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; 52653 views.
Cstar1
Host

From: Cstar1

9/5/13

State Asks High Court to Block Rape Case Hearing

ABC News - ‎19 minutes ago‎
Montana's attorney general has asked the state Supreme Court to block a judge's attempt to resentence a former Montana teacher convicted of raping a student.
Jeri (azpaints)

From: Jeri (azpaints)

9/6/13

Hopefully the AG wins his case and the case goes to the SC for appeal....at least that makes him serve more time!
Cstar1
Host

From: Cstar1

9/6/13

I'm not sure which would be better. I found that story confusing.
CruisingCats

From: CruisingCats

9/6/13

I don't know how I feel about this, honestly. I think the rapist should have gotten many years in prison. And I feel the judge needs to be required to step down. But should someone be sentenced, then be required to be resentenced for the same crime?
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
TOP