Archive for Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Wichita man appeals 27-year sentence over ‘sexting’

September 11, 2012


— A Wichita man is appealing his nearly 27-year federal prison sentence for enticing a 14-year-old girl into texting him a nude photo of herself.

Twenty-six-year-old Shane McClelland filed a notice of appeal in the sexting case Monday with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal jury convicted McClelland in May of obtaining the picture via cellphone from the girl, who lives in upstate New York. He was acquitted of a similar count involving another teen.

U.S. District Judge Monti Belot sentenced him last month under enhanced penalties as a repeat sex offender.


b8es 5 years, 6 months ago

Norway - Mass murder kills 77 people, gets 21 years. U.S. - Guy receives one electronic message from a kid with daddy issues, gets 27 years. And we wonder why we've got the highest incarceration rate in the world (including such freedom lovers as North Korea and China). I see that this guy is a repeat offender, and I don't mean to condone his actions but the prison-industrial complex in this country will be our downfall if it is allowed to continue..

formerfarmer 5 years, 6 months ago

So, does this mean your for capitol punishment or just turn em loose?

Topple 5 years, 6 months ago

He/She is a troll, not to acknowledge their drivel.

progressive_thinker 5 years, 6 months ago

The 14 year old victim in this case had no capacity to consent to the activity in question. According to the news accounts, McClelland pressured and persuaded the victim, over a period of several days, to send him the pictures. He was using a webcam and sending pictures of himself as well. The judge in this case, Monti Belot found that McClelland sought out young girls as victims. While it is true that she was a participant, it appears that her participation was based on manipulation by a much older, experienced child sex offender. If the typical pattern holds true, she was immediately disgusted with herself, and to this day suffers from trauma.

The notion of "blaming the victim" in sex has two general results:

First, it extends and renews the trauma of the victim. Second, it discourages other victims from reporting the fact that they have been victimized.

Sex offenders, and in particular, child sex offenders, are master manipulators. This man was on parole for for a child sex offense and immediately went trolling to victimize whatever vulnerable young girl was available. Fortunately, she contacted her parents and they sought prosecution. Hopefully, he will not victimize more children in the near future.

Finally, to be frank with you, you have fallen for the usual manipulation that is offered by sex offenders. While I do not wish to hurl insults, I would be remiss if I did not point out the fact that it is this sort of thinking that traumatizes victims and discourages reporting of sex offenders.

progressive_thinker 5 years, 6 months ago

Due to her age. Under the federal code, [Protect act of 2003] possession of pornography depicting anyone under the age of 18 is prohibited. The law specifies that it makes no difference if the juvenile depicted in the pornography made the videos or pictures. They still have no capacity to consent. The federal law makes this prohibition even if the material would be legal under state law.

Kansas state law sets the age of consent at 16. Either way, the victim had no capacity to consent.

Both federal and state law specifically recognize that a person that is 14 years of age is not psychologically equipped to grant consent.

There are some circumstances known as "Romeo and Juliet" laws that apply in cases where both parties are over 14 but under 17. While still a crime, the response is different and would not give rise to a 27 year sentence. The "Romeo and Juliet" provisions do not apply due to the age and repeat offender status of the offender.

progressive_thinker 5 years, 6 months ago

Virtually all states have some mechanism to transfer some specified offenses/offenders from juvenile court to adult court. Usually this involves either a very serious offense [like first degree murder], or a long juvenile offense history coupled with the offender being near to the age of majority. A summary of juvenile transfer law by state is located at

In the case of the 14 year old girl discussed above, the 14 year old had the status of victim, based on the federal statute. Accordingly, there could have been no consideration of any criminal culpability. There was one person who was an adult in this case who was 12 years older than the victim. That person had served a prison sentence and was on parole for a child sex offense. He knew full well what he was doing, and what the consequences could be.

progressive_thinker 5 years, 6 months ago

Accept it or not, that is your choice. Whether you like it or not, the capacity to give consent is set out and established by state and federal law, as is the ability of a court to transfer a juvenile case to adult court.

progressive_thinker 5 years, 6 months ago

Your first logic flaw is the classic false dilemma. "it has to be one or the other." Not true in this case.

Your second logic flaw is the Ad hominem attack. Attack the person rather than the facts or argument.

Both prove that you have nothing of substance to offer or argue.

progressive_thinker 5 years, 6 months ago

You now have opened two new logic fallacies:

  1. Strawman: "these laws concerning teen sexual activity are the ones trying to say it has to be one or the other."

They say nothing of the sort. A clear distinction is drawn between severity of crime, criminal history, and the like to move a case to adult court. Not all [in fact, only a minority of] juvenile offenses are transferred to adult court.

  1. False equivalence: A 14 year old photographing herself and transmitting the photo after being prodded by a master manipulator is quite different from a 17 year old who, with a long delinquent history commits murder.

progressive_thinker 5 years, 6 months ago

The reality that give rise to the law are in my previous posts.

  1. Our society has determined that a 14 year old is not psychologically equipped to make rational decisions about sexual matters, and thus cannot give consent; and

  2. In general, persons under 18 are not charged with crimes but are handled in juvenile court, with exceptions provided in the link that I provided you.

patkindle 5 years, 6 months ago

when i read this the first time, i suspected they had more on the guy than reported, after all i have seen stone cold killers recieve 1/2 the time or less, we must be missing something..or maybe the judge was having a bad day??

jhawkinsf 5 years, 6 months ago

Maybe the judge had more information about this guy than the newspaper is reporting.

naturalist 5 years, 6 months ago

It's the sexual offender/predator laws. They have overly large mandatory sentencing and even something like sexting falls into sex offender category. Some of those laws really need to be repealed or drastically changed.

Topple 5 years, 6 months ago

I'm okay with 27 years for repeat sex offenders, but not when you put it in context.

This guy KILLED SOMEONE and will serve 1 year in prison.... you're telling me getting a 14 year old to send you a nude picture is worthy of 27x the sentence as killing a father of three?

progressive_thinker 5 years, 6 months ago

This was McClelland's second child sex offense. He was initially in community corrections for aggravated indecent liberties [child less than 14 yoa], but escaped from the facility. He went to KDOC prison on both of these, and was released on parole in May 09, and was on parole at the time of the current offense.

While I agree that the US overuses incarceration, this fellow is not a good example of oversentencing. Committing a new child sex offense while on parole for a child sex offense and an escape does not bode well for the future.

progressive_thinker 5 years, 6 months ago

"My main issue is with the failed drug war policies we have pursued in the last 40 years, filling up the prisons and ruining families, while fueling violence."

Agree with you fully.

I would also agree with the notion that the US has been unnecessarily whipped up into a hysteria over sex offenders, and that many of our laws regarding same are counterproductive.

This fellow is a different matter. Just based on what is online with the DOC, he is on his third felony conviction, including his second child sex offense. He is the poster child of why we have habitual offender laws.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 5 years, 6 months ago

Last time this story was posted, I asked what did the girl get...and got clobbered. I am glad to see there are some sane people on here.

nut_case 5 years, 6 months ago

Clearly they both could have used better judgement. But this case does highlight just how ludicrous laws have become. The guy might not have received much worse of a sentence actually raping or killing her vs having a simple image on a cell phone.

If he could have just waited a few years until she was 18, he could have the photo, AND arrange to meet up with her, AND pay her for sex, AND video tape the whole encounter, AND post it on the internet for all to see - perfectly legal.

You will notice the last two criteria are emphasized* - these are actually a legal requirement. Meeting up, and paying for sex in a private room would be considered prostitution - thus illegal. Videotaping it and putting it up for public view reduces it to simple pornography...perfectly legal.

acg 5 years, 6 months ago

Maybe to some of you the sentence seems harsh, but think of it this way. Maybe the judge saw this guy for what he seems to be. A sex offender. Maybe a mild one at this time, but what about the future? We all know how it goes down with these freaks. It starts with images, and then that's not enough. Then they move on to touching and molesting kids, until they get caught. They do a little time and are let free but they need to offend again. Well, the last kid talked, so whaddya do about that? You kill the next kid so they can't talk. I'm sorry but this guy seemed to be well on his way to all-out child sex perv. Now, if the judge had given the a**hat a year or two and then the guy got out and raped and murdered a girl, everyone would be all "why did the judge let him out the last time? It was obvious he was a sex perv". Can't have it both ways, folks! :)

acg 5 years, 6 months ago

A: You're a vile person to attack me when you don't know me from Adam.
B: We don't charge children for adult crimes unless the severity of the crime calls for. As a matter of fact, if you'll gladly check your stats, you'll obviously see that very few juveniles are charged as adults unless the crime is capital murder, so your point is badly made and amounts to nada. C: This man wasn't looking for a consentual partner. He was looking for a child to get naked pics from. To me 14 is still a child. Maybe to you, 14 is old enough to exploit and maybe that means we should look into who YOU are as a person. If you feel like this man is okay then by all means, let's hook him up as FB friends with your kid or niece or granddaughter. No? Hmmm, wonder why not?

acg 5 years, 6 months ago

First, cite your source. I would like to hear about all of these children being tried as adults all over the US (for crimes that aren't murder) and second, you're soooo creepy. Remind me to keep all of the young people in my life away from the likes of you and others like you who obviously think it is okay to exploit a 14 year old for pornography.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.