- Joined
- Jul 4, 2011
- Messages
- 33,023
- Reaction score
- 14,666
- Location
- Near Seattle
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
(CNN) -- She could have sentenced him to 20 years in prison after he admitted to raping a 14-year-old girl in her high school.
Instead, a Texas judge gave the defendant a 45-day sentence and probation after implying that the victim was promiscuous.
Judge Jeanine Howard told The Dallas Morning News that she based the sentence, in part, on medical records indicating that the girl had had three sexual partners and had given birth.
Critics fear the decision could discourage other victims from reporting rapes.
She told the newspaper that the victim "wasn't the victim she claimed to be" and said the defendant, 20-year-old Sir Young, "is not your typical sex offender."
"We're certainly concerned about the message that's being sent to victims of sexual assault," said Andrea Moseley, chief prosecutor for the Dallas County District Attorney's Office.
But it wasn't just the sentence that drew criticism; it was the type of community service Young was also sentenced to.
Young, who was a schoolmate of the victim's when the rape occurred in 2011, was ordered to serve 250 hours of community service at a rape crisis center. The center later said he was not welcome there.
So I didnt see it but he's not being charged with statutory rape? I guess because he was also a minor at the time. Was he charged because the laws states he must be charged because he had sex with a 14 yr old (like lots of 16 yr olds might do, for ex) or did he rape her?
If it was actually consensual sex (even if not legally consensual), then the fact that the girl was already sexually active may just have influenced the judge into choosing not to ruin the kid's life by sending him to a hard-core facility where he'd end up coming out a criminal. Just a possibility, I can only speculate.
Allen further claimed that the victim had agreed to have sex with Young, just not on campus, and "upon making this bad judgment, he admitted that he proceeded over her objections to stop, and he admitted that to the police."
"We don't think that he qualifies as your typical sex offender. This is not somebody who has preyed on some young kids or unsuspecting people."
Watching this on CNN right now and one of the commentators - Sunny Hostin, a former prosecutor of sexual offenders - felt the sentence was right. She cited the fact that the kid admitted his guilt the day of the incident and was apparently contrite. She also noted that registering as a sex offender for the rest of one's life is a pretty harsh punishment in and of itself.
She also thought the community service at a rape crisis center was sensible and likened it to drunk drivers being forced to confront victims of drunk driving.
I don't often agree with her and while I'm not sure about the last she seems on target otherwise.
He's not a typical sex offended because he didn't do it before?
Umm - first time for everything. Does that make rape any less bad?
And who gives a **** about her sexual history - like that denies her the right to say no.
Giving out a probation before judgement on an admitted rape charge is completely insane but to announce (falsely?) that the victim, a minor, was promiscuous and had given birth should be grounds for prosecution. The judge involved is a demorat and is running unopposed. Fortunately this case is no longer hers - we will see what happens.
None of you know this kid or the accuser, so you are speaking from the hole where **** is supposed to come out of.
Since when does shaping opinions based on facts given regarding a criminal trial a matter of personal knowledge of the individual?
That's, uhh, kinda what judges do.
Judges are supposed to form opinions and interpret events based on a small number of facts. That is pretty much what being a judge is about. She did not overstep her authority in any fashion. You simply disagree with the exact opinions she formed and how she interpreted events. One point I just thought about is that the defendant plead guilty, but there is no mention that this involved any agreement on sentencing. If that is true then this young man essentially gave the court carte blanche to do with him as they willed. That would be another indicator of sincere remorse and thus cause for imposing a lighter sentence.Is rape a matter of opinion or fact? Judges are supposed to critically apply the law. That's not the same as people sitting down and forming their own opinion and interpreting events in various ways based on a small number of facts.
Judges are supposed to form opinions and interpret events based on a small number of facts. That is pretty much what being a judge is about. She did not overstep her authority in any fashion. You simply disagree with the exact opinions she formed and how she interpreted events. One point I just thought about is that the defendant plead guilty, but there is no mention that this involved any agreement on sentencing. If that is true then this young man essentially gave the court carte blanche to do with him as they willed. That would be another indicator of sincere remorse and thus cause for imposing a lighter sentence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?