Richard Davidson

by Richard Davidson

In R.C. 2907.04 and a few others like it states “or reckless in that regard” at the end of the statute. I beleive this statement needs to be stricken from the statute. Because it is too broad and allows for the state to purposely convict an innocent person.
For example, an adult meets an allege victim who is under the age of 16 through an xxx adult-only dating site that has an age verification process in place and the teen somehow was able to bypass this and illegally gained access to this site by means of deception. How then is the adult legally responsible and then sent to prison for crimes ranging from Unlawful Sexual conduct with a minor to rape?
Is it because the adult did not ask to see identification prior to any sexual conduct even though they met on an xxx adult-only website or is it because the adult asked the alleged victim about his or her age prior to any sexual conduct and the teen lied or was it simply because the adult didn’t even ask the alleged victim about his or her age at all, thinking the website did the verification age already? What really constitutes reckless? Because the way the law is written now, an adult can and will be prosecuted under any of the above situations.
The adult is reckless if he or she does not ask the teen about his or her age because it shows a lack of due care. The adult is reckless if he or she asks the teen about his or her age because it shows the adult must have had a suspicion or they would not have asked and lastly, the adult is reckless if he or she does not ask the teen to provide a government issued identification because it too shows a lack of due care.
But what the courts have failed to consider, is that the teen illegally gain access to an xxx adult-only website that required them by state and federal law to be at least 18 years old. In reality, the only individuals in this situation to actually violate the law, is the underage teen and the website owners. But for some reason, they are not prosecuted.
If these teens know there aren’t going to be any repercussions for there actions when they violate the law, they will only continue to violate the law. The same goes for these adult websites, who have been getting away with posting child-pornography and child exploitation for years on the internet with out any sort of repercussions whatsoever and that is the true injustice here. We are convicting and imprisoning the unsuspecting adult for years and the website owners walk away without so much as a fine.
We have too many adults being sent to prison because they were simply mislead by an underage teen and an adult-only website that promises one thing but gives another.
The only reason an adult in this situation should ever be prosecuted and sent to prison, is if the record “clearly” indicates that the adult was either told by someone or was without question aware of the teens true age. Because prosecuting and imprisoning someone on only an assumption that he or she may have known or should have known is just too broad and is therefore a serious attack on our constitutional right to freedom. The statute needs to be more specific as to what “reckless in that regard” really means, simply because it is too broad for todays age of computers.
I am asking for everyone’s help, by asking you to contact Senator Rob Portman of Ohio and tell him we need to stop this attack on our unsuspecting men and women who simply get caught up in the web of deception between a teen and these money hungry xxx adult-only dating wesites.
My name and number is Richard Davidson #737-319. I am just one of the unsuspecting adults who was maliciously prosecuted by Jess C. Weade and wrongfully convicted by Hon. Judge Steven P. Beathard. I am hoping that the right individual might just so happen to be read upon my story and look into my wrongful conviction because I do not belong in prison for a crime I had no idea was being committed

Richard Davidson
DOC #737-319


Categories: Richard Davidson

1 reply »

  1. When a man drives 3 hours, walks a mile away from a house and enters a back door at midnight that might be a sign he knew he was doing something wrong.
    Also, the fact that the child had a 5 foot tall elephant stuffed animal in her room that was seen by the perpetrator and kids stickers on the wall might also be a sign the kid is under age.
    And you were not wrongfully convicted. The appellate court reviewed the case and found you to be guilty and that you had no grounds for the charges to be dismissed. Any normal man 43 year old would know a 13 year ago old girl isn’t 19, and you have a thing for little girls. This isn’t the first time, though you had no prior convictions.
    Plus meth…wow, it must really make a guy blind or stupid to have sex with a teen on a twin sized bed in a little girls room in another state.
    Next time you wanna get laid try a bar where they card folks to make sure they’re 21. And if you see kids stuffed animals and have to “sneak” in the back door so grandma doesn’t find you then you might not want to proceed with sex. Just saying what’s public record! Enjoy the rest of your sentence and face responsibility for your actions if you narcissistic personally disorder will allow you to do so!


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s