Man gets no jail time for drugging and raping wife

[LaCroix]

Seems to me the issue isn't whether the news story is accurate or not, something we can't know without looking up the case. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is.

the article doesn't say anything except for a basic summary. a news article can't reveal every fact a judge used in weighing his full decision, unless maybe it's some law blog or something

[LaCroix]

No, I'm going to say that the judge telling the wife that she should forgive her ex-husband because he's having a hard time about all of this is a bigger indicator of that.

Eisgruber said he made them in the spirit of "I hope that you can forgive him one day, because he's obviously struggled with this and struggled to this day, and I hope that she could forgive him.

neither of us know the facts that led the judge to say that. you're seeing the worst in this scenario, and it's coloring your view of the entire affair

[Malthus]

Seems to me the issue isn't whether the news story is accurate or not, something we can't know without looking up the case. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is.

Even making that assumption we have no idea what factors the Court took into consideration that might make the this judgment seem more reasonable - not really what the article was going for.  Much easier to ignore that such factors might exist and go for the shock value of the OMG look what that court did.

I'm struggling a bit to imagine any conceivable hypothetical scenario or list of factors that would make such a sentence reasonable, assuming the facts as reported are true.

[merithyn]

No, I'm going to say that the judge telling the wife that she should forgive her ex-husband because he's having a hard time about all of this is a bigger indicator of that.

Where does this detail come from? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see it in the news story.

Other articles.

LINK

But when asked to clarify his remarks to Boardman about forgiving her husband, Eisgruber said he made them in the spirit of "I hope that you can forgive him one day, because he's obviously struggled with this and struggled to this day, and I hope that she could forgive him."

[merithyn]

No, I'm going to say that the judge telling the wife that she should forgive her ex-husband because he's having a hard time about all of this is a bigger indicator of that.

Eisgruber said he made them in the spirit of "I hope that you can forgive him one day, because he's obviously struggled with this and struggled to this day, and I hope that she could forgive him.

neither of us know the facts that led the judge to say that. you're seeing the worst in this scenario, and it's coloring your view of the entire affair

Okay, so, a little social context here, which appears to be lacking. Never tell a victim of rape, or of any crime but definitely not rape, that she/he should forgive the perpetrator. Ever. That is not and never will be an okay thing to do. Even therapists don't tell their rape victim clients this. That is for the victim to decide, and certainly not for a judge to tell a woman right after letting her rapist off with a bracelet instead of jail time.

It kind of send the wrong message.

[crazy canuck]

I'm struggling a bit to imagine any conceivable hypothetical scenario or list of factors that would make such a sentence reasonable

Not surprising given the scant detail given in the report.

[Eddie Teach]

Okay, so, a little social context here, which appears to be lacking. Never tell a victim of rape, or of any crime but definitely not rape, that she/he should forgive the perpetrator. Ever. That is not and never will be an okay thing to do. Even therapists don't tell their rape victim clients this. That is for the victim to decide, and certainly not for a judge to tell a woman right after letting her rapist off with a bracelet instead of jail time.

It kind of send the wrong message.

Christians tell you to forgive everybody.

[Valmy]

Okay, so, a little social context here, which appears to be lacking. Never tell a victim of rape, or of any crime but definitely not rape, that she/he should forgive the perpetrator. Ever. That is not and never will be an okay thing to do. Even therapists don't tell their rape victim clients this. That is for the victim to decide, and certainly not for a judge to tell a woman right after letting her rapist off with a bracelet instead of jail time.

It kind of send the wrong message.

Christians tell you to forgive everybody.

They can take comfort their wrongdoers are all going to hell so it is a kind of passive aggressive forgiveness.

[Malthus]

Okay, so, a little social context here, which appears to be lacking. Never tell a victim of rape, or of any crime but definitely not rape, that she/he should forgive the perpetrator. Ever. That is not and never will be an okay thing to do. Even therapists don't tell their rape victim clients this. That is for the victim to decide, and certainly not for a judge to tell a woman right after letting her rapist off with a bracelet instead of jail time.

It kind of send the wrong message.

Christians tell you to forgive everybody.

They can take comfort their wrongdoers are all going to hell so it is a kind of passive aggressive forgiveness.

Heh, my wife is nominally a Christian, but I don't think she's the forgiving type when it comes to someone drugging and raping her. I think she's agree with Heinrich Heine in that case: "One should forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged". 

You don't even want to know what she'd do with a child abuser who laid a finger on our kid. Scaphism would be mild by comparison.

[dps]

Something about this that bothers me is this bit:

The sentence for 52-year-old David Wise, which came about two weeks after a jury trial late last month, is far more lenient than the minimum punishment on the crimes of which he was convicted.

Now, I'm not sure if that sentence in the article is accurate or not, but if it is, what's the point of having minimum sentences if judges can just ignore them?

And, before anybody says anything snarky, no, it's not the only part of the story I find bothersome, it's just that nobody else has commented on it.

[Razgovory]

What happens if you are under house arrest, and you lose your job and then have to sell your house?

[Valmy]

What happens if you are under house arrest, and you lose your job and then have to sell your house?

You are put on box-under-overpass arrest.

[derspiess]

What happens if you are under house arrest, and you lose your job and then have to sell your house?

Apparently the dude is already unemployed.  Wonder how long he can support himself on zero income.

[Razgovory]

Well if Ide is correct this simply having the conviction is a fate worse then death.

[merithyn]

Something about this that bothers me is this bit:

The sentence for 52-year-old David Wise, which came about two weeks after a jury trial late last month, is far more lenient than the minimum punishment on the crimes of which he was convicted.

Now, I'm not sure if that sentence in the article is accurate or not, but if it is, what's the point of having minimum sentences if judges can just ignore them?

And, before anybody says anything snarky, no, it's not the only part of the story I find bothersome, it's just that nobody else has commented on it.

That's a poorly written sentence. From some of the other articles that I read, what the author means is that it's far more lenient than is typical. The sentence is within the minimum sentencing guidelines.

LINK

Joel Schumm, a law professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, said that the judge's sentence was unusual, given the crime, but was still well within the state's sentencing guidelines.

"People are generally surprised [if] a crime like rape ... does not include prison time, even a first-time offense," Schumm said, noting that the "normal starting point" for B-felony rape was a 10-year prison sentence. (Indiana has four categories of felonies -- A, B, C and D felonies, with A felonies being the worst -- that carry different levels of punishment.)

However, Schumm added, under sentencing requirements for the B felonies for which Wise was convicted, "There's not a requirement that any of that time is in prison -- there's not even a requirement to be on home detention."