Montana judge defends 30-day sentence for rape

[DGuller]

I was all set to be outraged, but then read the article and actually thought about what it said and I am not so outraged.

I am very, very dissapointed Meri.

Agreed.  There are definitely a couple of material misrepresentations out there that are not apparent until you read the full story, no doubt designed to maximize the emotional outrage. 

First is referring to "rape" in the headlines (as well as the thread title, for that matter), which is assumed to be forcible rape.  Whatever your judgment is on the relative severity of statutory rape compared to forcible rape, forcible rape is assumed when "rape" without any qualifiers is used.  Secondly, this isn't sentencing, but re-sentencing.  The original sentence was the treatment.  The re-sentencing came about because the treatment was terminated.  The judge made his decision based on his judgment regarding the appropriateness of the treatment being terminated.

[DGuller]

what he did do to her certainly affected her. After all, she killed herself.

Holy fallacious logic!  People who commit suicide generally do a lot of things while they are still alive.  It doesn't mean that every single one of those things makes them more suicidal.

[merithyn]

Wow. Just... wow.

A 54-year-old teacher has sex with his emotionally unstable 14-year-old student, who later commits suicide, and you all are perfectly fine with him getting a whole 30 days in jail for it.

Well sure. What's the harm, really? I'm sure she asked for it. Probably wore short skirts and belly-baring tops, too.

[merithyn]

what he did do to her certainly affected her. After all, she killed herself.

Holy fallacious logic!  People who commit suicide generally do a lot of things while they are still alive.  It doesn't mean that every single one of those things makes them more suicidal.

Her mother very clearly stated that the girl's relationship with the teacher was a factor in the suicide.

[Berkut]

Oh, now I get it! It wasn't rape-rape! Well, that makes all the difference in the world.

Oh for Godsake that is hardly the point.  The victim blaming as part of the justification for the sentence is the point.  Obvious common sense indicates there are different levels of rape severity just like any other criminal activity. 

The judge can't even explain for himself what he meant. What does come across, however, is that he believes that the fault lays - at least partially - with the child. Ie, it's not really rape-rape.

But I am not sure taking sexual advantage of a minor that leads to a suicide is all that much better than forcible assault coupled with rape.

Which is pretty much my point.

He did not say that though.

He said that the child had some control over the situation, which means it was not a matter of forcible rape, but rather a matter of statutory rape. He is not blaming her. You can tell because he says that explicitly - "Obviously, a 14-year-old can't consent. "

He states straight out the opposite of the conclusion the article and you wish to say he is saying. Why insist that he means something he has come right and stated in perfectly clear terms he is NOT saying?

There is a difference between this 54 year old guy ambushing a 14 year old girl in the woods and forcibly raping her, and a 54 year old man having nominally (but obviously not legally) consenual sex with a (obviously) troubled 14 year old girl. And the sentencing should in fact be different.

And given that sentence, the guy getting kicked out of the facility for the reasons given (again, clearly having no connection to his actual crime) make the penalty imposed on him relatively reasonable. I don't know if it is the right legal penalty, but if you said "Hey, this guy was in a mandatory treatment facility for having engaged in statutory sex with a minor, and was kicked out for talking to his kids and having sex with his reasonably aged girlfriend when he wasn't supposed to" I would not at all be surprised that he gets a relatively lenient penalty.

If there was any hint of sexual improriety in his contact with said minors, that would be different. If the person he was having sex with was underage, that would certianly be different.

But all those things have to be, well, judged. And we pay judges to do exactly that.

What is there to be outrraged about here, when you talk about the actual FACTS that are known, rather than the emotionally charged and cherry picked interpretations?

I am more outraged that it is likely that this judge will lose his job for showing some discretion and thinking about the case rather than just doing what the howling masses want and throwing the guy in jail for 15 years that would accomplish exactly fuck all for him, society, or even the poor girl who killed herself.

[DGuller]

Wow. Just... wow.

A 54-year-old teacher has sex with his emotionally unstable 14-year-old student, who later commits suicide, and you all are perfectly fine with him getting a whole 30 days in jail for it.

Well sure. What's the harm, really? I'm sure she asked for it. Probably wore short skirts and belly-baring tops, too.

You're on a roll with making reasoned out statements.  You know, it's possible to point out the absurdity of the argument, or how it is based on misleading pieces of information, without making judgment on the conclusion being sought.

[Admiral Yi]

The girl was 14. The teacher was 54. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you guys don't see that as a major consideration? No, he didn't beat her, but what he did do to her certainly affected her. After all, she killed herself. Surely that means something.

I am disagreeing with your original ironic statement that there is no difference between forcible rape (rape-rape) and statutory rape. 

As to his age, I don't think it would have made much difference if he were 30 instead of 54.  There are diminishing returns to age in the Dirty Old Man Rule.

[frunk]

The girl was 14. The teacher was 54. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you guys don't see that as a major consideration? No, he didn't beat her, but what he did do to her certainly affected her. After all, she killed herself. Surely that means something.

I don't know, it was two years later.  I don't see how or in what way you could prosecute him for the suicide.  I'm sure what happened did affect her, but unless you can show that he specifically drove her to suicide in some way it isn't directly his fault.

[Ideologue]

Edit: okay, one year, still.

Meri, can't you see you're constructing an elaborate narrative out of only a few plot points?

All we do know is that at some point in the past a 54 year old man had sex with a 14 year old girl; and that she killed herself a year later.  (Her mother does say it's a factor.)

We do not know whether he used his position as a teacher to pressure her or whether her experience was the trauma that led to her suicide.  We also do not know the facts of the sexual activity, which may suggest that she was an active and engaged or even enthusiastic party, which, yes, should make a difference.

Not the difference between "crime" and "no crime," obviously.  No one is arguing that.  But if one cannot recognize a distinction between a girl actively pursuing a teacher and that teacher succumbing to a highly morally wrong temptation, and a teacher monstrously overwhelming a student under color of authority, and the dozens of varying possible situations between those, that's neither human nor humane.

[DGuller]

what he did do to her certainly affected her. After all, she killed herself.

Holy fallacious logic!  People who commit suicide generally do a lot of things while they are still alive.  It doesn't mean that every single one of those things makes them more suicidal.

Her mother very clearly stated that the girl's relationship with the teacher was a factor in the suicide.

That was a pretty big piece to leave out in the logical chain.  Of course, there are a couple of reasons why the mother's testimony is going to be unreliable, but that's another discussion.

[Berkut]

Wow. Just... wow.

A 54-year-old teacher has sex with his emotionally unstable 14-year-old student, who later commits suicide, and you all are perfectly fine with him getting a whole 30 days in jail for it.

That is just blatantly not true, and actively dishonest on a couple of levels.

1. Her later committing suicide is irrelevant to his sentencing, of course.
2. He did not get 30 days in jail for it, he got a suspended sentence and court mandated therapy.

And who said anyone is fine with that? I never did - I don't really know, to be honest. Not enough details of the case to know if that was appropriate it or not. The only details we have are those provided by an article that is very clearly biased and willing to be actively deceitful in its reporting, so who knows?

3. He got thirty days in jail for later violating said sentence by getting kicked out of the therapy.

Well sure. What's the harm, really? I'm sure she asked for it. Probably wore short skirts and belly-baring tops, too.

If you say so. I don't get the sarcasm, since nobody has made any such claim, you being sarcastically mocking makes no sense, should I assume you are serious? After all, of all the people involved, you are now the only person who suggests she "asked for it".

[Ideologue]

Berkut brought this to my attention:

Rambold was terminated from the program in November when it was learned that he had been having unsupervised visits with minors, who were family members, and did not inform counselors that he had been having sexual relations with a woman.

OK, the unsupervised visit with minors thing, that's arguable, but fine.  I guess that's erring on the side of caution.  Conceivably fucked up.

But isn't sexual relations with a woman what we want him to be doing?

Anyway, another thing that's not being noted, even though it's important, is that although Rambold is not going to gaol (although he could if it is a conditional suspended sentence), he is going to be registered as a sex offender.  Honestly, Meri's right.  We might as well execute him.

[merithyn]

Someone please explain to me how it would ever be acceptable for a teacher to have sex with his 14-year-old student, and then get 30 days for it. Under any circumstances, that is not okay. Then, add to it that a year later she commits suicide. And still... 30 days.

Sure, 15 years suspended, but big fucking deal. He didn't do what he was supposed to the first time around he got a whopping 30 days of the 15 years. (By the way, nowhere does it say that he talked to his kids. He talked to family members, but no one knows how they're related.) All he had to do was let someone know what was going on, but he couldn't do that.

And I'm sorry, but saying something like, "Well, it wasn't forcible, it was just statutory rape," is just bullshit. The reason we have those laws is because a child cannot give consent because they can't fully understand what they're doing or what those ramifications can be. I don't care if she climbed him like a tree. As the adult and her teacher (let's not forget that part), his responsibility was to prevent anything from happening.

Now, she's dead, and he is off pretty much scott free. Trying to see how justice was served, and just not able to.

[Barrister]

Wow. Just... wow.

A 54-year-old teacher has sex with his emotionally unstable 14-year-old student, who later commits suicide, and you all are perfectly fine with him getting a whole 30 days in jail for it.

That is just blatantly not true, and actively dishonest on a couple of levels.

1. Her later committing suicide is irrelevant to his sentencing, of course.

Uh, no.  If her suicide can be linked to having been abused by the teacher it is very, very relevant to sentencing.

[merithyn]

Berkut brought this to my attention:

Rambold was terminated from the program in November when it was learned that he had been having unsupervised visits with minors, who were family members, and did not inform counselors that he had been having sexual relations with a woman.

OK, the unsupervised visit with minors thing, that's arguable, but fine.  I guess that's erring on the side of caution.  Conceivably fucked up.

But isn't sexual relations with a woman what we want him to be doing?

Anyway, another thing that's not being noted, even though it's important, is that although Rambold is not going to gaol (although he could if it is a conditional suspended sentence), he is going to be registered as a sex offender.  Honestly, Meri's right.  We might as well execute him.

I'd have been happy with a few years behind bars instead of the poor little old man having to admit he fucked kids.