I'm having a bit of trouble with this "consensual" label. At age 15, the girl in question cannot legally give "consent", so it isn't "consensual". And having read the *entire* article I discover that others were convicted of sexual battery on the the other girl. That implies coercion rather than consent. All these facts indicate that whatever occurred in the incident in question, "consent", as I understand the term, is questionable at best, and may have been the product of intimidation...
the infowarrior
That's a legalistic way of weaseling out of an answer. Do you think kids suddenly become wise to the ways of the world on their 16th birthday? Would you prosecute a girl two days after her 16th birthday for having sex with her boyfriend who doesn't turn 16 for another week? To me, that seems a little strange, but I'm genuinely interested in an explanation.
I discover that others were convicted of sexual battery on the the other girl.
But not this kid, an honor student and a star athlete, who was nevertheless sentenced to 10 years in prison. Odd.