Let's see what Amy Peterman claims is "not a violent crime"

As reported by the free press in the above post, 39th District Michigan State Representative Republican candidate Amy Peterman, despite being a mother herself, feels that the crime of first degree sexual conduct (with a 5 year old no less!) does not constitute a "violent crime." (link to the original story.)
I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert, but I wanted to get a better idea of what exactly "first degree sexual conduct" means in the state of Michigan. Maybe Amy Peterman is right, maybe this isn't such a big deal after all.
So I did a bit of research on google, to track down the statute which defines this crime. Here's what I found:
Link to the Michigan criminal statute which defines first degree criminal sexual conduct.
Again, I'm no expert, but here are some of the points/quotes I was able to gather from reading this statute:

"Basically, first and third degree criminal sexual conduct involve penetration. First degree involves aggravating circumstances."

"A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if he or she engages in sexual penetration with another person and if any of the following circumstances exists..." Some of the circumstances listed include causing personal injury or using force to accomplish the sexual penetration.

"Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years."

Well folks, there you have it. The crime which Amy Peterman insisted was "not a violent crime" involved penetration of a five year old, possibly also including force or causing injury to the child. It's painful to even write these words, let alone to imagine the horror and extreme violence of such a crime. This is a crime which is punishable by up to life in prison!!
Yet Amy Peterman, a mother herself, stood calmly in court that day and asserted that this most horrific and violent of crimes (violent penetration of a five year old!!) was "not a violent crime."
Amy Peterman could have made many arguments for her client that day. She could have argued that he was disturbed, he had ADD, he was provoked or troubled, had a troubled childhood, etc., etc. . But she made none of these arguments. Instead she calmly and forcefully asserted that violent penetration of a five year old was not a violent crime.
Any person who can demonstrate such a lack of integrity and moral character is unfit to be elected in any capacity.