Advertisement

Archive for Monday, August 27, 2012

Wichita man gets nearly 27 years in ‘sexting’ case

August 27, 2012

Advertisement

— A 26-year-old Wichita man will spend nearly 27 years in prison in a federal "sexting" prosecution.

U.S. District Judge Monti Belot on Monday sentenced Shane McClelland as a repeat sex offender. The judge said a long sentence was necessary to deter him from further crimes and protect the public.

McClelland was convicted earlier of enticing a 14-year-old girl from upstate New York to send nude photos to his cellphone. He was acquitted of a similar count involving another teen.

McClelland's lawyer argued 20 percent of teens are "sexting" and said the sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. He said the 14-year-old was old enough to know better.

Belot said McClelland sought out young girls despite having served time on a 2004 conviction for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Comments

Thomas Bryce 1 year, 7 months ago

Anders Breivik, The person in Norway who Killed 77 people with explosives and Gun fire was sentenced to 21 years in prison. Most of the victims were children. I have never understood the differences in Laws and Lawyers from one country to another. Some thing is seriously out of Balance.If 27 years for "sexting" a 14 year old is the punishment here, Breivik should have gotten 77 life sentences to be served one after the other. The article does go on to say that the judge in the case has doubts he will ever be released due to Breivik's admission that he would kill more if he could. 21 years is the Max in Norway.He may face 5-year extensions indefinitely.

0

Randall Uhrich 1 year, 7 months ago

Sentences for murder or rape are usually less. Go figure.

0

Agnostick 1 year, 7 months ago

Seems like some here don't believe it was a legitimate "sext." I guess, had it been a legitimate sext, the phones on each end would have used their special internal circuitry to shut down the conversation, and purge the messages from the phone's system.

He was a repeat child sex offender. Exterminate him.

0

patkindle 1 year, 7 months ago

the jerk sounds like a real pervert , and should be punished, but some murderers dont get 27 yrs, must be alot we dont know

0

CWGOKU 1 year, 7 months ago

Mom and dad should take away her phone and spank her or ground her. Well, maybe not spank her, that will get mom and dad in trouble...

0

Topple 1 year, 7 months ago

I think its the combination of previous sexual conduct in prosecution of sex offenses and any of the following:

Indecent solicitation of a child, sexual exploitation of a child, electronic solicitation.

0

Gary Pomeroy 1 year, 7 months ago

From the Wichita paper: "In May, a federal jury found McClelland guilty of one count of obtaining a picture of the exposed genitals of a 14-year-old girl from upstate New York via Yahoo! messaging. He was acquitted of a similar count involving another teen. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Hart argued for enhanced penalties in the 15-30 year range due to McClelland's criminal history. He served five years in prison for a 2004 conviction for aggravated indecent liberties with a 13-year-old girl, and had been paroled from prison just seven months when he began trolling teen websites to aggressively pursue young girls."

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2012/08/27/2463967/wichita-man-faces-sentencing-in.html#storylink=cpy

I am sure he is just misunderstood.

0

SageonPage 1 year, 7 months ago

Can someone in the legal field explain what law was broken? I don't condone this behavior but is the defendant breaking a probation order or selling her photos to a child porn ring? I'm guessing being in possession of what is considered child porn was the law that was broken, but the story does not say. Could any young girl's image show up on some guy's phone and he is in danger of 27 years in prison?

1

biggunz 1 year, 7 months ago

Not supporting the pervert guy, but a 14 year old can get a learner's permit to drive, is only 4 years from being considered an adult, but doesn't understand that sending nude photos to a stranger is wrong? Come on people.

2

verity 1 year, 7 months ago

I interpret the law to mean that a 14-year-old legally doesn't know better. Whether she did or not is of no consequence. Dumb defense---he is the one who should have known better.

1

Benjamin Roberts 1 year, 7 months ago

"McClelland's lawyer ... said the 14-year-old was old enough to know better."

Says the lawyer of the 26 year old pervert.

7

leaningleftist 1 year, 7 months ago

Wow, no kidding, he's almost twice her age, and is a serial predator. Hopefully she was given some advice about how dangerous her activities were. He got what's coming to him as an adult, she is still a minor and her consequences are up to her parents. What an uninformed comment both ways

1

Commenting has been disabled for this item.