Parents charged for allowing daughter, 15, to have sex with 21-year-old.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!!?? WHAT NEXT?  Just when you thought they couldn't get any more crazy with sex offender laws; they come after the parets.

Parents charged for allowing daughter, 15, to have sex with 21-year-old.

SMITHVILLE, TN (WSMV) -

Parents may pay the price for an illicit love affair between a teenage girl and her grown-up boyfriend.

Stephen Rogers Jr. faces a charge of statutory rape, but police have also charged his girlfriend's parents with child neglect.

The parents admitted they didn't stop the relationship, in fact they did something to signal their approval.

She's 15. He's 21.

Bottom line: Their sexual relationship broke the law.

But some do not see this as a black-and-white kind of issue.

The young love between a 15-year-old girl and her 21-year-old boyfriend has this neighborhood taking sides.

"Some 15 year olds may be able to handle it, and some may not," neighbor Virginia Presnell said.

"He seems like a good guy," neighbor Angela Moore said. "I know there's an age difference, quite an age difference, but they're actually a really good couple. They're almost one of those perfect little couples you never see anymore."

Police arrested and charged Stephen Rogers Jr. on a single charge of statutory rape, but he's dated the 15-year-old for months.

Her parents liked Stephen, and six months ago, they invited him to live with their daughter inside their home.

Some neighbors saw a problem.

"I don't think a 15-year-old should be with a 21-year-old," Presnell said.

But some neighbors like Moore seem conflicted.

"It's just a fine line. It's really a fine line," Moore said. "I'm not going to say that it's OK. It's just that with their relationship, it's a little different."

A neighbor alerted the state's Department of Children's Services and from there, Smithville police investigated.

They wound up charging not only the 21-year-old, but also the 15-year-old's parents.

Bryan and Donna Smith each face a misdemeanor charge of child neglect.

According to court records, they admitted they approved of the relationship and several times gave the couple condoms.

Some neighbors saw that as responsible, not negligent.

But what police see matters more and will shape the future for both the couple and the parents.

"There's so much other stuff in this county that's so much worse going on, and they're worried about this," Moore said. "I find it to be kind of bogus really."

Because the case involves a child, investigators would not speak with Channel 4 News on camera today.

All three of those facing charges will be in court in the next few weeks.

DCS also continues to investigate the incident.

Channel 4 News does not know whether the Smiths still have custody of their daughter tonight.

I'm a Pepper, You're a Pepper, Don't you love Pepper too?
 
Probable the most important case to come out of the SCOTUS last term, Pepper v. United States is a critical tool in the arsenal of every Sex Crime Defense Attorney. Now, armed with Pepper, we can effectively mitigate the sentence someone may receive based on post-indictment rehabilitation. One of the most important aspects of post-indictment rehabilitation is counseling to insure that the defendant poses no further threat to the community and to discover the underlying cause of aberrant behavior (e.g., parenting issues, abuse issues, gender/sexual identity issues that, unresolved, caused the defendant to be less likely to control his/her behavior or impulses).


Justice Sotomayor' opinion for the Court highlights reasons why any evidence of a defendant's rehabilitation is a critically important concern for an initial sentencing decision in which a district judge is seeking to comply with the statutory instructions of 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).

Consider in this context these passages (with some cites omitted) from the Pepper opinion:


"[E]vidence of postsentencing rehabilitation may be highly relevant to several of the §3553(a) factors that Congress has expressly instructed district courts to consider at sentencing. For example, evidence of postsentencing rehabilitation may plainly be relevant to “the history and characteristics of the defendant.” §3553(a)(1). Such evidence may also be pertinent to “the need for thesentence imposed” to serve the general purposes of sentencing set forth in §3553(a)(2) — in particular, to “afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” “protect the public from further crimes of the defendant,” and “provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational train-ing . . . or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” §§3553(a)(2)(B)–(D).... Postsentencing rehabilitation may also critically inform a sentencing judge’s overarching duty under §3553(a) to “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to comply with the sentencing purposes set forth in §3553(a)(2)...."

"Pepper’s postsentencing conduct also sheds light on the likelihood that he will engage in future criminal conduct, a central factor that district courts must assess when imposing sentence. See §§3553(a)(2)(B)–(C); Gall, 552 U.S., at 59 (“Gall’s self-motivated rehabilitation ... lends strong support to the conclusion that imprisonment was not necessary to deter Gall from engaging in future criminal conduct or to protect the public from his future criminal acts” (citing §§3553(a)(2)(B)–(C))). As recognized by Pepper’s probation officer, Pepper’s steady employment, as well as his successful completion of a 500-hour drug treatment program and his drug-free condition, also suggest a diminished need for “educational or vocational training ... or other correctional treatment.” §3553(a)(2)(D). Finally, Pepper’s exemplary postsentencing conduct may be taken as the most accurate indicator of “his present purposes and tendencies and significantly to suggest the period of restraint and the kind of discipline that ought to be imposed upon him.” Ashe, 302 U.S., at 55. Accordingly, evidence of Pepper’s postsentencing rehabilitation bears directly on the District Court’s overarching duty to “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to serve the purposes of sentencing. §3553(a)."


Easily a Sex Crime Defense Attorney could substitute the word "postsentencing" in these passages with the word "post-offense" without any loss of meaning. All the substantive reasons why the Court says sentencing judges should be concerned with postsentencing rehabilitation apply with equal force — and maybe with even greater force — to post-offense rehabilitation. (Indeed, the cite/quote from the Gall opinion in this context, a case concerning only post-offense rehabilitation, reinforces the point that a majority of Justices views these considerations comparably.)


Sentencing in federal court often focuses on the person at or before the crime but now armed with the Pepper decision, it would be nearly ineffective assistance of counsel not to seek post-arrest rehabilitative services for a client charged in a sex crime.  One of the strongest factors that leads to a long prison sentence is the fear of reoffending.  Now we can address this head-on and federal courts must focus on such evidence when discharging, as Pepper puts it, their "overarching duty to 'impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary' to serve the purposes of sentencing. §3553(a)."