I couldn't understand why the prosecutors would ever accept the plea deal. And then I read this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/high-school-football-player-pleads-guilty-to-lesser-charge-in-idaho-assault-case/2016/12/19/05fca8c8-c61f-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.6245623f68df
"Deputy State Attorney General Casey Hemmer said in court that prosecutors would have been able to prove that Howard kicked the coat hanger into the victim’s rectum, according to the Times-News. But Hemmer said the violent assault did not constitute a sex crime, and that is why they allowed Howard to opt for the plea deal."
“Based on continuing investigation throughout this case — interviewing of witnesses, speaking with the victim and getting a better picture of what happened in this case — the state believes this is the appropriate charge,” Hemmer said in court, the Times-News reported. “It was egregious behavior, it caused this victim a lot of suffering, but it is not, in my view, a sex crime, which is why the state has amended this charge.
We don’t believe it’s appropriate for Mr. Howard to suffer the consequences of a sex offender, but he still needs to be held accountable.”
But it is appropriate that the victim suffers the consequences of a sexual assault?
This story reminds me of Penn State and the cover up and "keeping the lid on things".
Football towns are notorious for it. The game brings the money to the town, the school, the establishment. That is what is
behind the "town divided". Greed versus human compassion.
I am hoping and praying for them to win the lawsuit against the school. Praying hard...