Luckily, the judge is up for re-election this year. Since this is Indiana, though, he'll probably get re-elected easily. After all, it couldn't have been rape-rape. They were married.
LINK (http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2014/05/16/man-convicted-raping-sleeping-wife-gets-years-home-detention/9184201/)
QuoteAn Indianapolis man convicted of raping his wife while she was asleep was sentenced Friday to eight years of home detention.
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.
After a two-day trial and several hours of deliberation, the jury found Wise guilty of one count of rape and five counts of criminal deviate conduct — all of which are Class B felonies, each punishable by six to 20 years in prison.
Catherine O'Connor, president and CEO of the Julian Center, which serves victims of domestic violence, said the sentence in Wise's case concerns her because it "might discourage other victims to report and pursue cases against people who commit violent crimes."
Wise was charged in 2011, after the woman told police that she had found sex videos of her on her now ex-husband's cellphone. The woman, 36, said she has no memory of the sex, of consenting to it or of the videos being taken.
The Indianapolis Star is not naming the woman because it typically does not identify people who are or may have been victims of sexual assault.
Marion Superior Court Judge Kurt Eisgruber imposed a 20-year sentence, with 12 years suspended and eight years executed through home detention. Wise also will be on two years of probation after the home detention is completed. In Indiana, a person on home detention is placed on a monitoring device and should be on constant supervision.
Peg McLeish, spokeswoman for the Marion County prosecutor's office, said the state asked the judge for a sentence that involves some prison time. She said the woman, who was not immediately available for an interview, is disappointed that Wise will not be incarcerated. A call to Wise's defense attorney, Elizabeth Milliken, was not returned Friday.
Eisgruber declined to comment on the sentence.
Jack Crawford, an Indianapolis defense attorney and former Lake County prosecutor, said he cannot comment specifically on the case, but generally, judges consider several factors in deciding on a sentence. A defendant's criminal history, employment status and likelihood of committing another crime are among those considerations.
"There's a multitude of factors in deciding what the fairest sentence is for all concerned," Crawford said, adding that Eisgruber has a reputation for being firm but fair in his sentencing.
Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, a Washington-based nonprofit that focuses on reforms of sentencing policy, said judges determine the risk to the public and to victims when they're deciding whether or not to incarcerate a defendant. Judges also consider whether a sentence could deter a person or others from committing a crime, he said.
"Rehabilitation is the other," Mauer said. "Would incarceration or living in the community make this person more or less likely to repeat this kind of behavior?"
Wise, who has no prior felony convictions, was married to the woman for 12 years. They were divorced in 2009.
In her testimony during a two-day trial last month, the woman said she had awoken several times when she was married to Wise feeling like her body had been "messed with." She told detectives she believed Wise had been drugging her since 2005. At one point, according to court documents, she said she woke up in the middle of the night with a pill dissolving in her mouth.
The assaults, based on the dates on the smartphone videos, happened in 2008. The woman went to police in 2011 with a copy of the videos. In her testimony in court, the woman said she didn't come forward sooner because she didn't want her two children, a son and a daughter, to grow up without a father.
Unlike most cases that are reported long after the alleged acts occurred, the woman's story is backed by video evidence, which, experts say, is a rarity among sexual assault cases that often rely solely on the victim's word against the word of the defendant.]An Indianapolis man convicted of raping his wife while she was asleep was sentenced Friday to eight years of home detention.
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.
After a two-day trial and several hours of deliberation, the jury found Wise guilty of one count of rape and five counts of criminal deviate conduct — all of which are Class B felonies, each punishable by six to 20 years in prison.
Catherine O'Connor, president and CEO of the Julian Center, which serves victims of domestic violence, said the sentence in Wise's case concerns her because it "might discourage other victims to report and pursue cases against people who commit violent crimes."
Wise was charged in 2011, after the woman told police that she had found sex videos of her on her now ex-husband's cellphone. The woman, 36, said she has no memory of the sex, of consenting to it or of the videos being taken.
The Indianapolis Star is not naming the woman because it typically does not identify people who are or may have been victims of sexual assault.
Marion Superior Court Judge Kurt Eisgruber imposed a 20-year sentence, with 12 years suspended and eight years executed through home detention. Wise also will be on two years of probation after the home detention is completed. In Indiana, a person on home detention is placed on a monitoring device and should be on constant supervision.
Peg McLeish, spokeswoman for the Marion County prosecutor's office, said the state asked the judge for a sentence that involves some prison time. She said the woman, who was not immediately available for an interview, is disappointed that Wise will not be incarcerated. A call to Wise's defense attorney, Elizabeth Milliken, was not returned Friday.
Eisgruber declined to comment on the sentence.
Jack Crawford, an Indianapolis defense attorney and former Lake County prosecutor, said he cannot comment specifically on the case, but generally, judges consider several factors in deciding on a sentence. A defendant's criminal history, employment status and likelihood of committing another crime are among those considerations.
"There's a multitude of factors in deciding what the fairest sentence is for all concerned," Crawford said, adding that Eisgruber has a reputation for being firm but fair in his sentencing.
Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, a Washington-based nonprofit that focuses on reforms of sentencing policy, said judges determine the risk to the public and to victims when they're deciding whether or not to incarcerate a defendant. Judges also consider whether a sentence could deter a person or others from committing a crime, he said.
"Rehabilitation is the other," Mauer said. "Would incarceration or living in the community make this person more or less likely to repeat this kind of behavior?"
Wise, who has no prior felony convictions, was married to the woman for 12 years. They were divorced in 2009.
In her testimony during a two-day trial last month, the woman said she had awoken several times when she was married to Wise feeling like her body had been "messed with." She told detectives she believed Wise had been drugging her since 2005. At one point, according to court documents, she said she woke up in the middle of the night with a pill dissolving in her mouth.
The assaults, based on the dates on the smartphone videos, happened in 2008. The woman went to police in 2011 with a copy of the videos. In her testimony in court, the woman said she didn't come forward sooner because she didn't want her two children, a son and a daughter, to grow up without a father.
Unlike most cases that are reported long after the alleged acts occurred, the woman's story is backed by video evidence, which, experts say, is a rarity among sexual assault cases that often rely solely on the victim's word against the word of the defendant.
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 02:23:18 PM
Luckily, the judge is up for re-election this year. Since this is Indiana, though, he'll probably get re-elected easily.
:huh:
There is enough blame to go around. In a functional marriage, the wife should put out without the man needing to resort to drugging her.
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2014, 02:30:30 PM
There is enough blame to go around. In a functional marriage, the wife should put out without the man needing to resort to drugging her.
Technically, he drugged her because she was "snippy". The rape came later.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2014, 02:30:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 02:23:18 PM
Luckily, the judge is up for re-election this year. Since this is Indiana, though, he'll probably get re-elected easily.
:huh:
The "rape culture" is pretty strong there...
Indiana lawmakers investigate alarming sexual assault statistics (http://fox59.com/2013/10/31/indiana-lawmakers-investigate-alarming-sexual-assault-statistics/#axzz32TTZZY10)
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 02:34:02 PM
The "rape culture" is pretty strong there...
Uh, if you say so...
I don't really want to speak to this case (I've actually been avoiding articles I saw on it -_-) but on a tangent - I'm not sure how home detention works. I wouldn't want to go to jail - but I don't know how I'd not screw up being a prisoner in my home for 8 months.
Actually I'm wondering if you could be like - okay but first I'm moving my "home." My current apt isn't larger enough to accommodate, 8 years of at-home stay. :blush:
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2014, 02:30:30 PM
There is enough blame to go around. In a functional marriage, the wife should put out without the man needing to resort to drugging her.
Technically, he drugged her because she was "snippy". The rape came later.
:hmm: Ok, that does sound bad.
Rape is just a baffling thing to me. Supposedly it is just slightly less bad than murder but man it sure easy to get out of it and nobody seems particularly eager to enforce it. I have speculated that perhaps the penalties should be less draconian...but at the end of the day it is still a felony. Also it has all these damn gray areas since people consent to sex all the time but rarely consent to being killed. It is a serious problem but I have no idea what there is to be done about it.
If I could just drug people who were snippy at me, there would be a lot less violence in the world.
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2014, 02:37:34 PM
I don't really want to speak to this case (I've actually been avoiding articles I saw on it -_-) but on a tangent - I'm not sure how home detention works. I wouldn't want to go to jail - but I don't know how I'd not screw up being a prisoner in my home for 8 months.
Actually I'm wondering if you could be like - okay but first I'm moving my "home." My current apt isn't larger enough to accommodate, 8 years of at-home stay. :blush:
He's allowed to go to work (if he has a job), and I think do "normal" things like going to the grocery store. But he's required to be in his house for something like 12 hours a day or something like that.
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 02:43:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2014, 02:37:34 PM
I don't really want to speak to this case (I've actually been avoiding articles I saw on it -_-) but on a tangent - I'm not sure how home detention works. I wouldn't want to go to jail - but I don't know how I'd not screw up being a prisoner in my home for 8 months.
Actually I'm wondering if you could be like - okay but first I'm moving my "home." My current apt isn't larger enough to accommodate, 8 years of at-home stay. :blush:
He's allowed to go to work (if he has a job), and I think do "normal" things like going to the grocery store. But he's required to be in his house for something like 12 hours a day or something like that.
Well I guess that kind of sucks if he likes to go on vacations but otherwise meh.
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 02:43:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2014, 02:37:34 PM
I don't really want to speak to this case (I've actually been avoiding articles I saw on it -_-) but on a tangent - I'm not sure how home detention works. I wouldn't want to go to jail - but I don't know how I'd not screw up being a prisoner in my home for 8 months.
Actually I'm wondering if you could be like - okay but first I'm moving my "home." My current apt isn't larger enough to accommodate, 8 years of at-home stay. :blush:
He's allowed to go to work (if he has a job), and I think do "normal" things like going to the grocery store. But he's required to be in his house for something like 12 hours a day or something like that.
Oh that doesn't sound bad at all then. Comment withdrawn. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2014, 02:37:34 PM
I don't really want to speak to this case (I've actually been avoiding articles I saw on it -_-) but on a tangent - I'm not sure how home detention works. I wouldn't want to go to jail - but I don't know how I'd not screw up being a prisoner in my home for 8 months.
Actually I'm wondering if you could be like - okay but first I'm moving my "home." My current apt isn't larger enough to accommodate, 8 years of at-home stay. :blush:
It would be even worse if you found out your neighbor was a serial murderer.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2014, 02:38:23 PM
Rape is just a baffling thing to me. Supposedly it is just slightly less bad than murder but man it sure easy to get out of it and nobody seems particularly eager to enforce it. I have speculated that perhaps the penalties should be less draconian...but at the end of the day it is still a felony. Also it has all these damn gray areas since people consent to sex all the time but rarely consent to being killed. It is a serious problem but I have no idea what there is to be done about it.
I think a big part of the problem is rape outrage exhaustion. Too many acts that are not "decades of prison sentence" terrible are being called rape, so it's easy to become cynical about the whole concept.
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2014, 02:45:57 PM
I think a big part of the problem is rape outrage exhaustion. Too many acts that are not "decades of prison sentence" terrible are being called rape, so it's easy to become cynical about the whole concept.
That, plus it's a lot harder to prove than murder.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2014, 02:38:23 PM
Rape is just a baffling thing to me. Supposedly it is just slightly less bad than murder but man it sure easy to get out of it and nobody seems particularly eager to enforce it. I have speculated that perhaps the penalties should be less draconian...but at the end of the day it is still a felony. Also it has all these damn gray areas since people consent to sex all the time but rarely consent to being killed. It is a serious problem but I have no idea what there is to be done about it.
In this case, the guy videotaped the rape with his cellphone, wrote a letter to his wife admitting that he'd drugged and raped her for several years, and admitted in court to drugging her. Not much room for confusion regarding consent.
Often, I hesitate because it's almost always a he said/she said situation. But in this case, he was convicted and admitted it to her in writing.
And the judge's response was to tell the victim that she should forgive the guy because he's had a hard time about all of this.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2014, 02:38:23 PM
Rape is just a baffling thing to me. Supposedly it is just slightly less bad than murder but man it sure easy to get out of it and nobody seems particularly eager to enforce it. I have speculated that perhaps the penalties should be less draconian...but at the end of the day it is still a felony. Also it has all these damn gray areas since people consent to sex all the time but rarely consent to being killed. It is a serious problem but I have no idea what there is to be done about it.
With murder, you often have a dead body lying about, and that needs explaining. With rape, the very sex act may not be easy to prove unless the victim gets themselves to a rape kit pronto; and even proving that, doesn't answer the question of consent. It is especially difficult when dealing with ex-spouses.
None of that applies to the current case in the OP, though. Here, there is according to the article actual video proof produced by the perp himself. The fact of rape was established beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2014, 02:47:28 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2014, 02:45:57 PM
I think a big part of the problem is rape outrage exhaustion. Too many acts that are not "decades of prison sentence" terrible are being called rape, so it's easy to become cynical about the whole concept.
That, plus it's a lot harder to prove than murder.
It is absurd how hard it is to prove. That NFL case where the guy told his teammate he was going to rape the girl, everybody saw her unconscious, and he proceeded to do so and get her pregnant. All these facts were well known and it STILL was not enough to convict him. I mean geez it's crazy.
Quote from: Malthus on May 22, 2014, 02:48:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2014, 02:38:23 PM
Rape is just a baffling thing to me. Supposedly it is just slightly less bad than murder but man it sure easy to get out of it and nobody seems particularly eager to enforce it. I have speculated that perhaps the penalties should be less draconian...but at the end of the day it is still a felony. Also it has all these damn gray areas since people consent to sex all the time but rarely consent to being killed. It is a serious problem but I have no idea what there is to be done about it.
With murder, you often have a dead body lying about, and that needs explaining. With rape, the very sex act may not be easy to prove unless the victim gets themselves to a rape kit pronto; and even proving that, doesn't answer the question of consent. It is especially difficult when dealing with ex-spouses.
None of that applies to the current case in the OP, though. Here, there is according to the article actual video proof produced by the perp himself. The fact of rape was established beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.
True. I was just discussing rape in general.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2014, 02:49:30 PM
It is absurd how hard it is to prove. That NFL case where the guy told his teammate he was going to rape the girl, everybody saw her unconscious, and he proceeded to do so and get her pregnant. All these facts were well known and it STILL was not enough to convict him. I mean geez it's crazy.
I think that's why there's so much outrage when a case like this comes up, and the guy doesn't get any jail time at all. It's pretty much ignored/impossible to convict most of the time, so when it's a gimme, people want a bit more blood.
While the sentence may outrage some, they have to realize that there are two victims here. :(
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 02:51:18 PMI think that's why there's so much outrage when a case like this comes up, and the guy doesn't get any jail time at all. It's pretty much ignored/impossible to convict most of the time, so when it's a gimme, people want a bit more blood.
isn't that their problem? the man was convicted of rape. the judge examined the facts particular to this one case and ruled that based off what he saw, the husband did not deserve jail time. pure retribution is not always at heart of every criminal sentencing, thank god. there are lots of factors that come into play, such as recidivism. sometimes people disagree with judicial decisions, but that doesn't mean the judge was wrong
Quote from: LaCroix on May 22, 2014, 03:11:08 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 02:51:18 PMI think that's why there's so much outrage when a case like this comes up, and the guy doesn't get any jail time at all. It's pretty much ignored/impossible to convict most of the time, so when it's a gimme, people want a bit more blood.
isn't that their problem? the man was convicted of rape. the judge examined the facts particular to this one case and ruled that based off what he saw, the husband did not deserve jail time. pure retribution is not always at heart of every criminal sentencing, thank god. there are lots of factors that come into play, such as recidivism. sometimes people disagree with judicial decisions, but that doesn't mean the judge was wrong
:huh:
For three years, he drugged and raped his
wife. She trusted him implicitly, and he raped her... repeatedly... for years....
And you can't see how people might think the guy deserves a few years behind bars? I mean, I realize that it's not rape-rape, since you know, it was his wife and all... but still. Of the 80 years he could have gotten, nothing?
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:15:31 PM:huh:
For three years, he drugged and raped his wife. She trusted him implicitly, and he raped her... repeatedly... for years....
And you can't see how people might think the guy deserves a few years behind bars? I mean, I realize that it's not rape-rape, since you know, it was his wife and all... but still. Of the 80 years he could have gotten, nothing?
do you believe in the death penalty?
also, rape is rape - i don't adhere to the "rape-rape" philosophy
Quote from: LaCroix on May 22, 2014, 03:11:08 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 02:51:18 PMI think that's why there's so much outrage when a case like this comes up, and the guy doesn't get any jail time at all. It's pretty much ignored/impossible to convict most of the time, so when it's a gimme, people want a bit more blood.
isn't that their problem? the man was convicted of rape. the judge examined the facts particular to this one case and ruled that based off what he saw, the husband did not deserve jail time. pure retribution is not always at heart of every criminal sentencing, thank god. there are lots of factors that come into play, such as recidivism. sometimes people disagree with judicial decisions, but that doesn't mean the judge was wrong
It seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity.
Quote from: Malthus on May 22, 2014, 03:25:04 PM
It seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity.
I have yet to read a newspaper article which accurately describes a court decision to the degree necessary for me to become outraged by the decision without first having had the benefit of reading it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 22, 2014, 03:28:29 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 22, 2014, 03:25:04 PM
It seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity.
I have yet to read a newspaper article which accurately describes a court decision to the degree necessary for me to become outraged by the decision without first having had the benefit of reading it.
Hmm, no link provided, either. WHAT ARE YOU HIDING MERI???
Quote from: Malthus on May 22, 2014, 03:25:04 PMIt seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity.
of course, and the judge imposed a 20-year sentence. and the charge wise was convicted of did not require jail time, or even home detention - so, the judge wasn't exactly giving the husband the lightest sentence possible
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 22, 2014, 03:28:29 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 22, 2014, 03:25:04 PM
It seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity.
I have yet to read a newspaper article which accurately describes a court decision to the degree necessary for me to become outraged by the decision without first having had the benefit of reading it.
Fair enough. So let me rephrase my point: It
seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity.
Quote from: LaCroix on May 22, 2014, 03:21:11 PM
do you believe in the death penalty?
also, rape is rape - i don't adhere to the "rape-rape" philosophy
I believe that sometimes death is warranted. However, I do not believe that our system is good enough at truly determining guilt over innocence.
In this case, that's not an issue.
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:33:41 PM
In this case, that's not an issue.
Except, of course, in this case you have not actually read the case.
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2014, 03:30:11 PM
Hmm, no link provided, either. WHAT ARE YOU HIDING MERI???
:yeahright:
Check again, Chuckles. Link's at the top. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 22, 2014, 03:35:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:33:41 PM
In this case, that's not an issue.
Except, of course, in this case you have not actually read the case.
It says so much about modern media that the news is considered so worthless at being informed, even for a layman, that you need to actually go conduct your own investigation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 22, 2014, 03:35:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:33:41 PM
In this case, that's not an issue.
Except, of course, in this case you have not actually read the case.
Not sure that I need to. He admitted that he did it, and he was convicted. The question isn't if he did it, but whether the sentencing fits the crime. In this case, I don't believe it does.
Quote from: LaCroix on May 22, 2014, 03:31:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 22, 2014, 03:25:04 PMIt seems outrageous to me at least. Drugging and raping your wife - then filming the process - is a pretty significant violation of another person's integrity.
of course, and the judge imposed a 20-year sentence. and the charge wise was convicted of did not require jail time, or even home detention - so, the judge wasn't exactly giving the husband the lightest sentence possible
I'm not sure what you're saying here - I think you're missing some punctuation.
I would argue that zero jail time after being convicted of drugging and raping his wife for three years - and video taping it - warrants some jail time.
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:33:41 PMI believe that sometimes death is warranted. However, I do not believe that our system is good enough at truly determining guilt over innocence.
In this case, that's not an issue.
you're right, what is at issue is the general desire to see someone get what they "deserved"
we don't have the facts to this circumstance. he was punished, and whether it was a light punishment is subjective. either way, people always want more blood. that the judge made this decision does not mean he is hostile to women or accepts rape-culture
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:35:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2014, 03:30:11 PM
Hmm, no link provided, either. WHAT ARE YOU HIDING MERI???
:yeahright:
Check again, Chuckles. Link's at the top. :P
Oh, yeah. NOW it is :P
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2014, 03:41:49 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:35:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 22, 2014, 03:30:11 PM
Hmm, no link provided, either. WHAT ARE YOU HIDING MERI???
:yeahright:
Check again, Chuckles. Link's at the top. :P
Oh, yeah. NOW it is :P
:secret: There's no indication the OP was edited. :secret:
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.
Quote from: LaCroix on May 22, 2014, 03:40:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:33:41 PMI believe that sometimes death is warranted. However, I do not believe that our system is good enough at truly determining guilt over innocence.
In this case, that's not an issue.
you're right, what is at issue is the general desire to see someone get what they "deserved"
we don't have the facts to this circumstance. he was punished, and whether it was a light punishment is subjective. either way, people always want more blood. that the judge made this decision does not mean he is hostile to women or accepts rape-culture
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.
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:44:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2014, 03:37:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 22, 2014, 03:35:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:33:41 PM
In this case, that's not an issue.
Except, of course, in this case you have not actually read the case.
It says so much about modern media that the news is considered so worthless at being informed, even for a layman, that you need to actually go conduct your own investigation.
Not really a comment about modern media as a comment on the way court cases have always been reported in the media.
Quote from: Malthus on May 22, 2014, 03:43:50 PM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:37:29 PM
The question isn't if he did it, but whether the sentencing fits the crime. In this case, I don't believe it does.
Exactly. And that article has almost no information upon which you can make such a judgment. The only way you can really make an informed decision regarding whether the judgment of the court was reasonable is to read the decision so that you know all the factors the court took into consideration and how the court applied the applicable law.
If you dont know those things you really have no idea.
Quote from: Malthus on May 22, 2014, 03:43:50 PM
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
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:44:07 PMNo, 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.
QuoteEisgruber 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
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 22, 2014, 03:50:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 22, 2014, 03:43:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 22, 2014, 03:47:05 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:44:07 PM
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 (http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-indianapolis-rape-sentence-20140519-story.html#page=1)
QuoteBut 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."
Quote from: LaCroix on May 22, 2014, 03:59:35 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 03:44:07 PMNo, 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.
QuoteEisgruber 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
:huh:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 22, 2014, 04:03:24 PM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 04:12:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 22, 2014, 04:59:25 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 04:12:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2014, 05:01:58 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 22, 2014, 04:59:25 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 22, 2014, 04:12:50 PM
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". :lol:
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.
Something about this that bothers me is this bit:
QuoteThe 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.
What happens if you are under house arrest, and you lose your job and then have to sell your house?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2014, 05:39:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2014, 05:39:52 PM
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.
Well if Ide is correct this simply having the conviction is a fate worse then death.
Quote from: dps on May 22, 2014, 05:35:46 PM
Something about this that bothers me is this bit:
QuoteThe 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 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-nn-indiana-rape-judge-20140520,0,124239.story)
QuoteJoel 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."