidentally stuck it in some crazy chick, you just skipped town and got a new job, new house, new life the next State over wasn’t it Grandpa?
Or just check her DL.
I think we're all stumbling around the unwritten preamble to "Don't stick it in crazy." of "Somehow, figure out if she's crazy or not, then..."
If she's lying about her age that much, can you trust that she doesn't have a fake ID?
If a person lies about their age in that way, they are more of a criminal than the other party.
agreed
My masturbation script would sound like Gilbert Gottfried telling The Aristocrats joke.
Not sure why age-of-consent laws aren't brought up as well as the sex offender registry. An 18-year-old and a 16-year-old can be as little as a year and a day apart in age - and it's absolutely insane that an arbitrary white line drawn by politicians and their bureaucrat hangers-on makes that illegal. These numbers are arbitrary, plucked out of a hat, and totally random. In many places you can vote but not drink, serve in a war but not run for the legislature, drive a car but not have sex with the person of your choosing.
Anastasia, your world-class fallacy is known as the Argument of the Beard, mocked for centuries.
"if someone told you that since even one glass of beer will impair your thinking, you might as well drink a case, then the person would be making an argument of the beard."
The ages can be so close, so even if a 18 year-old 'rapes' a 12-year old -- who can say when it starts to be wrong. So let's let everybody do everything.
funny how no state or city mentioned
perhaps all made up?
31 states have consent at 16
or course it is ridiculous,
but don't you guys all want hanging judges?
No, we want to hang judges. Close, though.
Yes, but many of those states have a "Romeo law" with an age gap. At one time, it was two years in my state, thus a 16-yo cd hav sex with am 18-yo but not a 19-yo. Too many statutory rape cases were filed. I think it is now a four or maybe five year gap.
Why can a 16-yo hav sex with a 20-yo grownup but not a 21-yo?
If a 16-yo girl takes a nude or half-nude pic of herself and puts out in an email or on the net, why should anyone be arrested for downloading it?
Because Henry has suffered enough. You want worldwide publicity on him for his "crime"? I certainly don't.
Y’know, I see what this article is getting at, and I don’t disagree from an abstract sense. However, the first line is what makes me not really care about all the rest. As much as I want to empathize with Harry… I just don’t.
He engaged in poor moral decision making at an age (and in an era) where he’s reasonably expected to be conscientious about such things. Should the law be the one to enforce consequences of poor life choices? Yes – though YMMV on where lines are drawn. But here’s the problem for ‘ol Harry:
he met on a dating app who said they were 18 too.
There are consequences to hookup culture. We keep trying to create parachutes to spare people any form of accountability for them, but there should be consequences to this kind of lifestyle.
Now, maybe I’m assuming too much. Entirely possible, perhaps they chatted and became friends over time and one thing led to another as the relationship got more serious and they learned more about each other (like, say, their actual ages). The article isn’t real clear on that.
But I doubt it. The more reasonable presumption is that he was trawling online for some tail, found a liar, slept with her soon after, and then things got real real bad. It’s kinda like Trevor Bauer. Terrible thing happened to him. One which could have been entirely avoided had he not been so eager for casual meaningless sex, and took adult relationships just a little more seriously.
So – yea, what happened to Harry and Trevor? I mean, I can see why people say it’s unfair or unjust. But honestly? It’s really more of a harsh lesson from the school of hard knocks.
You are assuming a lot.
He was participating in normal behavior for his age as a consenting adult. His actions, as far as he was able to determine at the time, were fully legal. These applications are supposed to be off limits to children, and he trusted the bounds and found a woman who was apparently in his age group. He was lied to, and his life was destroyed.
Even assuming that it was a hookup and not consistent dating (something never mentioned). The fact that he didn't fit into your tight moral bounds is your problem, not his.
No, it's actually his. He's the one dealing with the fallout of his own decision-making. You can call it "normal behavior" if you want - but that doesn't make it good behavior, or smart behavior, or responsible behavior. The fact that it leads to such terrible consequences (and this is just one of many potential) should really force us to ask why we want to encourage its "normalcy."
He was lied to and his life was destroyed, correct - perhaps that should be a lesson to the rest of us about being more judicious when it comes to who we share a bed with and why.
Minnesota Statutes has a "grid system" enacted in sections 609.341 et seq. I believe this sexual act would not have been a crime at all in my state. Thank God for rational legislators.
So you reverse even common morality and family responsibility !!!
Because it is the law , it is right with me.
You and Stephen Douglas...yeah, if people want slavery, let's have more slavery
The only study used by a sitting judge to justify the Sex Offender Registration (SORR), in this case a Supreme Court Justice, showed a recidivism rate of 66%, if I recall. And SORR was born. This study was not peer reviewed and the author withdrew the study not many years afterward due to the many errors within. Of course, it was too late by then.
Now there numerous peer reviewed studies showing a recidivism as low as 5%, that 95% of offenses are by people known to the victims, that 90% are first time offenders, that residency and work restrictions have no measurable effect, and that the registry is punishment, yet nothing has been done. Why? Because you can get politically rewarded by piling on with new regulations which have no effect and do nothing but buy votes from the masses.
Thank you for this. The Department of Justice issued a grant for campus sex offences on April 29,2014 to coincide with the publication of “Not Alone” White House White Paper. There is an incentive for non-profits , campus administrators and police departments to create sex offenders out of school and college males. To really address the issue requires confronting the DOJ OVW, DoE OCR and Joe Biden who introduced the unregulated “Dear Colleague Title IX” directive which specifically and deliberately set out to get rid of due process in campus sexual misconduct matters. Police departments were trained by activists from the White House Not Alone Task Force who pushed hard for males to be put on registries. Police departments, victims rights non-profits for big grants and so it is all tied to money for them whether from VAWA or the Adam Walsh Act. These nonprofits should all be investigated for racketeering and profiteering in criminal cases with police, prosecutors, media and civil attorneys. Russlynn Ali, Catherine Lhamon of the DOE OCR and Susan Carbon, Lyn Rosenthal of DOJ OVW should be put on the spot and required to answer the Nation. As well as members and affiliates of the Not Alone Task Force including Laura L Dunn of SurvJustice, Angela Rose of PAVE, Andrea Pino & Annie Clark of End Rape on Campus, Alexandra Brodsky of Know Your IX, Meg Garvin of NCVLI, Lyn Schollett of NHCADSV, Tina Tchen and Roberta Kaplan of NWLC, Valerie Jarrett who was Obama’s Chief of Staff and head of the Not Alone Task Force, Stanford Law Professor Michele Dauber and Tom Perielo who introduced the campus SAVe Act but works for Open Societies which is tied to Arabella Advisors who are behind drafting Title IX legislation, and Brett Sokolow of ATIXA/TNG Consulting. The background to all of this can be found in recently released FOIA docs from the department of education OCR to Professor KC Johnson. Mostly redacted, it’s clear that the DOJ OVW and DOE OCR deliberately set out to get rid of due process and jump straight to conclusions re campus sexual assault. No kid is safe.
"The 16-year-old's parents found out, summoned the cops, and Henry was charged with a sex offense." -- Because of course; it's the governments job to raise your 16-year old who is treated as government children later and later and later in life. The magical age of 18? Now it's going to 21... 25? Juliet was 13!
That daughter would be very wise to file for emancipation from her parents and the courts would be wise to grant it. Frankly the book is right. The laws on this subject are BS. If parents think they need government 'guns' to raise their teenagers they probably shouldn't be parents at all.
You are going way too far. Let's say if he was 40 and she was 13. Let's eliminate the deception. That is definitely a crime and not asking the government to raise your child. If someone commits a crime against my child, calling the police is reasonable.
The problem is the draconian law that does not allow standard defenses that are in other sorts of cases. If someone lies, says they own a property and rent it to you, you are not trespassing so long as you could demonstrate you were in good faith. Same with buying stolen property. However, here, even though there was documented evidence that she lied about her age, that was not considered a defense, and somehow the courts think that making someone a pariah for their whole lives is not considered a punishment.
"If someone commits a crime against my child"
Problem is you think a willing child can be a crime against them. Which makes about as much sense as saying them willingly paying for lunch is a robbery. It's pretty hard to claim a 'crime against' anyone who full heart-idly insisted and/or accepted said action. In reality parents are but 3rd parties in such an issue (not directly involved) but are claiming a 'crime against' them because the child is property not of it's own free-will but of the will of the parents.
Thus as I said before. Parents need to raise their own kids to their will not use gov-guns to do it for them. Because lets face it. The only disgruntled party in the issue is the parent.
I wait for your daughter to get in trouble , then you will be like the no-bail DA carjacked and killed. All just BS cocktail chatter from a person with no morals
She does. All the time. I don't use that as an excuse to use gov-guns to go out and punish her friends (try to gov-gun shape the world for her). The fault is hers. She's plenty old enough to know better and consequences will follow one way or the other for HER.
I had a close call similar to this back when I was 25 and attending tech school. I was involved in a very light relationship with a girl who was 15. One afternoon after we had rode our bikes around, we made it up to my bedroom listening to music, incidentally the landlord was her grandmother, and she made it quite clear what she wanted to do next. She was probably disappointed but I wanted no part of having a sexual relationship with a 15 year old girl. I wanted to finish tech school and get on with my life. And yes young girls often encourage sexual advances. I shudder to think what would have happened if her parents found out let alone her grandmother/landlord.
There is not a single crime that has been prevented by these ridiculous registry laws. Prove me wrong.
Why? Because you care more about my daughter tha I do?
Grow up and stop nosing in what is NOT your business. Get a job or something.
And they never will. The same can be said for no cash bail, electronic monitoring and personal recognizance
In this case, as long as there are young girls willing to go along with it and there are plenty of them, young males will just as easily fall prey to the system.
Believe me, I was tempted but I knew better.
Sorry, but Henry needs a greater punishment. "But she said she was 18" --- yeah, "and this car was only driven to Church" or "I didn't kow it was loaded"
I don't want my daughter to be the victim of any Henry's so let's throuw the goddam book at him.
Why stop there? Why not execution?! Maybe drawing and quartering might work. After all if it prevents someone's daughter from deceiving another young man for sex, then it was worth it. After all, he was 18 and he knew what he was doing and he believed her claim of being 18 years old.
So, who's to blame here? Maybe the little slut owns some of it.
I note that the perpetrator is only given by first name, so we have no way of verifying it. Given how often Reason typically misrepresents such stories, it's best to ignore the article.
I’ve earned $17,910 this month by working online from home. I work only six hours a day despite being a full-time college student. Everyone is capable of carrying out this work from their homes and learning it in spare time on a continuous basis.
To learn more,
see this article———>>> http://Www.Smartcash1.com