See 3 23
There was no charge of a sex crime. That is why no one wants to address the 0 hits on sex crime reg. Why is this pp[point being ignored.
Yes, there WAS a charge of sexual battery, a felony. Charges reduced to child abuse.
Here's what all likely happened:
1. Victim was a 16 yo Mormon girl.
2. If perp wasn't 21 (if he was 19 or 20), then no charges would have even been filed if no actual "penetration."
3. Because of #2, sexual battery charge WAS filed.
4. Lds bishop involved probably encouraged victim's family NOT to see this thru a trial...more embarrassment to church; perhaps not in best interest of victim; and perp would have to register the rest of his life as a sex offender.
5. Victim's family apparently agreed to that. Charges reduced to "felony injury to a child"...still a felony...still rooted in his sexual perp act...but a plea agreement.
[Jeff Head lives in Idaho & is Lds; wonder what he thinks of all this?]
You are correct. He was originally charged with Sexual Battery of a Child Sixteen of Seventeen Years of Age, Idaho Stat. 18-1508A. That's a sex crime.
However, he pled guilty to a lesser charge of felony injury of a child, which is not a sex crime. He shouldn't appear on any sex offenders' registry as a result.
We don't know why the prosecutors agreed to the reduced plea. The fact he is only faced with therapy for pornography addiction suggests to me a community with strong teachings against the viewing of pornography. That's about as specific as I'd like to be.