How did this little weasel escape prosecution from the Mann Act?

Was that article written by a dyslexic chimp? Or do they just not have any money for newspaper editors anymore.

@2 - probably some of the quality work turned out by Journatic:

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-s…

What laws did he break? Is it illegal to drive minors across state lines? She, presumably, could consent within the state she was in at the time. If she didn't, arrest him for rape--not statutory, regular rape because she was old enough for consent.

If there is a federal law against it, I'm not sure there should be. If the feds want to get all punchy about people going across state lines to have sex, they should try to force the consent laws to be 18 nationwide. Otherwise, STFU.

I wasn't out of the closet before Lawrence v. Texas passed. But I would hate to have to worry about sodomy laws in my state AND whatever freer state my boyfriend and I happened to travel to because the feds don't like my relationship.

Can we please start calling this what it is? It wasn't "fucking." It wasn't a "relationship." It was rape.

So the article says the church forced him out of the church.. but did they call the police? I sure hope they didn't do a "catholic" on this one.

Under the circumstances, I'm guessing they are angling for a variation on transportation across state lines that amounts to kidnapping of a minor (who cannot give consent for this regardless of whether she's of age to give consent to sex).

That's a pretty amazingly badly written article and as short on details as it is on grammar.

Hey, Troll! You got nothin', as usual.

Would you prefer they leave the holy living hell in the teenagers?

@4 - well, let's see - he had sex with a girl under the age of consent (in three different states where the age of consent is 18, so call that three counts of statutory rape), he transported a minor across state lines for immoral purposes (the Mann Act I mentioned above, which is a federal crime and should've, by all rights, landed him in a federal facility) oh, and I'm pretty sure that using the internet to lure underage people to have sex with you is also a crime, but I don't know for sure.

So, he broke at least three state and one federal law. But then, you're equating sodomy laws with laws that are in place to prevent sex trafficking, and the exploitation of underage people by those in positions of power over them, so I doubt you really care about any of this anyway.

Having grown up in fundamentalist circles in South Carolina, I can tell you that the First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN -- the country's first megachurch, really -- has been a frothing welter of sexual misbehavior for as long as I can remember.

A book by a man named Viktor Nischick entitled "The Wizard of God" details the sexual peccadilloes of Dr. Jack Hyles, who founded the church. (Hyles had an affair with Nischick's wife).

Hyles' son David was later forced to leave the ministry for having been implicated in misconduct with over a dozen parishioners, including, allegedly, a minor or two.

It really is a delightful institution.

I say, if you're over say 29 and still want to fuck teenz, you are morally obligated to resign any positions of official power, such as teacher, policeman, pastor, shrink, politician etc. You are further required to grow (or shave down to) interesting hair and join a band. (Or write comic books).

@12 According to Wikipedia, the age of consent in Illinois is 17, in Indiana is 16 and in Michigan is 16. So "lure underage people" doesn't apply because she wasn't underage. The same wiki page talks about "position of power" exemptions and I could see that if she was a parishioner in his church, but you admitted yourself he used a computer (the devil's machine, obviously) so there's no church involved.

And how many guys using dating sites are trying to "lure" women into having sex with them? That's kind of the point, isn't it? Does the "lure" weasel-word apply when we find it icky? As I said before, if you don't like the age of consent being under 18, then change the law. Or make multiple levels of consent based on the age of both people because "horny old man" isn't written into the law if you only have a flat age requirement at 16 or 17.

@15 As you already read for yourself, if the older person is in a position of authority over the younger person, then the age of consent rises to 18 in all three jurisdictions.

Plus, the Federal law involves taking a "minor" across state lines for immoral purposes, said Federal definition of minor being someone under 18 years old.

So, explain to me, in small words so I can understand, why do you think this guy is being unjustly persecuted? Sounds to me like he's getting off easy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_con…

@16 Indiana: "The age limit rises to 18, according to IC35-42-4-7, if the actor is an adult who is the guardian, adoptive parent, adoptive grandparent, custodian, or stepparent of the minor; or a child care worker for the minor; or a military recruiter who is attempting to enlist over the minor."

Michigan: "...an authority figure"

Illinois: "..he/she has a position of authority or trust over the victim."

For Indiana, "random pastor on web isn't on there". Maybe he could be considered a custodian. That's also tricky in Michigan or Illinois. Hopefully the law itself spells it out more clearly because I could see how every adult could be considered an authority figure, which would eliminate the point of having a sub-18 consent law in the first place. As for "trust over the victim", my boyfriend has a hell of a lot of trust with me. I would hope any consenting sexual relationship would. But maybe the pastor checks out with state law, since it's the FBI that's interested.

As for the federal law, I think the feds should follow the local age of consent laws or push to get them set evenly across the US. I don't care about this bozo in particular. I do care that they're executing a different "moral" (as they see it) guideline than the state itself chose. It's like the DEA raiding pot dispensaries in California that are perfectly legal by state law.

Besides the state-fed conflict, I'm also annoyed when laws are ambiguous or are setup so you'll fail because the words are unclear. When a 17 and 18 year-old are dating in Illinois, does the 18-year-old have "trust over the victim"? In Indiana, is the 18-year-old a "custodian" if he brings her out on the town with the parents permission? Suddenly she consents to sex, the parents don't like it and he's a sex offender? I'm not complaining about the morality of the laws, only the inconsistencies and ambiguity. They seem designed to allow the courts maximum leeway in deciding cases based on ick-factor. That's not law or justice.

@17: The point of the sub-18 consent deal is that if you're 16 and you're sleeping with an 18-year-old peer, it's considered consensual. If you're 16 and dating a 32-year-old, the relationship should be treated with more scrutiny.
Also, to all those who say that he used a computer therefore wasn't her pastor (and not in a position of authority), he could very well still be her pastor but used online messaging to develop a sexual relationship with her. Also, he transported her across state lines in the role of custodian/guardian, so that also qualifies him as an authority figure.