Where does the fault lie when a situation involves two willing parties?

A minor cannot be a "willing party."

"Whether this is a legal distinction or not, do you think a willing participant is a victim?

A minor cannot be a "willing participant."

 Why is it that we are more than willing to charge minors with murder or other felonious acts that we've decided they can be held responsible for, but if a minor willingly has sex, they are a helpless victim no matter what?

I'm not saying what he did was right, but it's a shame that his life is basically ruined and hers goes on. It's not like she has to register as a sex offender or anything.

I think that we should differentiate between "actual consent", which is consent as it is commonly understood, and "legal consent", which is consent recognized by the law.  In California by statute an unmarried and unemanicipated minor cannot legally consent to sexual activity. Therefore, regardless of the minor's actual consent, it is illegal for another person to engage in sexual activity with the minor.

The California legislature, in its wisdom, has set the "age of consent" at 18.  This is higher than in most other states, and in almost all other foreign countries.  In one respect the statute is arbitrary. Obviously, someone 17 years and 364 days old is only insignificantly less mature than someone 18 years and 1 day old, but the legal consequences of sexual activity based upon the 2 day age spread are enormous.  

It is ridiculous to say that no person under the age of 18 is mature enough to evaluate the pros and cons of voluntary sexual activity. Clearly, there are persons under that age who intellectionally and emotionally are sufficiently mature; conversely, there are persons over the age of 18 who are totally clueless as to the  matters that should be considered.

There is an interesting little quirk in California law concerning legal consent.  In California a married person can (for obvious reasons) consent to sexual activity.  In California minors can marry with the consent of a least one parent and the Superior Court for the County in which the minor resides.  There is no lower age limit.  Technically, a minor of any age could marry and legally engage in sexual intercourse so long as he or she obtained the required consents.   I believe that the courts have approved marriages for minors as young as 13, generally minor girls who are already pregnant.

Finally, it should be noted that prosecutions of this nature are generally based upon the "ick" factor.  A teacher sexually involved with a student has a very high "ick" factor, and is almost always prosecuted.  Sexual activity between someone just under the age of consent and a young adult just over the age of consent has a much lower "ick" factor, and is seldom prosecuted, although legally the young adult is just as guilty as the teacher.   People often forget that when two minors engage in sexual activity, they are both committing a crime.  Given that most teens commence sexual activity with other teens in their age group at about 16, it would appear that most 16 and 17 year olds are uncharged felons. If the law was rigorously enforced as to these teens, the schools would be empty and the juvenile detention facilitys would be bursting.

I agree with everything Pete has expressed above. The really onerous stamp of being labeled a sex-offender in today's American society means you are through. Done! Toast!!! There are very few second chances for most people convicted of a crime today, unless you stole billions through a stock fraud, junk-bond or sub-prime lending scheme. For those minor infractions of breaking the public trust you can go back and steal some more at a prestigious Wall Street firm. There is a big difference between the molestation of a child and a consensual act between two young love-struck people.

I see no deterant for sex-offenders to stop, and they know this..... If caught,sure their future went down the tubes..but they will be protected from other prisoners from harm...so why should they stop.... welcome to the revolving door...

The sentence was about right. The fact that he was a teacher should have had a bearing on the case. If it was mad love they should have waited until she was 18. However, I don't feel he should have to register as a sex offender.

It's quite possible that the public doesn't know everything there is to know about this case.  The prosecutor who handled it is very experienced, knows all the facts of the case, and also knows what the likely amount of time is that the defendent would get had the case gone to trial.  The defense attorney also knows all the facts of the case and the likely jail/prison time that the defendent would have to serve when convicted (there is no doubt that he would have been convicted).  If he, or the defendent, felt that the prosecutor's offer was not a fair one, they would not have agreed to the plea bargain.  I say the people best qualified to make the decisions did so.

People can speculate all they want about what they don't know.

No one on the blogs ever let a little thing like not having all the facts keep them from being judge and jury.

If all the posts are "opinion" or "gossip" that's another issue but presenting them as facts is dishonest.  Of course, that never stopped any of us either.

I think I can safely say, Bartley, that the DDA was not out to humiliate Mr. Neal.  You'd understand it was quite the contrary, if you knew more of the facts of the case. 

BillionaireB, Color9 is correct. The reports are public records. The District Attorney's office does not provide them. And do you think the DA's office is responsible for what gets posted here on TBC's website? Another brilliant statement on your part.

Since it's difficult to convey tone in this medium, I don't want you to think I'm trying to be snotty or anything.  I am actually trying to convey my message as gently and discretely as possible.

That's all I can say.  I may have said more than I should as it is.