nanandjim said:That law needs to be changed. However, I still think that this young man acted in a very arrogant fashion with LE. He thought that he was above the law and therefore refused to accept a plea agreement as all of the others had. I feel certain that his lawyers told him what he was risking; and he was arrogant enough to think that the jury would go against a law on the books and just let him go free. They couldn't do that.
If the boy had been contrite, I would have recommended a year, suspended sentence with some community service to be done at schools warning kids about underage sex, etc.
If the boy was arrogant (as has been reported), I would be inclined to let the chips fall where they may (and did).
Human nature is to be sympathetic towards those with good attitudes and towards those who admit when they are wrong. It is also human nature to want to be harsher towards towards those with superior attitudes who think that they should be above being punished for something that "everyone else does."
I'm afraid that someone with this kind of attitude will continue to push boundaries because s/he thinks that s/he should be able to get away with it. Laws set boundaries and tell society what's expected. Without them, there would be chaos.
If people don't like a particular law, they should lobby to have it changed.
You keep saying he was arrogant, but I have not seen any reports of that, nor have you provided any links proving that.
The other kids took pleas because they had previous records and did not want to risk a trial.