Was this Judge right?

[Mr. P]

A man charged with engaging in a graphic and obscene conversation with a 13-year-old girl on the Internet has been sentenced to serve three years
in prison.
Chief Superior Court Judge xxxxxxxx ordered xxxxxxl, 27, to serve the first three years of a 10-year sentence on a charge of obscene Internet contact with a child.
xxxxx acknowledged it was a “very difficult case for the court” but rejected a defense appeal by attorney xxxxxxxxx that xxxxl be given probation and not be sentenced to prison.
“One of the purposes of a sentence is deterrence, and this kind of thing is happening all over the United States,” xxxx said. “People are getting disgusted with it, and if everyone who does this gets a slap on the wrist, then there is no deterrence.”
xxxxxx, no relation to xxxxxxxx County Commissioner xxxxxxxxl, was charged in connection with an incident that occurred in July 2004 during which he make contact with the youngster in an Internet chat room.
When the conversation became graphic, the girl told her mother, who then assumed the youngster’s persona. The information was subsequently turned over to authorities and xxxxx was arrested.
“It is time to tell the world and the community that if you do this in xxxxxxx County, you will go to prison,” said xxxxxx. “I don’t know how to stop this, but if there is a way, that’s it.”
xxxxxxx previously rejected a plea agreement that reduced the charge to a misdemeanor and at that hearing read excerpts from the transcript of the conversation into the record. The language was direct and graphic.
“This language violated every standard of decency I’ve ever been taught in my life,” xxxxxxx said. “These are the words of a gutter rat.”
xxxxx vigorously argued that the extent of xxxxxxl’s crime was less than many sex offender cases and under some circumstances his client’s conduct would not be a felony but a misdemeanor of a high and aggravating nature.
“No question, his conduct was inappropriate and he knows that,” xxxxx said. “But he didn’t meet with the child, he didn’t stalk the child and on the vast scale of offenses this should be considered on the lower grade.”
xxxxx asked xxxxxx to consider long-term probation or a work/release program rather than a prison term.
xxxxxx noted the nature of the Internet was such that it allowed people to contact children directly in the home and in the most secretive manner.
“In other instances there can be some parental control, but unless a parent is standing right over a child’s shoulder, you can’t control this,” xxxxxx said. “That might be what the legislature was thinking in making this a felony, and there is some reasonableness in that.”
Several family members addressed the court to support xxxxl and asked for leniency, noting the defendant was married with a young child. xxxxx noted his client had no prior criminal record and had cooperated with authorities from the outset.
xxxx addressed the court and told xxxxxx his conduct was “extremely stupid” and “if I could go back and change anything in my life, it would be this one thing.”
xxxxxx said the defense argument was “very persuasive” and the court “agonized over this case,” even taking a break to consider the matter before announcing his sentence. Ultimately, xxxxxx could not be swayed from imposing prison time.
“We are taking someone away from their family and paying to put them in prison, and the question becomes, is it worth the cost of putting someone in prison to protect young children?” xxxxxx said. “The legislature says yes, and I think they are right. It is time for this to come to a stop.”
Assistant District Attorney xxxxxx opposed a defense request that xxxxl be granted first offender status and xxxxxx agreed. xxxxl will be required to register as a sex offender upon his release from prison.

Sex offender?

 

[dmp]

Are we assuming the guy knew the girl was 13 when he started dirty-talking to her?

Either way, I'm troubled at how Courts can ruin somebody's life by tagging them with 'sex offender' for even innocent-but-stupid things.

 

[Mr. P]

Are we assuming the guy knew the girl was 13 when he started dirty-talking to her?

Either way, I'm troubled at how Courts can ruin somebody's life by tagging them with 'sex offender' for even innocent-but-stupid things.

I don't know if he knew to start with or not. But I'm thinking the same as you I think...

The guy did nothing but post chat. Dirty? I guess it must have been. There is no telling if Mom may have lead the way to dirty talking. I wish I knew more..Regardless, I think 3 years in jail followed by sex offender statis is extreame for chat on the net.

If he would have arranged a meeting an showed up, toss him in jail for life.

I do know the defense attorney so maybe I can find out more.

 

[dmp]

I don't know if he knew to start with or not. But I'm thinking the same as you I think...

The guy did nothing but post chat. Dirty? I guess it must have been. There is no telling if Mom may have lead the way to dirty talking. I wish I knew more..Regardless, I think 3 years in jail followed by sex offender statis is extreame for chat on the net.

If he would have arranged a meeting an showed up, toss him in jail for life.

I do know the defense attorney so maybe I can find out more.

Right - it coulda been like this:

Guy: Sup girl?
Girl: Hey buddy! how's things?
Guy: nm..chillin...you?
Girl: teehee *smiles*
Guy: You have a boyfriend?
(girl runs to get her mom, who takes over chat)
GirlsMom: What would you to do me if YOU were my bf? *smiles*giggles*Swallows*
guy: I'd put it in da butt!
Girlsmom: Lmao! *cutie* Ur Funny! Hold on while I call the cops! *smiles*