It’s the law, but I don’t agree with it. It’s not the same as a 17 year old with a 12 year old - they’re only 2 years apart.
I’m not saying they should be having sex, far from it, but is this really an issue the LAW needs to be involved in?
I really don't know. I haven't stated my position on the law in this thread either way, I just reminded people that the laws can be counterintuitive & can vary from state to state.
I guess if it were up to me, all things considered I don't have a huge problem with most age of consent laws as they are, so I'd leave 'em. It's a sticky subject (oops - no pun intended :) and I don't see any way to work out a "right" answer. We know instinctively that it's bad to take advantage of young girls sexually and we want the law to recognize this, yet we also know instinctively that teenagers are full of hormones and we're not exactly shocked when something like this happens... so where to draw the line? There's never going to be a "correct" way to do it. But that's not a reason to have no laws at all, so we have to make do w/what we have.
And you're right, it's not the same as a 17 year old with a 12 year old - nor does law doesn't treat it as such. Someone else on this thread dug up the NH statutes on this subject and there are varying degrees depending on whether the age difference is 5+ years, 3-5 years, or less than 3 years. The latter is a class A misdemeanor, which is presumably what this guy will be charged with (not felony).