Three days is all it took for a released sex offender to victimize another person, a teenager, no less, and it gets worse: a disabled teenager, in a bathroom, of all places. Police reportedly found the fourteen year-old victim in Newark's Penn Station appearing as if something was amiss. She told them that she had been assaulted in a library restroom. The forty-five year-old accused had been released from state prison and was wearing an ankle monitor. As of the date of the report, it was unclear if he had retained a defense attorney.

Criminally, this person has definitely dug himself into a grave. He is a "recidivating" or re-offending sex offender, meaning that a subsequent offense will land him an automatic mandatory minimum of five years in prison with no possibility of parole, who can be sent to an additional five years in prison if he faces a new sexual assault charge with aggravating factors. Those aggravating factors include if the rape was forcible, if the victim was a minor, and if he or she is disabled.

Assessments of this sort of behavior lead many to believe that these urges are not easily suppressed or quelled. According to Dr. Gregory J. Coram, Forensic and Medical Psychologist and Director of the Masters program in Criminal Justice at Monmouth University, the acts in which these urges manifest are often unpredictable, repetitive, and non-stop. Rehabilitative treatments, are not often, if ever, likely to be effective when it comes to sex offenders.

"Due to the nature of these sexual disorders," says Dr. Coram, "it is very difficult to make any reasonable prediction on whether or not these individuals will re-offend. Sexual behavior is an integral part of the individual, and any distortions or pathology in that area will permeate their personality. Therefore, I am not a strong believer in true rehabilitation for these types of offenders. They have their signature and their methods, and the capability of rehabilitative treatment to break that pattern of behavior is something I believe to be unrealistic with current treatments."

This type of attack is very serious, and even if the sexual activity itself was not initiated by means of an attack, that is, if it was "consensual", the act would still be considered statutory rape, considering the victim was underage, and in no determinable position to give consent. In terms of legality of sexual activity, any act that is coerced is illegal. Physical force and/or threats need not be used to qualify as criminal.

You might ask, why do I need to know the law? It's not like I would ever commit such an atrocity.

Naturally, it's not expected that any reasonable person would perpetrate a crime like this. However, the laws about statutory rape are not always as crystal clear to everyone as they should be. Plainly, an attorney is in the best position to sort through the details of a questionable scenario as it may be construed by the law. The New Jersey Criminal Code states that sexual activity between an adult (18+) and a child between the ages of 13 and 16 is illegal unless the participants are within four years of age of one another. For example, it is legal for a 20-year old and a 17-year old to engage in sexual activity, but illegal for a 20-year old and a 15 year old to do so. Additionally, any sexual activity involving a child under the age of 13 is strictly illegal. It is worth noting that the gender of the victim or the assailant is not specified.

When it comes to a question of statutory rape, remember: it does not matter if both participants are willing, or even if the underage participant initiates the act itself. The law views a person under the age of 16 as lacking the emotional maturity to give consent to sexual activity, except in the circumstances provided above. And always remember: any act of forcible sex, that is, against the will of either participant, is considered aggravated sexual assault.

The courts do not accept a defense of mistaken age, e.g., "She looked like she was of age to me." The presumption is that if the participant looks underage, it should be assumed that he or she is underage. Real life often presents complications and complexities even where the facts seem clear. As such, anyone involved in an attack, or a relationship or circumstance where these laws may be considered, should contact an attorney who is an expert in this area of practice.

Think of a child shooting a machine gun and your mind is flooded with potential legal issues, not to mention the initial gut impression that there is just something wrong with that. The worst possible scenario imaginable happened in Massachusetts in 2008, when an 8 year-old boy held a machine gun, fired it and accidentally killed himself. This tragic loss is of course followed by civil and criminal charges. The gun club where the gun fair was hosted, the two men who supplied the Uzi and the local ex-police chief-owner of the sponsoring company of the show were all charged with manslaughter. The former police chief had hired those two men to run the shooting range portion of the gun show. The boy's father and 11 year-old brother watched as the little, lightweight "mini" machine gun backfired and shot him in the head. In case anyone doubts the sequence of events, his father recorded the entire event on video.

With the charges including involuntary manslaughter, and multiple counts of supplying a minor with an automatic weapon, the defendants could face 10 to 20 years in prison, depending upon whether or not it can be proven that they should have reasonably anticipated that there was an appreciable risk of death to the child. The father relied on the "expert" guidance of the staff at the show, and considered that other children had fired weapons then as well. How a jury resolves the legal questions associated with the criminal charges may hinge upon whether or not they are permitted to see the horrible imagery in the video recording of the event. Rules of evidence provide that the video must be relevant, authentic and not overly prejudicial.

In order to subject the jury to the sight of the boy shooting the weapon, shooting himself, going down, and the responsive screams of horror, the judge must determine whether the video will reveal facts that demonstrate criminal negligence and wrongdoing on behalf of those charged. The graphic nature of the video might urge the jurors/viewers to punish someone for the tragedy, and consciously or subconsciously, disregard other relevant facts, for example, that other children have fired automatic weapons without accident. It may show that the safety instructor failed to take a precaution he should have, or that while all required safety steps were taken, a reasonable person would have determined that death could likely result. Of course, the defense attorney surely wants the video kept out of the trial.

With technology making photographic and video recordings so prevalent, navigating such tricky evidentiary questions will be more and more crucial to a legal strategy than ever before. Whether or not the court, or jury, sees a photo or video could determine years in prison, or millions of dollars in civil liability. Further, assuming the picture or video is authenticated, meaning the source and integrity of the recording can be verified, such evidence could be used in small legal matters involving lesser charges. You may not even know that a picture or video recording of an incident exists following an accident or incident, which one more reason highly skilled attorneys are critical to protecting your legal rights and your welfare.

MTV's "America's Best Dance Crew" is getting attention it doesn't want. A former judge and hip hop choreographer, Melvin Shane Sparks, aged 41, will be going to trial on eight counts of sex crimes, stemming from his arrest last December. After posting $590,000.00 bail, he was released. The arrest was a result of alleged oral copulation and lewd acts with an underage girl, which allegedly occurred over a three-year period ending in the spring of 1997. He will be arraigned on November 15, 2010.

Here is what happened in this situation. It can be reasonably inferred that a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment was filed by the defense counsel and the Court denied the motion. The Judge is basically saying that based on all the evidence presented to the Court thus far, there is enough to of it to have the matter proceed to trial, to be evaluated in that forum. Evidence may take the form of sworn testimony of the victim, witnesses or those who had first hand knowledge of events, in addition to physical evidence.

The Court is not indicating that the defendant is guilty. The Judge, and therefore, the Court, is simply stating that based on all the evidence gathered, the case may be permitted to proceed to a jury who may make the determination of guilt. The jury will have a much higher standard than the prosecutor needs to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge did not view the evidence by that standard, but rather, as dictated by Court rules, a much more broad standard. The judge must have determined in this case that a jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty of the crimes charged against him.

At any rate, both prosecution and defense attorneys have a challenging case ahead of them, due to the time that has passed, the sensitive nature of the charges, the fact that the alleged perpetrator or defendant is so much older than the alleged victim (the conduct did not occur between two teenagers, for example), and the quasi-pseudo-celebrity of the defendant. An individual in any sort of situation involving such sensitive allegations should contact an attorney immediately, in order to determine the legal strategy that most thoroughly protects his or her rights and interests.