Montana judge defends 30-day sentence for rape

[Eddie Teach]

I don't know what "rape-rape" is,

According to Whoopi, giving an underage girl roofies and then having sex with her while she's still saying no apparently isn't sufficient.

[merithyn]

"What I said is demeaning of all women, not what I believe and irrelevant to the sentencing.

I missed that. I'm sorry.

Nope, he never said that. In fact, he said exactly the opposite of that. He said the adult was guilty and it was not possible for her to consent. Hence, from the standpoint of culpability (which, btw, means "blame"), the blame was 100% on the teacher. That is what he said.

"Obviously, a 14-year-old can't consent."

it wasn't the same thing as rape-rape.

No, he said that because she had as much control over the situation as the teacher, it was not a forcible rape.

Which is simply true. All your anger and rage doesn't change that, and you aren't even arguing that it isn't the case.

This was a clear case of STATUTORY rape. I don't know what "rape-rape" is, and the judge certianly never uses that term. He simply states that is was not "beat up rape", ie not forcible.

Are you arguing that?

I'm saying that the affect on the girl was far more than he seems to be implying by saying that she has as much control over the situation as the teacher. In addition, there is no way that a 14-year-old can have as much control over the situation as a 54-year-old teacher. If they could, there would be no such thing as statutory rape. He may not have physically harmed her, but I cannot believe that he didn't actively manipulate her into that relationship. By the very definition of their relationship as well as their ages, he was absolutely the one in control of that situation.

[Maximus]

But certainly rules of common sense would apply. And no judge should just accept what the victims mother says about the victims suicidal motives at face value in contravention to other evidence to the contrary.

But when the judge weasels out of a damning statement, that's unassailable.

[merithyn]

It's unclear whether the testimony was at a sentencing hearing.  Unless I'm missing it in the articles (I did a word search), I don't know where Meri's "mother testified" quote comes from.

Link's at the bottom of the quote, Sparky.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'd have expected a longer sentence but:

1. In Virginia at least statutory rape and what we'd call "forcible rape" (just "rape" in the statute) are different crimes. The penalties for "rape" go up to life in prison, while statutory rape the penalties are much lesser. So 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.

2. We give judges discretion for a reason. While I'd argue he should have gotten a couple of years in prison for the crime based on the brief particulars I read in the articles I think this sort of outrage over a judge exercising discretion leads to far greater injustices than the occasional under-sentenced criminal. It leads to heinous things like mandatory minimums which give a judge no discretion to suspend or mitigate the sentence of a "genuinely good person, valuable to society or with strong support structures suggesting high likelihood of rehabilitating their behavior" and instead those people are consigned to long sentences because the letter of the law classifies their crime as serious enough to require a long sentence.

[merithyn]

Auliea Hanlon testified earlier at the hearing that her daughter's relationship with Rambold was a "major factor" in her suicide, and she begged the judge to order Rambold to prison.

"Please put him behind bars," the woman said.

Chief Deputy County Attorney Rod Souza had asked the judge to order Rambold to serve 20 years in prison, with 10 years suspended.

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.

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-senior-high-teacher-gets-days-for-rape-of-student/article_b1f84190-ef23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html#ixzz2dIjVBLJS

Here you go, Ide.

[Jacob]

...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.

[Neil]

Well, I guess he taught her a little something extra.

[Berkut]

It isn't any evidence that I find compelling.

I mean, if that was my daughter, no matter how minor I might consider his role in her death might be, my emotional stance will be 100% that I want him as severly punished as possible, and hence would absolutely testify that his actions were responsible for her death.

Which is why my testimony should not be given much weight, especially compared to testimony from actual professionals who might have had a chance to evaluate the girl in question, he mental state before and after the rape, and what role the rape may have had (or not had) in her death.

While I agree with this mostly, I also don't doubt that her mother would have known how much the relationship affected her daughter far more than just about anyone else.

Probably true, but not the point.

Her mother might very well, for all we know, know that her daughter committed suicide because her mother was a complete bitch. I doubt she would testify as such if that were the case.

Her mother might know that her daugher had serious emotional issues, and her hopping in bed with her teacher AND her suicide were both symptoms of those issues.

Either might be the case. Or any number of other possible explanations.

And even so, moms testimony is like to be identical in each case - "She killed herself because she was raped by that teacher".

Mom has incredible pressure on her to say that regardless of what mom really things or knows.

Which is why moms testimony isn't that compelling.

There's a huge difference between, "It was entirely consensual and the girl was older than her years" and "This relationship so affected my daughter that it was a major factor in why she killed herself."

Well yeah. But the two statements have nothing to do with one another. One is a statement that speaks to why the guilty party is going to get a certain sentence that would be very different if he forcibly raped her, and the other is simply the opinion of someone with completely overriding emotional commitment in the sentencing. The difference between the opinion of the judge, who presumably is objective, and the oppinion of the victims mom, he is certainly not even remotely objective.

And for what it's worth, I feel like the judge was between a rock and a hard place. I'm upset at the sentencing (and his justification for it), but he was going off what had already been agreed upon.

What do you think is an appropriate sentence for an adult engaging in consensual sex with a minor of that general age difference?

Personally, I agree that no jail time seems much too lenient. This isn't a 18 year old banging his 16 year old girlfriend. And he is a teacher. That makes this about as bad a "consensual" rape situation can be, so I would argue from what little I know that he should have done time. But that is just my opinion, and I would not call the outcome absent the latter parts of the story a travesty of justice.

If the prosecutors were okay with a 15-year suspended sentence before, it seems incongruous that they would suddenly - when the spotlight's now on them - ask for 10 years behind bars.

Indeed. If the 15 year suspended was ok, then not meeting the terms of the treatment program in the manner related does not strike me as a valid reason to throw the booka t the guy.

On the other hand, if the story was exactly the same, but with the outcome that this guy was then sent to jail to serve out some portion of his suspended sentence, I would not think THAT was a travesty of justice either.

See, I think judges SHOULD in fact be allowed to judge. And I accept that the result of that will be cases where IMO someone gets of a bit too lightlty, and some cases where IMO people get overly punished. Such is that nature of allowing people to make subjective judgements.

The reason I'm pissed off is that a suspended sentence is, imo, ridiculous for this crime. He deserves time behind bars for what he did.

Then say THAT is why you are mad, not all the other bullshit about rape-rape, culpability, suicide, and whatnot. None of that should even matter - if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, then it doesn't fit the crime no matter what the judge says about the victims role in the rape, or what happened to the guy afterwards.

[merithyn]

I'd have expected a longer sentence but:

1. In Virginia at least statutory rape and what we'd call "forcible rape" (just "rape" in the statute) are different crimes. The penalties for "rape" go up to life in prison, while statutory rape the penalties are much lesser. So 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.

2. We give judges discretion for a reason. While I'd argue he should have gotten a couple of years in prison for the crime based on the brief particulars I read in the articles I think this sort of outrage over a judge exercising discretion leads to far greater injustices than the occasional under-sentenced criminal. It leads to heinous things like mandatory minimums which give a judge no discretion to suspend or mitigate the sentence of a "genuinely good person, valuable to society or with strong support structures suggesting high likelihood of rehabilitating their behavior" and instead those people are consigned to long sentences because the letter of the law classifies their crime as serious enough to require a long sentence.

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 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.

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.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm saying that the affect on the girl was far more than he seems to be implying by saying that she has as much control over the situation as the teacher. In addition, there is no way that a 14-year-old can have as much control over the situation as a 54-year-old teacher. If they could, there would be no such thing as statutory rape. He may not have physically harmed her, but I cannot believe that he didn't actively manipulate her into that relationship. By the very definition of their relationship as well as their ages, he was absolutely the one in control of that situation.

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.

[dps]

...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.

[Malthus]

I'd have expected a longer sentence but:

1. In Virginia at least statutory rape and what we'd call "forcible rape" (just "rape" in the statute) are different crimes. The penalties for "rape" go up to life in prison, while statutory rape the penalties are much lesser. So 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.

2. We give judges discretion for a reason. While I'd argue he should have gotten a couple of years in prison for the crime based on the brief particulars I read in the articles I think this sort of outrage over a judge exercising discretion leads to far greater injustices than the occasional under-sentenced criminal. It leads to heinous things like mandatory minimums which give a judge no discretion to suspend or mitigate the sentence of a "genuinely good person, valuable to society or with strong support structures suggesting high likelihood of rehabilitating their behavior" and instead those people are consigned to long sentences because the letter of the law classifies their crime as serious enough to require a long sentence.

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 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.

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.

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.   

[Neil]

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?

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).

[merithyn]

Then say THAT is why you are mad, not all the other bullshit about rape-rape, culpability, suicide, and whatnot. None of that should even matter - if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, then it doesn't fit the crime no matter what the judge says about the victims role in the rape, or what happened to the guy afterwards.

All of those are aggravating factors, and are a large part of why I think the man deserves time behind bars.

It was rape-rape, in that this teacher held a position of power over this child, and used it to have sex with her. (At least, that's what the prosecuting attorney claimed.) Just because there weren't physical bruises doesn't mean that his actions didn't affect her just as badly as if there had been. THAT's where my issue with the whole "it's not really rape" comes from. In this case, it is. Not just because of the ages, but because of the situation compounding that issue.

The judge saying that the child was fully engaged in the relationship was completely out of line, which he admitted to. However, by saying it, he essentially took some of the blame off the teacher. The child knew what she was doing, she was older than her years. All of these things say, "She was at least partly to blame for what happened." Even if he backs up and says, "But of course, because of her age, it wasn't her fault," he's already put that out there. "It was her fault, really. I mean, maybe not by law, but yeah.. she knew what she was doing."

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.