“That’s easy, we arrest him, publically humiliate him, threaten him and have a witch-hunt. Never ever consider the validity of the sole witness. It’s ever so much fun. Oh, wait; that’s what you want to do.”
Doesn’t seem like anything will stop this guy!
He would eventually plead guilty to the charge in May 2009 and received 10 years’ probation for the assault, and was fined $2,500. But court records show he violated terms of the agreement that September. Court records show he came in contact with a child under 17, failed a polygraph test, attempted to move out of the county and was “unsuccessfully discharged from sex offender treatment.” Matter of fact, Armstrong’s been in and out of Dallas County courts since early October, when, on October 10, a judge denied his attempts to revoke community supervision.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2011/11/23-year-old_man_arrested_charg.php
That is what he did in 2009. He was tried and convicted - right? That was justice served; and if convicted a second time the judge would be right in using past behavior in his next sentence.
However, you seem intent on bypassing the current (2011) event.
Mortman has an excellent post on this. I want justice served. Based upon the fact presented we have the following.
* Girl told accused she was 19, a flat out lie
* Girl claims that sexual conduct occurred
So, assuming that sex did occur (no evidence that it did), the defendant was under the belief that it was both consentual and legal. Those are the facts.
So, what is a court supposed to do? There is NO EVIDENCE that a crime was committed, and if sex occured, it occured under the lie that the girl was of the age of legal consent, and was consentual.