what the fuck? this totally blows my mind and breaks my heart at the same time. this "brooming" is going to mess with the victims for the rest of their lives, no doubt, and the only punishment doled out is one lousy year in jail? for shame.

torture is a Merkin value.

He admitted to the charge as part of plea deal, i.e. after the reduced charges had been worked out. The article makes it seem like the admission came first, prior to the reduction of charges.
What I wonder is why this didn't go to trial. Was it really a case of favoritism are the all to common problem of not being able to get the victims to testify?
Did the families want it both ways: a plea deal that would forego a trial and testimony on the part of the victims, and the sort of sentence that would have gone with actual conviction for the greater charges.
I don't see enough details in the story to be able to tell, but I have a hard time believing that the case would not have gone to trial if the victims had been willing to testify in court.
(While I feel for victims forced to testify in situations like this, there are just too many cases of unreliable juvenille complaints for trials to proceed in any other way than by a direct confrontation and cross-examination of the victims in court.)

It was clearly a humiliating experience, but it doesn't seem as horrifying as the excerpt in Slog implies. Towards the end of the original article it mentions that the victims were clothed--I could be wrong, but that sounds more like an uncomfortable jab than a sexual violation. It seems as though the Arizona Star irresponsibly sensationalized the assault by using the phrase "rectal area" in the first paragraph without clarifying until the ninth. But what the hell do I know? I wasn't there.

this was obviously a result of the leftist, homosexual agenda. the media, including movies like "brokeback mountain," give these people ideas, and then, surprise surprise, terrible things happen. i hope you're happy.