Tom Sherman wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

The real issue is sex between a child (16) and an adult. That was the
crime that the subject of the article committed. It was an immoral and
illegal act. Rationalizing it on the basis of the minor's behavior is
offensive. It's classic blame the victim.

Peter misses my point. What Boyer did is far less offensive that an
adult buggering [1] a pre-pubescent child. Calling Boyer a criminal or
immoral is fine, categorizing him with the highly pejorative "child
molester" is too strong of a statement.

[1] Used in the legal sense.

I didn't use the term. The term was used (as a device) by the article's
author, mostly to de-sensitize the reader and set up a defense of the
subject, in a rather blatant manipulation. A sample:

"The child molester and I spend four days together in late spring 2007.
It's terrible and perhaps unfair to refer to him as "child molester,"
because he accomplished things as an athlete that few others have, and
over the past few years he has, by almost any measure, lived the life
of a world-class do-gooder. But "child molester" is exactly how a lot
of people who know a little bit about him, especially those who have
never met him, think of him even if they don't refer to him that way."

After using the term repeatedly, the author then reveals the
"unfairness" of the term. He then follows with the rather weak argument
that you echo:

"In some states, a 16-year-old who fondles his 14-year-old girlfriend
is guilty of a crime, just as guilty in strict legal terms as someone
who stalks playgrounds, snatching and raping children. If you can
accept that when it comes to sex offenses, even child molesting, there
is a moral spectrum of heinousness, then should we try to put Boyer's
crime--and Boyer--in some sort of context? Boyer thinks we should.
"It's too bad all those [criminal] charges get put in the same box,"
he says. "The fact is they're so varied, the charges. . . they go from
one end to the other. . . .you do have predators out there, the
perverts, you do have people who are bent on molesting countless kids
and who have issues with children. Then you have others who have
overstepped certain boundaries and get put in the same. . . uh. . .
same sort of description.""

The facts are that the guy molested a 12 year old, repeatedly. Perhaps
what he did doesn't fit your idea of "molestation", but it fits mine
(and the DA's too, apparently). Perhaps you don't consider a 12 year old
a child. I do. His oblique "overstepped certain boundaries" doesn't give
me a strong sense of his remorse and acceptance of responsibility.

The author reveals the convicted man as devout, a characteristic they
apparently share, since there are references to praying together. The
criminal acts occurred some time after the convicted man's baptism into
the Seventh-Day Adventist church. The actual charge was: "lewd and
lascivious acts upon a child, and three counts of penetration by a
foreign object or genital penetration on a person younger than 16". The
convicted man spent a year in prison.

I don't think the California law is unreasonable, nor do I think there
are (or could be) any conditions that would make this a miscarriage of
justice. I'm not sure what your point (or the author's) is. If it's
merely that the term "child molester" should be reserved for sex crimes
against younger victims (12?), I can't say I agree, but that's the
author's straw man, since he's the only one using the term, and he's
doing it in a frankly manipulative manner.

The man committed a crime and was punished. The fact that some may lump
all sexual criminals together, regardless of the severity of the crime
and ongoing threat to society, may be unfortunate in his case. That
doesn't make him less of a criminal. You can not de-criminalize his acts
by blaming the victim, but that seems to be the agenda. The insinuation
is that the convicted was/is a devout and righteous man led down the
path of seduction by an adolescent Jezebel. That's shameful. I'm not buying.