found that mr money would never make the same mistake again and for his single conviction of aggravated criminal sexual abuse in this case sentenced him to two years of probation on what basis is the trial court concluded mr monti would never real out during the imposition of sentence the trial court commented that she believes that mr monti had made the mistake of getting into a relationship with a girl that that she should have known better not to get into a relationship in which morning one she told him she was fourteen was really doing the big mistake don't you think but according to the testimony she said that she told him that she was fourteen  there was no affirmative evidence presented in the defense's case but the argument closing was that he thought that she was older than that but in any event the particular facts of the circumstances behind particular relating to the rehabilitation component of the out of that because the courts brioni back to the defendant's background the family history of the fact that there's a strong family support in this court just  history his youth his family involvement and to say that mandatory sentencing provisions limited the trial for its ability to properly consider that defendants that this was a circumstance that mr mining most likely would not put himself into i gather it's not explicit in the rap and she did say that she can see she considered factors in an admission in mitigation she was potential for his lack of recidivism at these strange particular circumstances it's reasonable for the judge to conclude that mr ranney would never do this again because he was under the misapprehension the faulty misapprehension that the victim was beyond her years fourteen i don't believe that that was actually i'm not sure that the type of the text that says mistress i didn't have the copy i don't i don't currently have a copy of the text messages i'm not sure that the actual text message that was presented added into eviden the relationship to the to the type of conduct that we're talking about the actual criminal conduct but also about the second component of that is the defendant's rehabilitative potential and this court has say that was his motive was to find a girlfriend or a nice young lady i mean that kind of does not seem to be appropriate we really look at the situation no matter what because at that time before he stopped by during a hearing and that is so i should apply his full cities to commit similar offenses about his threat to the public about this things at the very least after five years however of the defendant be allowed to present those facts doesn't go against our constitution is the mandate that every sentence be imposed in light of the circumstances  potential of any individual prevents him from going to paddocks to going to many museums and who is in campus preventing mr money from coming here today to argue because there's a daycare center in this building on prevents him from living in certain harassment case when it said adults are expected to protect children from poor judgment and not take advantage of it that's the point in this case so is the applied exactly as it should be applied  now and that was mentioned briefly by counsel is juveniles to petition off the registry but i should point out to the clerk that when jane it was decided in two thousand and three that's true news prior to the determination that you  that risk assessment or to let them do the things that the senate is suggesting these due process arguments here those are policy questions and those types of questions were raised in the m a case which the supreme court threw in twenty effect in january that doesn't see the sex offender registration task force and had charge of the task force is to make recommendations to the legislature about adult offenders and whether there should be the same schema differen that would be the proper public policy but in terms of what is the problem with it this is not really the question the question is a constitutional for this court that is a public policy question and goes to what is the best way to what is a better way to handle this class of offenders so it would give me a point where for somebody like mr monday let's fast forward twenty years he has children of his own he cases trying to raise them in that context the court said we don't even have to reach the constitutional question is simply now punitive i think on the due process side when turned about the potential for fundamental