The mandated treatment was 3 years, he served over 2.5 of those before getting kicked out for what looks like fairly minor violations. He joined another program and is still serving. FWIW
Skipping meetings and taking chances with the conditions of the plea agreement demonstrates a lack of remorse. He got off light to start with and didn't take the treatment seriously. It raises questions about his commitment to rehabilitate.
I think the original judge and prosecutors made a bad deal with the guy. Blame them. At this point, the judge made a reasonable decision. I read somewhere that he's really thrown the book at rapists in other situations where he was the guy presiding over the case.
Certainly not conclusive, but here's some input more valid than any of our opinions: http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20130829/US--Teacher.Rape.Case/ Also, I think it's important to note that according to this same article, the sentence is apparently not ironclad.
Hell no. The man "groomed" and then raped a 14-year old who later committed suicide in part to his treatment of her. That's called murder. Sexual grooming, rape, murder of a 14 year old and he gets nothing for it? I think the judge's mental condition needs to be called into question, removed and a new trial with a real judge.
Sibonas or whatever his name is actually argues against this in this thread. I think the guy is possibly a pedophile. Reading his posts again, plus the stuff he's posted in the past, wow.
We have members of our society that are entrusted to take a partial parental role in our society. Clergy and educators are two of the largest groups. When they violate that covenant, they deserve a harsher punishment than others who commit the same acts but aren't given that trust. Instead, the Catholic Church moves priests to different parishes and teacher unions defend these pieces of excrement. It's a world gone mad. The only way to weed these maggots out is to put them prison for life. If it happens enough times, perhaps others won't commit the same acts.
16 I think the term is confusing, though. By "consent" I meant that he didn't commit a forcible / physical / brutal sort of rape. For months she made time to be with him, so it wasn't against her will.
But the whole idea of these laws is that it doesn't matter if she is willing or not, she does not posses the mental faculties or the emotional stability to "consent". We try to protect the weak in our society, and those that are supremely manipulable are weak. We have laws that keep hucksters from cheating the elderly, and we have laws keeping creeps away from those below the age of consent.
I guess I'm just saying that by the law she's unable to consent at 14 ... so the judge's comments about her "being older than her chronological age" or "in control" don't really hold water from a legal perspective.
All that is fine. It should have been brought up at his trial. But he didn't have a trial because a previous judge accepted a deal between him and the prosecutors. The guy didn't get 30 days for rape, he got 30 days for violating the terms of his bargain.
True. It clearly factored into the deal the prosecutors made with him. It also factors into whether the guy is a threat to abduct and beat and rape someone.
