An eighteen-yearold male student sends Facebook messages to a fteen-yearold female student at the same residential prep school. These messages offer to meet the female

An eighteen-year—old male student sends Facebook messages to a fifteen-year—old female student at the same residential prep school. These messages offer to meet the female in a "hidden location on campus where sexual activity may ensue. Later the male student is charged with a variety of sexual offenses, including the "use of computer services crime, which is a felony. Notably, the jury acquits the male student of the Misdemeanor Sexual Assault statute of "sexual penetration; committed upon a child "who is over 13 years of age and under 16 years of age when "the age difference between the perpetrator and the child is 4 years or less.However, the defense counsel for the male student had conceded that the 18-year-old defendant's electronic communications did solicit the "child victim "to commit" the sexual penetration acts that are on the prohibited list in the computer crime statute. When the jury convicts the defendant of the computer crime, the accompanying penalties include the defendant's registration as a sex offender. His defense counsel concedes on appeal that the literal meaning of the text of the computer statute is clear, and that on the facts, the defendant is guilty of the computer crime. Even so, the defense counsel argues that if the literal meaning of the statute is applied by the court, then there will he "absurd results, and therefore, the statute should not he enforced against the defendant and his conviction should he reversed. More specifically, defense counsel argues that: 

1) the legislature was primarily concerned with the use of the computer and the intemet by "adult pedophile strangers," not students attending the same school; 

2) no conviction would have occurred if the defendant had solicited the same sex acts with the victim in a note or conversation, so it is absurd to convict the defendant based on his use of emails and Facebook messages.

1. What arguments can the prosecutor make to rebut these "absurd results arguments?