GovWatch

Hosted by Cstar1|Webpage

A forum for posting about laws & pending legislation - both domestic & international, freedom of the press, & online privacy.

  • 1138
    MEMBERS
  • 6874
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Rape   Law & Disorder

Started 12/29/12 by Cstar1; 52880 views.
Jeri (azpaints)

From: Jeri (azpaints)

9/6/13

The story is confusing, but what I gathered is that the state has a minimum sentence for this crime.  The judge ignored the minimum sentence under the law.   

The AG immediately filed for an appeal of the incorrect sentence.   IMPO, the judge got so much heat, and he got 'edumacated' by his peers that he had given an inappropriate and probably illegal sentence to the rapist.  

So now the judge wants to hold a hearing (today) to change his sentence to meet the state law.  The AG and the Defense both state that the judge does not have the power to simply hold a hearing and resentence the offender.  The State Appeals court, per the AG, must now review the case and "officially" send it back to the judge with the order to change the sentence to comply with state law.

My comment meant that the Appeals Court hearing probably would take at least a couple of weeks, all during which the guy is in jail.  Then another couple weeks, if not longer, for the judge to set a hearing about a new sentence, giving time for both prosecutor and defense to file any motions.  Again, the offender is still in jail.  So, my comment meant that the original sentence was 30 days...but the appeal process could take much longer, all during which he is in jail - and then add the additional sentencing time.  He spends more than 30 days in jail just waiting to see how much time he will have to spend in jail.
Jeri (azpaints)

From: Jeri (azpaints)

9/6/13

Yes, if the sentence was against state law.

Say state law requires a burglar to get not more than 2 yrs, but the judge sentences him to 3 yrs.  Appeal, probably win down to 2 yrs because that is state law.

Same with this, I think, only in the reverse.  All parts of a trial can be appealed - and that is what is happening here.  See my post to CStar...
CruisingCats

From: CruisingCats

9/6/13

I've never heard of a sentence being increased, only appealed and possibly decreased. I'm not saying it isn't done, just that I haven't heard of it. And I'm not sure that it is right to do, even if the sentence was injustice in the first place.

Further, the guy is only spending 30 days in jail, so by the time this is all done he will have been released already. Remember, he has been in jail since the sentencing which was August 26th, I believe.
Jeri (azpaints)

From: Jeri (azpaints)

9/6/13

I read he is in jail and will be held in jail until the Appeals court reviews the case.

I think sentencing appeals are appropriate.  The states pass laws, such as sentencing requirements, to protect the public and reduce the probability of appeals to the US Federal courts.  The sentencing laws are designed to protect both the offender, the public and the victim  Discrepancies in sentencing can lead to a bunch of legal problems for the state.

A good example of mess ups that can result in sentencing laws being badly written is AZ's death penalty law that says if the jury can't decide, the judge can.  But..a huge but...the judge is not allowed to give a "definitive" sentence.  The judge can say "life with the possibility of parole" which under AZ law is a minimum of 25 yrs, then parole.  Or "life without parole", which is forever.   The recent Jodi Arias case shows that AZ needs to revise the sentencing.  They need to allow the judge to sentence the offender to "30 yrs to life" or "50 yrs to life".  If that makes sense?  If the judge had that option, I'd bet the case would be over now instead of endless appeals because the state doesn't want her paroled in 25 yrs (she'd still be young enough to get romantically involved and have the same ending).   The defense doesn't want "death".  If the judge could sentence her to a longer minimum than 25 yrs, the judge could make sure she was well into old age, less chance of sexual intensity?
CruisingCats

From: CruisingCats

9/6/13

Laws need to be changed, yes, I agree with that. I don't necessarily agree that someone can be sentenced, then get resentenced to a harsher sentence. And that's despite the fact that I feel he should have had the jail dropped on him.

And what I've read about this case says he wasn't charged with rape. He was charged with sexual intercourse without consent. (She could not give consent because of her age, no matter the circumstances.) Semantics, but important. Rape needs to be called rape and not euphemistically given 'nice' names.
  • Edited 9/7/2013 12:49 am ET by CruisingCats
Jeri (azpaints)

From: Jeri (azpaints)

9/6/13

I doubt that this state is the only one that has sentencing appeals processes - I don't think they normally would appeal from the prosecution side, but I don't disagree with the state's ability to do so.

I'll have to go look at the charging.   Some states don't use the specific word "rape"...many use more specific terminology.   I sat on a rape jury and one of the charges was "sexual assault with a foreign object", another one was "sexual intercourse with *something*" that meant p*nis (can't remember the term used in place of the sexual organ).   He got hit with both because he raped her with his p*nis, then with his fist.   
CruisingCats

From: CruisingCats

9/6/13

I dislike sanitized wording for rape. There is a huge pushback to stop allowing it by women's groups and I agree. In some states only vaginal rape is considered rape, not anal or oral. We have lawmakers subtly and not so subtly pushing for rape to be classified as rape only if it is 'forcible' rape. Being forced to perform oral sex is not called rape, even though it is! Calling rape anything but what it is makes it less compellingly wrong. It allows a relationship to be assumed between victim and perpetrator. The victim becomes assumed to be less of a victim and the rapist becomes assumed to be less guilty.

We have major colleges, such as Yale, that take rape reports, call them 'nonconsensual sexual conduct', then allow the perpetrator to walk. The victim gets to live with the shame and consequences of rape, most often being required to see their rapists on campus.

Victims of rape are blamed. They acted too slutty. They acted more mature than their years. They went out alone. They were drinking alcohol. They laughed at the ribald joke. (Although laughing is a common manifestation of discomfort it is assumed to mean that they liked it.) They accepted a kiss or petting, then called a halt to the activities and, well, boys can't be expected to stop. It's the victim's fault that she was raped. If she had only acted more lady-like or hadn't put herself in the position she wouldn't have been raped.

This is rape culture and it has to stop. We need to stop allowing the rapist to be considered a mere over-eager lover who got carried away by passion. We need to stop assuming that men will be men and are by nature aggressive and that women simply don't understand what they are getting into. Or that coercion into sex by someone who is manipulative or has greater power (boss, teacher, older man) is acceptable. Victims are made responsible for how they act, where they go, what they do, what they wear, and how others perceive them. Rapists are not held accountable for how they act. This is part of rape culture, as is calling rape anything other than what it is: RAPE.

CruisingCats

From: CruisingCats

9/7/13

I saw that earlier tonight. It is disgusting. We need to make it clear to everyone that it is unacceptable.
TOP