Prosecutors Appeal "Older than Her Chronological Age" Rape Ruling

24.70K

Gabrielle Bluestone

09/04/13 06:21PM

Filed to: Montana

Montana state prosecutors are appealing a judge's "illegal" ruling that sentenced a teacher to just 30 days in jail for raping a 14-year-old student, in part because the judge found the victim to be "older than her chronological age."

Last week Judge G. Todd Baugh sentenced former teacher, 54-year-old Stacey Rambold to 15 years in jail, with all but 31 days suspended. Baugh defended the ruling, saying that the then-14-year-old Cherice Morales was "older than her chronological age," and "as much in control of the situation” as Rambold.

Baugh later apologized for his comments but at the time, stood by his ruling. Two days ago however, he scheduled a hearing for Friday to determine whether that sentence should be increased to two years. The prosecutor has asked that that hearing be canceled pending the appeal.

[image via AP]

The following replies are approved. To see additional replies that are pending approval, click Show Pending. Warning: These may contain graphic material.

45

EyeHeartPie Gabrielle Bluestone 09/04/13 06:27PM

Oh, how noble of him to consider increasing the sentence to 2 years. Why is this man not being debenched (or whatever you call it when judges are fired)? He made a ruling based on personal opinion of a pretty cut-and-dry situation. Man (54) + girl (14) = statutory rape. He doesn't get to decide that she is more mature and therefore this does not count as rape.

54

Carnations EyeHeartPie 09/04/13 06:33PM

Pretty sure the word you're looking for is defenestrated.

2

EyeHeartPie Carnations 09/04/13 06:37PM

One of my favorite words! I'll go with that. It would accurately describe what should happen to this so-called judge.

2

FannyAdams EyeHeartPie 09/04/13 06:46PM

Fenestr means Window in Welsh. Which means we should throw him out of a window - yey!!

3

josephbloseph FannyAdams 09/04/13 06:59PM

Yes, that's the definition of the word we were given in college when they were telling us that under no circumstances were we to throw anything out of our dorm windows.

34

mlle.penelope Gabrielle Bluestone 09/04/13 07:30PM

I've said this before but seriously. Does this mean mature 16 year olds should be able to vote? Wise 15 year olds can buy alcohol? Immature 30 year olds can't go to war? I mean come the fuck on. What is the point of having laws based upon age and then deciding them on a case by case basis? It's fucking stupid. Go fuck yourself, judge.

NYNYNYjr mlle.penelope 09/04/13 07:51PM

Well, legally, upgrading younger people rarely seems to happen— but think of "teenager tried as adult because we are offended by the circumstances"—- but the other way around happens a lot—- 30 but the I.Q. of 10, therefore, no voting, no adult sentencing, no draft, etc.

1

Limethoughtes mlle.penelope 09/05/13 01:57AM

Because in court of law you are deciding if someone is going to be locked up so you examine the facts closely. Are you saying there should be no discretion? I mom steals some food for her hungry child should be treated the same as someone who steals it for the hell of it? A woman who shoots her abuser is the same as a man who stalks and kills his gf?

mlle.penelope Limethoughtes 09/05/13 10:57AM

Theoretically, yes. Stealing is stealing, regardless of how noble the reason. I'm not saying I agree, but when we start making exemptions for laws because we feel like it, it sets a precedent. Regardless, what you're saying has ABSOLUTELY no connection to my point. Statutory rape is a crime based upon age. If lawmakers didn't want to factor in age, there would be no Statutory Rape crime, just plain old Rape. But because we have laws that it is a crime to have sex with a minor, then we shouldn't be able to say "Well this minor was more mature than that minor, so it's ok".

Limethoughtes mlle.penelope 09/06/13 03:02AM

No one is saying it is ok. We are debating judicial discretion. Should judges have the ability to set sentences or not? If not then there is no need for a judge at the end of the trial. All sentences should be the same for depending on the crime one is convicted for no matter the circumstances. A mother would serve the same time as a random thief. This is what you seem to be advocating?

2

RorisanIDK Gabrielle Bluestone 09/04/13 07:56PM

Why would we have actual age limitations on consent if we consider it up for negotiation? The precedent that this sets is awful. This was just irresponsible and clearly shows that the judge has no regard for the actual statutes put in place.

Limethoughtes RorisanIDK 09/05/13 01:58AM

We have that for kids who murder. Some are treated as adults some are not. Is that fair?

RorisanIDK Limethoughtes 09/05/13 09:05AM

I do not agree with that practice as well. If the law has set these limitations, it is not our place to determine it was wrong on a per case basis. There is biological evidence that suggests that the brain of an adolescent is not able to think rationally when it comes to consequences of their actions. If she was a "Lolita" type - that speaks more of mental illness (she did wind up committing suicide, didn't she) than maturity. The man did not break the law less because she is dead, or if she was "mature for her age."

Limethoughtes RorisanIDK 09/06/13 03:24AM

Well I applaud you for your consistency, seriously, a lot of people are not like that.

From what I read the prosecutors originally offered him a deal as they were not confident in a conviction as she was dead. Being able to prove something is higher bar to cross than just thinking you know what happened.

What we are debating here it seems is judicial discretion. Should judges have the ability to set sentences or not? If not then there is no need for a judge at the end of the trial. All sentences should be the same for depending on the crime one is convicted for no matter the circumstances. A mother convicted for stealing food for her hungry child should receive the same sentence as one stealing food for the hell of it.

WashedUpSportscaster Gabrielle Bluestone 09/04/13 06:36PM

Would double jeopardy be a problem for the prosecutors here?

9

EyeHeartPie WashedUpSportscaster 09/04/13 06:38PM

Doubt it, since this is still sentencing. He's not being re-tried for the same crime.

iElvis Found Trump's Tax Returns Too Late to Save Gawker WashedUpSportscaster 09/04/13 06:58PM

No, for several reasons. The formal definition of double jeopardy is "twice being placed in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense" (or something like that). This is all part of the same proceeding, so there is no "twice" here. Also, he was convicted the first time around; DJ only comes into play if he was acquitted. Contrary to what many people think, a judge's discretion these days is often highly constrained by statute, and if s/he decide to depart from the guidelines, either party can appeal. This goes on all the time. It happened in the Rodney King beating trial, IIRC. The judge decided the cops deserved less than the minimum, and the DOJ appealed the sentence. Same thing here.

MisterMcGibblets WashedUpSportscaster 09/05/13 01:32AM

Not at all. That's the beauty of this (beauty in the sense of a rose growing in a swamp). They don't have to re-try his guilt or innocence (wouldn't fall under double jeopardy anyway), they're only appealing the sentence.

beansandfranksIII WashedUpSportscaster 09/05/13 07:32AM

No. It's an appeal. Plain and simple. Just like a convict can appeal his conviction, prosecutors can appeal rulings.