I read the link, Denny. Did you read my post? The JUDGE said the girl was in control. That is disputed. Are 14 year old students as in control as a 49 year old teacher? The JUDGE said it was consensual. That is disputed. Can a child give consent to a person with power over her? How do you know there was no suicide note? Or that the girl was not expressing a wish to kill herself? Rape victims nearly always say they wish the rapist had just killed them too. Throw in puberty and possible depression and it's hardly a reach. He did not meet the terms. That's why the prosecutor asked for 20 years with 10 suspended. Would you be saying this if it was a boy? Did you say this about Sandusky? I sure don't recall seeing it. I have read enough rape apologies to give me diarrhea for the rest of my life. I know one when I see one. And I just knew that sooner or later someone here would post one.
The judge listened to the girl's testimony that was recorded before her death. You didn't. So why is your uninformed opinion worth more than his? (it isn't, sorry). He did meet the terms of his agreement. 3 years of sex offender treatment. He's still undergoing it. I make no apologies for the rapist. He is 49 she was 14, like you said. We have all these prosecutors and judges behaving like it wasn't forced rape. They know the facts better than you or I. QUOTE: But he was terminated from the program in November, when it was learned that he had been having unsupervised visits with minors and had not informed his counselors that he had been having sexual relations with a woman. The violations were serious enough when taken together to kick Rambold out of the program, although it was learned that the minors Rambold was visiting were family members. Rambold's attorney, Jay Lansing, argued Monday for the suspended sentence. He said Rambold lost his career, his marriage and his home and has suffered a "scarlet letter of the Internet" as a result of publicity about the case. Rambold has since continued his treatment with a different program, Lansing said, and an evaluation found that he is a low risk to re-offend and could be treated in the community. Rambold's criminal history includes only a traffic violation, but now he will be required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, the attorney said. Lansing asked the judge to "consider how he's been punished to this point." Baugh said he was not convinced that the reasons for Rambold's termination from treatment were serious enough to warrant the lengthy prison term suggested by the prosecution. Baugh said he listened to recorded statements given by Morales before her death and believes that while she was a troubled youth, she was "as much in control of the situation" as Rambold. The judge also said Morales was "older than her chronological age." Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/loc...f23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html#ixzz2dI9QHswI
As someone who deals heavily with judges, it has been my near 100% experience that liberal judges give these types of rulings. But what you and whatshername say is fair- I probably should have just left that part out. It really has no bearing in a way.
NOpe, he should be fired. I was not disagreeing with your point that he be canned, I was just pointing out that there may be multiple outrages, but that we shouldn't consider any of them greater than the act of rape.
The news often has similar stories. Usually it's a young boy and an older woman teacher. The teachers never get fired. Or almost never.
i vaguely remember a case from a decade(ish) ago where some teacher was accused and fired, only it came out that it was a total lie. Anyway, I think that usually the idea is to not fire him until there is proof or a conviction, but suspend him with pay to get him away from the kids until there is a chance to get proof. I was never the type to make those kinds of accusations, but I did have a teacher that was a nemesis of mine, I hated with a passion, and in fact almost got in a fist fight with. I could see someone more vile than me lying in such a situation to get some hated teacher fired.
Not to be supportive of the ruling or anything. The dude should be shot for taking advantage of a teen like that, consenting or not. But, when the expert witness dies and cannot testify; their testimony becomes "here say" because the defense cannot "cross examine the witness. So you can be pissed at the judge all you want, the liberal judge did his job. They cannot make a judgement based on his opinion. They must have a "blind eye" and only look at the evidence. Obviously the prosecution didn't have enough to put the man away. As far as the school system; they cannot fire without determination and since he was not found guilty, they cannot fire him.
I am not a lawyer, so I could be totally wrong, but if my hours of watching Law and Order are correct, any plea is a suggestion to the Judge, so Lawyer X and Defendant Y agree to a plea of grand theft auto and 3 months in county lockup. Most of the time the Judge will go along with that, but the Judge can accept the guilty plea and then decide to change the lockup to 1 year. I could very well be wrong on this.
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/evid/evid-804.htm ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable (a) Definition of unavailability. "Unavailability as a witness" includes situations in which the declarant - (4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; Clearly the judge considered the statements of the victim as admissible, considering the article states that he listened to statements she made before her death, and considered them as relevant in the sentencing.
This happens all the time and there's hardly much outrage about it. I wonder if crandc cares about these teenage boys.. But they're probably taking advantage of the old female teachers in some way, right? That being said, I'd shoot the rapist myself.
Well, yeah. If you google "teacher sex" you'll get many thousands of hits. Teachers busted all the time having sex with students. The thing that makes this case stand out, IMO, is the suicide. Also, I've generally believed all my life that whatever I (a guy) can feel, a woman feels, too. I think that's been correct, as I've not seen it wrong in all my years. So I figure: 1) if a young boy wants to have sex with a teacher, so do young girls 2) if a young boy wants to have sex with a teacher, so do young gay boys etc. So you're going to see older person/child relationships of all kinds.
Crandc's concerns was right on the money, and judge issues an apology for his statements: Moralez's mother, Auliea Hanlon, was angered by the sentence and stormed out the courtroom, shouting "You people suck!" She testified at the hearing that the rapes of her daughter were a major reason for her suicide, and she asked the judge to order Rambold to prison. Hanlon issued a statement Tuesday saying she "looked on in disbelief" at the hearing. "I guess somehow it makes a rape more acceptable if you blame the victim, even if she was only 14," Hanlon said in the statement. The judge's statements were picked up by numerous national and international news organizations and sparked outrage among many people, including the Montana chapter of the National Organization for Women. A petition seeking Baugh's resignation is being circulated, and a protest has been planned for Thursday. Baugh said Wednesday morning he regrets the statements he made during the court hearing. He also submitted a letter to the editor for publication in The Gazette, stating he is "not sure just what I was attempting to say, but it did not come out correct." "What I said is demeaning of all women, not what I believe and irrelevant to the sentencing," Baugh said in the letter. "My apologies to all my fellow citizens." Baugh said he plans to write an addendum to the court file this week explaining his reasons for the sentence he imposed more thoroughly.
I think if her statements were made in affidavit form, they're as if they were actual testimony; not hearsay. Hearsay would be if the mother said, "she told me she wanted to kill herself because ...." That's her mother putting words in her mouth that may or may not have really been said.
That's one of those simple things that I believe, and I don't see why it's so hard for other people to understand. People always want to assign a group a problem, and the people that do this the most are the ones who think they are in a group that is constantly attacked, even when it's not.
With regard to sentencing, a judge can consider many different factors when making a decision and hearsay is allowed during a sentencing hearing
