Former University of Michigan debate director sentenced to prison in Macomb; awaits fate for soliciting minor locally
A sentencing hearing has been postponed for a former director of the University of Michigan debate team convicting of soliciting a minor for sex over the Internet.
But Joshua Hoe is still heading to prison. Court records show his recent hearing in Washtenaw County Circuit Court was delayed for two weeks while he was sentenced on similar charges in Macomb County.
Joshua Hoe
Hoe, 43, was sentenced on Oct. 20 to serve between one and seven years in prison, with credit for three days already served, according to Macomb County court records.
He was charged by the Michigan Attorney General’s Office in Macomb County in May after an investigation showed he engaged in graphic sexual online conversations and shared pornographic material with a girl he believed to be 14 years old, officials said.
The online persona was really an undercover investigator. On Sept. 7, the day he was to face jury selection in that case, Hoe pleaded guilty to distributing child sexually abusive material and three counts of accosting children for immoral purposes. Prosecutors dropped two counts of using computers to commit crime.
Thomas Loeb, Hoe's attorney, did not return messages seeking comment.
Earlier this month, Hoe, of Ypsilanti, pleaded guilty to counts of communicating with another to commit a crime over the Internet and accosting a child for immoral purposes in Washtenaw County Circuit Court. Prosecutors agreed to dismiss five other counts of computer-related crimes at sentencing on Nov. 10.
Hoe was replaced as director of U-M’s debate team by assistant director Aaron Kall.
Art Aisner is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
shepard145
Mon, Nov 8, 2010 : 9:22 p.m.
Calm down - you're flustered just like our law makers in Lansing who came up with this. No question the dude is a creep and what he did was ILLEGAL - I'm not debating that and I'm not defending him. But the legal framework that convicted creepy Romeo is messed up. He did something in the privacy of his home with his computer that got him a 1-7 year prison term based on his intent. When dirt bags are walking out of prison in a year for armed robbery or car jacking, this looks absurd. It's legislated law based on the fear of what might happen rather then an actual event. Meanwhile rape age 13-16 gets him up to 15 years in prison - fine - but that is not what this was. BTW, under 13, rapists can get life in Michigan. NEWS FLASH - all kinds of children engage in under age sex in Michigan. How many times does a young girl score before she becomes another teen mom roaming the halls of her high school like it's a big joke and where are the thousands of boys being prosecuted for rape EVERY YEAR!? Meanwhile this 43 year old creep never touched anyone!? The difference is that he was convicted of a crime in a "virtual world" while those committing actual physical crimes in the "real world" are just fine or spun through the system with minor consequences.
robyn
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 6:55 p.m.
Cyber romance??? That's really grasping at straws. It's ILLEGAL to engage in sexual activity with a minor. That includes sending pornography to them. If a man is pursuing a 14 year old child (I have a 14 year old - trust me no matter how mature they pretend to be - they are still children) is something you would consider a 'romance' - what about a 12 year old? 10 yea old? 8 year old? Do you have some personal 'cut off' point that you deem too young? To whomever compared strangling a puppet with strangling a human being - apples to oranges. This guy was on the prowl for a CHILD. He would have gone through with meeting a CHILD. If 'doing' a puppet was the same - he wouldn't be pleading guilty for trying to hit up a CHILD for sex. He'd be at home, free - engaged in whatever creepy activities he wants to engage in with his puppet.
tracyann
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 1:40 p.m.
What do you mean "something is wrong with this story"? The article states that he just received jail time in Macomb County stemming from charges that are similar to what he's facing in Washtenaw County. He pled down in both cases so some of the charges were dropped; who knows exactly what he's done and what he's already gotten away with. "Cyber romance"? Really? This cretin is 43 and was hitting on someone he thought was 14 years old. What does a 43 year old have in common with someone who's 14? Nothing. This guy is just a creep.
shepard145
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 11:02 a.m.
Like other laws that emotionally challenged legislator spins out of control, I agree with those who say something seems wrong with this story. How does a cyber romance - regardless of who and how creepy - result in this kind of prison time when we're freeing others on a regular basis because of over crowding? These crimes are all about intent with no physical action....seems like emotionally charged overkill.
Paul Taylor
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 9:40 a.m.
I wonder, Halflight: If a person chokes a dummy with piano wire, thinking it is an actual person, is it attempted murder?
Basic Bob
Sun, Nov 7, 2010 : 8:14 a.m.
First off, giving porn to a child is illegal. I get that. Prosecutors pepper the defendants with a multitude of charges for the same basic offense, in order to plea bargain down to a lesser charge. But this comes down to one bad act against one fictitious person. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
robyn
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 11:05 p.m.
I agree Tru - every citizen is entitled to a fair trial - no matter what they have done. I am not a big proponent of 'big brother' mentality - however, I do support this type of proactive police work. If the REAL intent is there, a person will carry out what they have started. I see this type of investigation as no different than an undercover operation in which a person is trying to hire a 'hit man'. If the police do not intervene before the crime is committed - the damage is already done. I also think these types of stories have a bigger effect upon parents - especially when, for all intents and purposes, the victim is rather random... We do so much to protect our kids (no matter how old they are) and we KNOW that there is always the possibility that no matter what we do, they can still be victimized.
robyn
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 9:22 p.m.
The simple fact that he THOUGHT he was engaging a 14 year old in this type of interaction means his intent was REAL. This man is a predator. He just uses the internet to hunt for victims. As a parent of a young teenage girl - I can assure you that he is far safer in police custody than he would be if he ever did that to my daughter. There are some people that do not merit defending - their actions are so utterly alien to any normal human way of thinking - I have to wonder about a person that would find an excuse or defense for a piece of garbage like that. He pled guilty - he admitted to doing this...
halflight
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 7:10 p.m.
@Paul Taylor said: Entrapment No; if he had the factual grounds for that defense, his attorney would have argued it. The officers who do this know that they can't initiate the sexual conversation or proposition the suspect. That is entrapment. What they do is make themselves appear to be vulnerable adolescents, stating an age that is clearly below the age of consent, and wait for the suspect to violate the law. There were no kids involved. Doesn't matter. All that matters is that 1) he believed that he was communicating with a minor; and 2) he sent the person he believed to be a minor sexual graphic material and/or propositioned that person for sexual contact. If a man lobs a bomb into an empty house, when he believes that there are people inside, he's guilty of attempted murder, even if he was incorrect in his beliefs about the presence of people. In the same way, someone is guilty of propositioning a minor, even if he mistakenly believes that the person he propositions is a minor. Potential crimes? Yikes! Have we always been at war with Oceania? No, "potential crimes" have been crimes for centuries. Just because you're an unsuccessful criminal doesn't mean that you're not guilty of a crime.
sbbuilder
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 7:07 p.m.
Well, the article says "...and three counts of accosting children for immoral purposes." Multiple counts, and more than one child. It's not totally clear, I guess, if the two cases are related. Suffice it to say that this guy was bent on some serious transgression, and was interrupted before the act. Are you playing devil's advocate here? Apart from some terrorist stuff, you rarely hear of a criminal act being stopped before commission. The child cyber crimes units have been very successful in weeding out ther perps. Someday they may wisen up, until then I hope they keep taking the bait hook, line, and mouse, err sinker.
Basic Bob
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 6:25 p.m.
@sbbuilder, I'm curious, what priors are on his record? I believe the two court cases are about virtual contact with the same alleged 14-year-old girl.
Paul Taylor
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 5:06 p.m.
@sbbuilder: Not child porn, but child sexually abusive material, which, translated, means material of a sexual nature that is considered harmful to children. Now, had an actual child been the recipient... Potential crimes? Yikes! Have we always been at war with Oceania?
sbbuilder
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 4:53 p.m.
He's pleaded guilty to distributing child porn, and three counts of accosting children. He's already way, way, way, over the line. There are already children involved. It's not about children per se, nor even the act itself. It's about dominating and controlling someone to fulfill your twisted fantasies. This person (barely) has chosen children to live out this evil plan. With the priors on his record, I hope he never sees the light of day again. Some children were saved from some potentially hideous experiences. Who cares about entrapment? I'm sure law enforcement has been down this road plenty of times already, and the evidence will stand up in court.
Paul Taylor
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 4:01 p.m.
Entrapment. There were no kids involved. His behavior might be scandalous and all, but in the end, no minors were involved. Doesn't law enforcement have bigger fish to fry, like, say, people who actually commit crimes with actual victims, or enforcing jaywalking laws?
shepard145
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 3:49 p.m.
Wow. There is a cure for guys wanting sex with teen girls but parents have to plan early: make sure your son has a sister. My sisters were train wrecks of awkward rage from about 13 until college. The fact that he was actually seeking out such a creature makes me fairly certain this dude had no sisters.
tdw
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 2:26 p.m.
@ Bob it says he believed it to be a 14yr old and was actually a undercover investigator.It was an adult pretending to be a kid.SOP
sbbuilder
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 1:37 p.m.
Congrats to the police force for preempting anything really bad. This is akin to catching an arsonist before he torches a building, or a rapist before doing his evil deed. Were it not for the 'cruel and unusual' bit of our penal code, I would strongly advocate for castration for these types. Once they head down this road, there is no coming back.
Basic Bob
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 1:32 p.m.
It is wrong to use a 14-year old as an undercover investigator.
robyn
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 1:22 p.m.
So colossally creepy. Lots of people are really stupid and would fall for a trap - but how many are THAT creepy that they'd fall into THAT kind of trap??? EEwww. Eeewww. EEeewww.
Tom Joad
Sat, Nov 6, 2010 : 11:34 a.m.
How can anyone be so colossally clueless? The police actively troll the internet for these guys and he bit the bait, hook-line and sinker...