Add new comment

However, given that the victim can't even remember the night in question, the DNA evidence is irrelevent.  Any good defense attourney could easily claim drunken but consentual sex.
Yes, Lueke accepted responsibility for his actions.  Has the victim?  I hope so.  But the point was not to put the two of them on completely equal footing or condone Lueke's behavior.  THe intention was to point out that his crime was an unfortunately *very common* occurrence and that it shouldn't paint him as a permanent immoral monster.  It's not a matter of giving Lueke a free pass...he paid his debt to society and the Christian thing to do at this point is to allow the kid to try to work past the character faults that led to his criminal record in the first place in a supportive environment.  Part of my view of fairness involves giving both Lueke and his victim a chance to speak and tell their story.  Baker's given the victim a voice...whither Lueke?