Montana judge defends 30-day sentence for rape

[OttoVonBismarck]

There were two major mitigating factors, to my mind. This was her teacher, not just some random guy. And she committed suicide a year after the relationship ended.

Those would actually be aggravating, not mitigating factors (at least if I read your intentions correctly.)

Those are the two major things that stick with me. Yes, I have a problem with an adult well past his teen years having sex with a 14-year-old, but I would likely have understood a suspended sentence if that were it. It isn't. This man was her teacher. That should be a major factor in any sentencing. Second, she committed suicide. It's hard to believe that the situation surrounding this case didn't factor into her decision to end her life.

Those two things are where my outrage stems from. Those two factors should have, imo, netted him at least a few years behind bars. That the judge chose not to is a problem for me, but not nearly as big of a problem as having the judge say that the girl was a willing participant and older than her years.

The teacher thing would be legally relevant here in Virginia, the statutory rape law has accelerated penalties for adults in a position of authority over the minor. The suicide issue is something that typically would come up at sentencing, and it did. And it typically is the job of the sentencing authority to determine how important that is. In states where juries determine the sentence they will hear testimony about stuff like that and 1) decide if it was credible and 2) decide if they think it warrants a harsher sentence, in Montana a judge appears to be the one to take that into account. So it's within his discretion to hear the testimony about the suicide and either dismiss it as too biased because it was the girl's mother or interpret it as not being worthy of elevating the sentence (that would be harder for me to understand, but it is within his discretion regardless of his reasons.)

No matter what Berkut says, that's taking some of the blame off the teacher and putting it on the girl. Taking it back does not change the fact that he said it, and presumably at the time, meant it. He followed the law, but I think that he believes that the girl was equally at fault for the relationship.

It's possible in the lengthy testimony or fact finding stage of all this information came out that informed the judge's view that the girl was possible an enthusiastic participant in this stuff and that may be what lead him to make such comments. But yes, I would agree you can't easily reconcile calling someone an "equal participant" in a sexual relationship when the relationship itself is illegal because the law deems such relationships are inherently an example of an adult taking advantage of a legal minor's less developed judgment.

[merithyn]

There is such a thing as statutory rape because as a generalization most minors are incapable of making informed judgements about fucking.  Just as a generalization we say most 12 year olds lack the judgement to drive a car and most 16 year olds lack the judgement to cast a vote.  But in the end they're all arbitrary lines which pick up some false negatives and some false positives.

Just because as a legal convention we say that a 14 year old cannot consent does not mean that every single 14 year old is metaphysically incapable of willfull, informed decision to enter into a sexual relationship.

For the record I agree with Biscuit; dude should have gotten at least a couple years in the can.

Absolutely. That's why the fact that she had sex with him wasn't the bigger issue. It was that she was an EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE STUDENT having sex with her TEACHER which later ended with her suicide.

[merithyn]

I think you mean "aggravating" factors. "Mitigating" means the opposite.

Of the two, to my mind the most significant factor was the teacher relationship, which I agree ought to be a serious aggravating factor leading to a more significant punishment. The suicide thing I'd need more evidence about.

Yes, that.

[dps]

Just because as a legal convention we say that a 14 year old cannot consent does not mean that every single 14 year old is metaphysically incapable of willfull, informed decision to enter into a sexual relationship.

A good point.  When I was growing up, the age of consent here was 14, and then it was changed to 16.  Did teenagers change all of the sudden five years ago?

Beyond that, when Meri says that there's no way a 14-year old student could be as in control of the situation as a 54-year old teacher, that just isn't true.  When I was 14, some of my fellow students could have easily physically overpowered some of the teachers--and yes, some of the girls could have overpowered some of the male teachers.

Mind you, what this guy did would have been a crime no matter what, because she was under his care (in his capacity as a teacher).

I'm not sure about that one.  In the US at least, there's a lot of variance in the law.

[merithyn]

Beyond that, when Meri says that there's no way a 14-year old student could be as in control of the situation as a 54-year old teacher, that just isn't true.  When I was 14, some of my fellow students could have easily physically overpowered some of the teachers--and yes, some of the girls could have overpowered some of the male teachers.

I meant having equal control in a relationship that involves a teacher/student relationship with a signficant age difference. The judge implied that the student was an equal participant. I argue that under the circumstances, that wasn't possible.

[Neil]

Beyond that, when Meri says that there's no way a 14-year old student could be as in control of the situation as a 54-year old teacher, that just isn't true.  When I was 14, some of my fellow students could have easily physically overpowered some of the teachers--and yes, some of the girls could have overpowered some of the male teachers.

I meant having equal control in a relationship that involves a teacher/student relationship with a signficant age difference. The judge implied that the student was an equal participant. I argue that under the circumstances, that wasn't possible.

But really you don't.  You assert that it wasn't possible.  Arguing would imply that an argument is being made.

[Berkut]

...the whole "rape-rape" argument is bullshit, it isn't just the judge or the "patriarchy" that is differentiating between traditional forcible rape and physically consensual but illegal sexual contact between adult and minor, the law itself and by extension society has made a distinction between those two crimes and finds one to be much less serious.

You won't care, of course, but those who make arguments about "patriarchy" generally hold that "the law itself and by extension society" are constructed to support it.

Saying that the law and society is the reason for something does not in any way counter an argument that the patriarchy is to blame.

It's probably easier and more effective to go with a Monkeybuttian ridicule and dismissal strategy in this case.

But unless Meri is arguing that the penalty for statutory rape should be just as severe as the penalty for forcible rape (which I don't think she is) then the fact that the law makes a distinction and the reasons for the distinction don't make any difference.

I think Meri, once she calms down (women!) is actually arguing that not only is there a difference between forcible and statutory rape, but that there is a difference between various types or maybe severities of statutory rape.

And I would agree, and given the general category, what this guy did falls on the more severe side.

Although I do think that even at that, there are still additionally mitigating circumstances. There is a difference between a man or women succumbing to an offer of sex from a minor, and a man or woman attempting to manipulate such an offer (or manipulate the lack of a refusal even). So that pushes it (slightly) back away from the worst offenders in the "statutory" bucket.

[Berkut]

The fact that she committed suicide shortly after all of this blew up indicates a number of things. This was clearly an emotionally unstable child that this teacher manipulated into having sex. From that, stemmed a trial where this child had to confront him, deal with a judge, explain herself, and defend her own actions. Adults quail at the thought of doing this, but this child had to follow this through. While doing so, something broke her enough to make her take her own life. It seems odd to assume that it was being mad at mom under these circumstances. I'd think a reasonable assumption would be that the situation that she now found herself in as a result of her relationship with her teacher affected her so badly that she felt that dying was better than living. In other words, having slept with this teacher and all of the baggage that came with it resulted in a situation that she could not live with. All of which stemmed from a relationship that all parties involved - except maybe the teacher - agree that she was too young to be able to agree to in the first place.

There is a LOT of supposition there.

[merithyn]

But really you don't.  You assert that it wasn't possible.  Arguing would imply that an argument is being made.

Hmm. Okay. Given the examples provided below, I argue that the relationship between this teacher and this student was detrimental to the student, and there could be no "mutual consent" given the power imbalance between them.

"Physical intimacy with students is not now and never has been acceptable behavior for academicians. It cannot be defended or explained away by evoking fantasies of devoted professors and sophisticated students being denied the right to 'true love.' Where power differentials exist, there can be no 'mutual consent.'"

Dzeich argues that much damage occurs because of the betrayal by someone that the student trusted and respected. Moreover, seduction attempts which are masked by pretenses to academic and personal attention are particularly damaging because the student feels complicit in their own abuse.

Dzeich, Billie Wright and Linda Weiner (1990). The Lecherous Professor: Sexual Harassment on Campus, University of Illinois Press

There is also the question of the abuse of trust. This occurs when the trust associated with a professional relationship is destroyed because of non-professional actions or requests for non-professional actions. Martin writes, "Teachers are in a position of authority and trust to foster the intellectual development of their students. When they engage in sexual relations with a student, they violate that trust implicit in a professional teacher-student relationship." http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/91aust.html

[DGuller]

The fact that she committed suicide shortly after all of this blew up indicates a number of things. This was clearly an emotionally unstable child that this teacher manipulated into having sex. From that, stemmed a trial where this child had to confront him, deal with a judge, explain herself, and defend her own actions. Adults quail at the thought of doing this, but this child had to follow this through. While doing so, something broke her enough to make her take her own life. It seems odd to assume that it was being mad at mom under these circumstances. I'd think a reasonable assumption would be that the situation that she now found herself in as a result of her relationship with her teacher affected her so badly that she felt that dying was better than living. In other words, having slept with this teacher and all of the baggage that came with it resulted in a situation that she could not live with. All of which stemmed from a relationship that all parties involved - except maybe the teacher - agree that she was too young to be able to agree to in the first place.

That's quite an elaborate story from quite a limited set of facts.

[merithyn]

The fact that she committed suicide shortly after all of this blew up indicates a number of things. This was clearly an emotionally unstable child that this teacher manipulated into having sex. From that, stemmed a trial where this child had to confront him, deal with a judge, explain herself, and defend her own actions. Adults quail at the thought of doing this, but this child had to follow this through. While doing so, something broke her enough to make her take her own life.

It seems odd to assume that it was being mad at mom under these circumstances. I'd think a reasonable assumption would be that the situation that she now found herself in as a result of her relationship with her teacher affected her so badly that she felt that dying was better than living. In other words, having slept with this teacher and all of the baggage that came with it resulted in a situation that she could not live with. All of which stemmed from a relationship that all parties involved - except maybe the teacher - agree that she was too young to be able to agree to in the first place.

There is a LOT of supposition there.

I bolded the facts. It seems to me that it's a fair assumption that this affected her decision to commit suicide.

[Berkut]

Well, just as an example, all these are NOT facts that we know are true from the story, and in fact are likely NOT true from what little understanding I have of how the law works:

-there was a trial.
I thought there was a plea agreement?

-she had to confront him
How do you know this? The article never said any such thing.

-she had to "deal with a judge"
Again, how do you know this, or what does it even mean?

-she had to "explain herself"
Again, what does this mean? How does explaining oneself lead to suicide anyway? Pure supposition that this had some material effect on her.

-she had to "defend her own actions"
Again, who says she had to do any such thing?

-something broke her enough that it "made her" take her own life.
She took her own life, we have no idea if that was a result of the rape, or if her getting involved in a sexual relationship with her teacher was a effect of whatever mental issues caused her to take her own life, or even if the two are entirely unrelated to one another. Lots of teens, sadly, take their own lives who are not raped. It is most certianly NOT a fact that the rape caused her to commit suicide.

While I do agree with you that all this affecting her decision to commit suicide is an assumption on your part, I do not agree that it is a fair one.

There is no compelling evidence that that is in fact the case.

[Berkut]

I did a quick google search, and found a little more detail in another article that seems a bit less hperbolic:

Souza said Rambold targeted a troubled young girl and violated his position of trust as a teacher by engaging in a sexual relationship with a student.

Rambold pleaded guilty to the single felony charge in April in a case that began in 2008, when school officials and police first learned of the sexual relationship between Rambold and the girl, Cherice Morales.

Rambold was placed on paid leave in April of that year and resigned from his teaching job three months later. He also surrendered his teaching certificate.

In October 2008, prosecutors charged Rambold with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, alleging that the then-49-year-old man had an ongoing sexual relationship with Morales, who was 14 at the time.

While the case was pending, and a few weeks before her 17th birthday, Morales took her own life.

The girl's death caused problems for the prosecution, and in July 2010 Rambold entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Yellowstone County Attorney's Office.

The agreement called for prosecutors to put the case on hold for three years. The charges would be dismissed, the agreement stated, if Rambold completed a sex offender treatment program and complied with other conditions.

Rambold also admitted to one of the rape charges, and he agreed that his admission could be used against him.

The case was revived last December, when prosecutors learned that Rambold had been terminated from the sex offender treatment program.

On Monday, the treatment provider, Michael Sullivan, testified that Rambold was terminated from the program last November after completing two of the three treatment phases.

Problems arose last August, Sullivan said, when Rambold began missing meetings. After meeting with Rambold, Sullivan said, the man appeared to be back on track with his treatment.

But he was terminated from the program in November, when it was learned that he had been having unsupervised visits with minors and had not informed his counselors that he had been having sexual relations with a woman.

The violations were serious enough when taken together to kick Rambold out of the program, although it was learned that the minors Rambold was visiting were family members.

Rambold's attorney, Jay Lansing, argued Monday for the suspended sentence. He said Rambold lost his career, his marriage and his home and has suffered a "scarlet letter of the Internet" as a result of publicity about the case.

Rambold has since continued his treatment with a different program, Lansing said, and an evaluation found that he is a low risk to re-offend and could be treated in the community.

Rambold's criminal history includes only a traffic violation, but now he will be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, the attorney said.

Lansing asked the judge to "consider how he's been punished to this point."

Baugh said he was not convinced that the reasons for Rambold's termination from treatment were serious enough to warrant the lengthy prison term suggested by the prosecution.

Baugh said he listened to recorded statements given by Morales before her death and believes that while she was a troubled youth, she was "as much in control of the situation" as Rambold.

The judge also said Morales was "older than her chronological age."

The case also resulted in a $91,000 wrongful-death settlement between School District 2 and Morales' family, who filed a civil lawsuit against the district.

Rambold had been warned by school officials in 2004 to avoid touching or being alone with female students.

[merithyn]

Well, just as an example, all these are NOT facts that we know are true from the story, and in fact are likely NOT true from what little understanding I have of how the law works:

-there was a trial.
I thought there was a plea agreement?

-she had to confront him
How do you know this? The article never said any such thing.

-she had to "deal with a judge"
Again, how do you know this, or what does it even mean?

-she had to "explain herself"
Again, what does this mean? How does explaining oneself lead to suicide anyway? Pure supposition that this had some material effect on her.

-she had to "defend her own actions"
Again, who says she had to do any such thing?

-something broke her enough that it "made her" take her own life.
She took her own life, we have no idea if that was a result of the rape, or if her getting involved in a sexual relationship with her teacher was a effect of whatever mental issues caused her to take her own life, or even if the two are entirely unrelated to one another. Lots of teens, sadly, take their own lives who are not raped. It is most certianly NOT a fact that the rape caused her to commit suicide.

While I do agree with you that all this affecting her decision to commit suicide is an assumption on your part, I do not agree that it is a fair one.

There is no compelling evidence that that is in fact the case.

She was required to make a statement that the judge (and the teacher) witnessed, as he used that as his reason for saying that it was a consensual relationship. She was asked during that statement what happened and why (explaining herself and defending her actions with the teacher).  I use the term "broke" to mean that she was not emotionally or mentally sound, or she wouldn't have committed suicide.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not it's fair to say that this situation directly affected her decision to kill herself. I believe it is.

[Razgovory]

So Meri, what would you rather have happen?