High school football player penalized

Convicted rapist gets 20-year sex offender status
Associated Press
Aug 16, 2013


An Ohio high school football player convicted of raping a 16-year-old girl after an alcohol-fueled party was ordered Friday to register as a sex offender every six months for the next 20 years.

Jefferson County Judge Thomas Lipps gave 17-year-old Ma'Lik Richmond the state's second-toughest sex offender classification — Tier II — the same that his co-defendant received in June.

Unlike adult sex offenders, Richmond's name won't be included on publicly accessible websites. And he can request to have the sex offender classification removed later based on his history of rehabilitation.

Richmond's attorney, Walter Madison, declined to comment on the judge's decision.

The judge's options for requiring Richmond to report to authorities ranged from every 90 days for life to once a year for 10 years.

In March, Lipps convicted Richmond and co-defendant Trent Mays, 17, in the rape of the West Virginia girl following a party in Steubenville in eastern Ohio in August 2012. Richmond is serving at least a year in the Ohio juvenile detention system.

Mays was also found guilty of using his phone to take a picture of the underage girl naked. He received a two-year minimum prison sentence.

The victim's attorney said Lipps' classification decision on Friday did not come as a surprise.

"It recognizes the seriousness of the offense that these young men committed and also the significance of the damages that occur when people that take advantage of other peoples' bodies without consent," said Wheeling, W.Va., attorney Bob Fitzsimmons.

Fitzsimmons said the victim's parents attended Friday's hearing.

The case drew international attention because of the role of texting and social media in exposing the attack and led to allegations of a cover-up to protect the celebrated Steubenville High School football team. A grand jury is considering whether other people broke the law in connection with the case by not alerting authorities to initial reports of the rape.


Associated Press writer Andrew Welsh-Huggins contributed to this report.


Regina Garcia Cano can be reached on Twitter at https://twitter.com/rgarciakNO




Evil acts = more evil acts in the future. Do they understand what they did was wrong ? or that they just got caught.


He actually rapes a 16 year old and has to register for 20 years, yet a teacher and a student get caught together (no rape involved) and she gets to register for the rest of her life....and nothing happens to the little jock.....smh


That 20 year old teacher is an adult and should know the consequences of being with a 16 year old. It is totally different than the Steubenville case. All involved there were teenagers.

A teacher is someone who should be looking out for a student; guiding them in the right direction in life, not contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The young woman you are referring to made a huge error in judgment by encouraging anything more than a student/teacher relationship. If what she and the boy were doing was totally legitimate, why did they sneak around? If she were trying to counsel the boy, why not do it at a public venue such as the library? She was totally in the wrong and it may very well be that she is immature for her age, but now she has learned a very valuable lesson that may have made her grow up a bit.


A violent act is a violent act. Your suggesting when a younger person commits the same violent act, they are somehow less guilty.

I agree our youth can get into trouble because of a lack of experience, immaturity, etc etc when it involves some crimes, like stealing a car for example. In those cases it is materialistic things and we need our justice system to help them more. But when the crime is violence, especially rape or murder, that's a different ball game


I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

I was using the Steubenville case to point out that they were all teenagers making teenage decisions whereas the teacher/boy case was an adult and a teenager where the crime (as far as I can remember) was kissing in a remote area, an offense by the teacher who was in her twenties and the victim being a teenager. The teenager was not prosecuted because he was the victim in the case.

In the Steubenville case, they were all the perpetrators and should have been sentenced as adults (in my opinion). Their crimes were violent and they needed to be sentenced as violent criminals. I did not mean to infer that a younger person committing a violent act was less guilty than an adult committing the same act. Sorry for the confusion.


it will not bring justice in this case, but he will do it again and again until he winds up in prison. rapists always do what rapists do.. a person cant get away forever with that kind of monkey business.


I know both the victim and the perpetrators were young. I know that young people, mostly due to lack of experience, make bad decisions sometimes. It's usually because they don't know any better. And that kind of crime is often best punished in a way that really hammers home the lesson that should be learned.

But this? This was RAPE. This was VIOLENCE. You can't tell me that anybody older than age 3 or so doesn't know THAT'S wrong, no maturity or years of experience needed. And to take PHOTOS of the act and the aftermath and publish them? Once again, no experience needed to know that that was JUST as wrong.

Spending time in a juvenile facility for such an adult-level crime, and then having to be a "secret" sex offender is nowhere NEAR what should be imposed on such criminals. As an aside, I'd really like to know what good it does for the guy to be labeled as a Tier II sex offender if the public DOESN'T know he's living next door, eh? The truth is — and the reason behind sex offender labels and public notifications in the first place — sex offenders tend to re-offend. I don't know about you, but I'd sure like to know that the guy who just moved in next door is a convicted rapist!