Montana teacher's 1-month rape sentence overturned

[The Straight Story]

Source: AP

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — The Montana Supreme Court has overturned a one-month prison sentence given to a former high school teacher convicted of raping a 14-year-old student.

Wednesday's decision cited in part the actions of District Judge G. Todd Baugh (baw) of Billings, who suggested the young victim shared responsibility for her rape because she had some control over the situation.

Justices said a new judge must re-sentence defendant Stacey Dean Rambold.

Rambold has been free since completing his sentence last fall. Prosecutors for the state say he should serve a mandatory minimum of four years prison.


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/montana-teachers-1-month-rape-sentence-overturned

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/montana-teachers-1-month-rape-sentence-overturned

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Whew.

I was going to flip the fuck out there, but this means he could get the full sentence for his crime. So, that's good.

[Swede Atlanta]

2. Agree. This is a judge who should be sent out to pasture......

But now you have the murder of a German exchange student in Montana by a gun nut who had been burgled and decided to set a trap for a would-be burglar. This time the "burglar" was a German exchange student who was shot a point-blank range when he entered the gun nut's garage.

The facts known to me are sparse but no evidence has been presented that the young man was engaged in burglary or an explanation for his presence there given.

But the gun nut decided to kill him. There is also no evidence the young man had any form of weapon or presented any direct danger to the gun nut or his family.

The gun nut's attorney is going to use Montana's "castle doctrine" defense. But that requires that the gun nut reasonably felt his life or that of his family was in danger. Sound familiar? This was the issue in the Treyvon Martin and the "I don't like rap music" cases in Florida.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/29/foreign-exchange-student-shot/8445731/

[The Straight Story]

4. And your takeaway from that is...

"gun nut"

Man gets burglarized multiple times, sets up a honey pot basically, and kills the person who is in his garage. Had he killed him any other way (bow and arrow, booby trap, etc) would it somehow make it all better and more sensible?

The story here is not the gun (unless we want to make it about some object). We have a plethora of issues about protecting your home, what police do/don't do, living in fear, setting up traps to lure people in (which cops like to do), etc and so on.

But all some people see is a piece of metal and wood and the brain shuts down and everything is about one thing.

[Gormy Cuss]

5. And ignoring that guns are the weapon of choice in the vast majority of these cases

is shutting down the brain to the obvious connection.

[Swede Atlanta]

6. Huh?

This guy stated he was out to kill.....

A Missoula man was charged with deliberate homicide Monday for shooting and killing a high school foreign exchange student in his garage a day earlier, allegedly after setting a trap for burglars and announcing that he was waiting up at night to “shoot some (expletive) kid.”

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/charging-document-missoula-man-waited-up-to-shoot-kid/article_83ab11b5-2a13-52ff-96e7-37c21c78fa75.html


Bottom line is burglary is the unlawful removal and retention of personal property belonging to another. Burglary in and of itself is is a non-violent crime.

My characterization of "gun nut" is based on the suspect's own statement that he was waiting to "shoot" someone.

So they have been burgled before. The "homeowner" immediately grabbed his gun when the alarm/camera alerted him that someone was in the garage. There is no indication he said "stop", "what are you doing there", etc. ?? He just shot and killed this young man.

To me, based on the facts, the homeowner had no fear for his life or that of that of his family. Therefore he has no "castle defense". The fact he stated he was waiting up at night to shoot someone is strongly suggestive of premeditated murder.

We have become such a paranoid and gun-toting society that if someone happens to round a corner and you weren't expecting them you can claim you were afraid for your life and blow them away.

[greiner3]

13. "Had he killed him any other way (bow and arrow, booby trap, etc)..."

Booby trap is one you can 'get away with' but a gun IS so much deadlier, quicker to use, reuse and repeat, in some states (more coming to a state near you) courts have shown it's a pretty easy thing to kill someone (legally), so much smaller than most other lethal means, so much more of a chance of achieving what you want to, so much quicker than anything else, etc...

I can see a booby trap matching nearly all ways that makes a gun the weapon of choice; poison, a bow and arrow rigged to shoot when something is activated, explosion, an animal is loosed, etc...

So many 'for rent' trolls on DU lately, but they are pretty well known and every once in a while they 'go away' and ne'er a word from them again.

[The Straight Story]

15. Not sure what that last paragraph meant, but for the rest

It boils down to looking at intent, not method, and who (not what) is the cause.

I respect and understand guns make it easier to achieve a goal (like in hunting for example) than other methods. But those goals have been around and met since the dawn of the human race. We generally don't look at a hunter and tell them 'hey, your gun makes it easier to do your job so let's remove it' as that is rather a backwards mentality. We also don't blame the death of a deer when hunting on the gun or that the hunter has one because, as noted, the outcome would be achieved regardless.

Some people will misuse a tool for nefarious means, this does not mean we judge all on it nor remove said tool from everyone but the wealthy and powerful. And in this case because what one idiot did does not mean that others shouldn't have the right to defend themselves in their homes from such people.

I looked over crimes reported in my area last night and there were a slew of break ins. What is worse is many I know of myself never got reports written on them so don't even show up ( http://www.raidsonline.com/ ). Someone stealing something out of the garage I would call the cops on and stay in the house, as this person should have done. Someone coming into the home when I am there is a different matter entirely and I really don't want to call a lawyer and the cops to decide what, if anything, I should do to protect myself. It is not like tv where people talk for five minutes about the crime they are going to do with you and such.

Self protection is a right, some will abuse the legal system and extend that to silly extremes (or be like our government and launch preemptive wars and kill hundreds of thousands) like going after someone breaking into their car and attack them (with fists, bats, etc - same principle, different tools). Do you have the right to protect what you own or is does that right only exist to a few police officers in your city?

[Exultant Democracy]

43. Yes, please ignore the death tube spewing lead, it has nothing to do with this.

Another person is dead because someone needed to get their metal penis replacement out and show the world how tough he was.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. This seems a distraction from this thread.

The only correlation here is 'state of montana'.

Why not just make a thread about the castle doctrine/murder thing, separately. This is sort of derailing to the rape case in the OP.

[russspeakeasy]

9. + 1

[passiveporcupine]

11. thank you

[proReality]

3. Someone needs to check into that judge's background. n/t

[MynameisBlarney]

8. GOOD!

Throw the book at him!

[DiverDave]

10. 4 years? For RAPE??

There isn't a war on woman, yeah, and pigs fly outta my behind...

[Chemisse]

16. I think there is a HUGE difference between violent, forcible rape

And coerced intercourse with a minor who is sexually mature but not of age.

A violent rapist should get a much longer sentence, but 4 years seems appropriate for this offense.

[DiverDave]

17. You are saying it's the GIRLS FAULT?

14, she was FOURTEEN.
If you believe that, you are a s%$mbag.

Yeah, blame the GIRL, the guy couldn't help himself.

There is a reason why there are statutory rape laws.

Yeah, the child was at fault...man I want to vomit.

[Chemisse]

35. Did I SAY it was the girl's fault?

Of course it's not. She's too young to make that decision. That's why it's a crime to commit statutory rape.

[Delmette]

52. FYI

The child committed suicide. That alone speaks volumes.

[dionysus]

18. are you serious? for statutory RAPE?

[Chemisse]

36. Yes.

Imagine if you are the parent of a young girl. Would you be more upset if she was forcibly raped - screaming, crying, shattered - or coerced into it - confused, hurt, guilty?

I would prefer the latter, and the prison sentences should reflect the degree of violence in this crime.

[moriah]

19. So taking advantage of a young girl is not a violent crime in your mind?

Does a rapist have to blacken a person's eyes, beat them up, cut them, etc, for the act of *rape* to be a violent crime in your eyes?

[Chemisse]

37. Umm, no.

I see violence in rape as overcoming the victim to force sex on her. That is violence. Coercing a girl into sex is very wrong, but it is not violent.

[moriah]

46. So battery with a penis isn't enough for you, they've gotta use their fists as well. Got it. Edit..

.... this is why so many women fear reporting. If they don't have EVIDENCE that they fought as hard as they could, it's not rape to people like you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. My dear that is rape

Implied facepalm

[City Lights]

21. Wow.

Way to blame the victim.

and

[magical thyme]

22. there is a reason for statuatory laws.

Children are more susceptible to coercion, especially from authority figures such as a teacher. In such a situation, the teacher is supposed to protect the child, not take advantage of them.

A young person seeking approval, belonging, love, is more vulnerable to using their budding sexuality as a means of getting their emotional needs met. Again, in such a situation the teacher should be protecting the child from their inappropriate attempt to get their emotional needs met, not take advantage of it.

This girl was 14. Her mind was not sexually mature, no matter how her body looked or felt.

The rapist abused his position of authority and power. He should never be allowed near young people again, ever. 4 years seems insufficient to me.

[Chemisse]

38. I agree that it is wrong and very damaging to a 14 year old

But I think prison sentences should reflect the degree of 'wrongness' and not be driven by emotional factors such as vengeance or disgust. Sex crimes in particular bring out the blood lust in people.

It's rather like having the same exact punishment for a man slapping a woman and a man stabbing a woman. Both are very wrong, but the punishment should reflect the severity of the attack.

[magical thyme]

44. a physical and psychological violation is a physical and psychological violation

iirc, this led to the child's suicide. That outcome alone speaks to the degree of damage.

[moriah]

47. In this case, it was severe enough to make her commit suicide.

But since she wasn't bruised or bloody....

[hfojvt]

23. did you, perchance

mean to write UN-coerced?

Because coerced sex would certainly be forcible.

[Chemisse]

39. I guess I think of 'forced' as being a physical action

But you are right, coercion is a type of forcing.

[LadyHawkAZ]

24. Er, what?

Helloooo, coerced intercourse *is* forcible rape, minor or no, sexually mature or no. Haul out the Google machine there, skippy, and look up "coerce".

ETA seriously, do that, because what you just said amounts to "sure, he raped her, but since her wrists weren't bruised it's OK".

[Chemisse]

40. Giving someone 4 years in jail is not akin to saying it's 'ok'

People are responding out of passion, not logic.

[LadyHawkAZ]

49. Advocating giving him the bare minimum because her boobs had developed

and he didn't beat her up is pretty damn close.

[LanternWaste]

54. For example, using the irrelevant phrase "sexually mature" to imply a difference without a distincti

"People are responding out of passion, not logic..."

For example, using the irrelevant phrase "sexually mature" to imply a difference without a distinction?

[The Straight Story]

25. A person in authority over classrooms full of kids....yeah...

I say I would like to see that person in prison for a long long time.

Changing the story up a bit:

Bob is a depressed 14 yr old who wants to die. Teacher shoots/poisons/stabs him because that is what the kid wanted.

To some it may sound like the teacher did something less than if they had just randomly acted out of malice. The end result is the same and the teacher was supposed to be someone kids could trust, someone in power, and should not have used their power to gain what they themselves wanted from someone else.

Some might say -But...- if a 14 yr girl is ok to have sex with another 14 yr old boy and they pass out condoms and other birth control at school why should her choices in those cases matter but not in this case? My take would that she is on equal footing in the case of someone her own age, and they are a peer versus someone in position of authority over her.

[Ohio Joe]

26. 'Sorry little girl, you should not have teased him into raping you'

Un-Fucking-Believable that this kind of shit is allowed on DU. WTF?

[moriah]

30. Considering the girl is dead now, it's even sadder.

"The defendant was a 47-year-old business teacher at Billings Senior High School at the time of the 2007 rape. The victim, one of his students, killed herself while Rambold was awaiting trial." -- from the article.

I bet that still doesn't change minds of people who don't think statutory rape is rape.

[Ohio Joe]

31. This whole "sexually mature" bullshit is nothing but excusing the rapist

I have no explanation as to why this crap is not an instant pizza.

[Chemisse]

41. Why would you say that my opinion on the length of a prison sentence

is a statement that rape is okay?

It's that kind of hyperbole that stifles discussion and makes people nervous about offering anything but the opinion that is stamped DU 'approved'.

[moriah]

48. It's apparently more "okay" to you than "violent, forcible rape"

Which is still an oxymoron.

I have posted about my sexual assault on DU. The force he used was to carry me, unconscious, to his bed, pull my jeans and underwear only halfway down because he couldn't do more when struggling against dead weight, and start thrusting into me from behind.

But obviously he deserved the prosecution deciding not to charge him, despite admitting what he did under interrogation. After all, I didn't have any bruises. He didn't use "violence". And obviously I was asking for it by getting drunk around someone I'd known for three years and thought I could trust. I was just so sexy lying there that he couldn't help himself, right? It wasn't "rape-rape", so shouldn't be penalized in the same way.

In my state, both what happened to me and what happened to this little girl you call "sexually mature" at the tender age of 14 would be charged (if prosecutors or judges had the decency to pursue these cases instead of the "easy wins&quot as the class-Y felony "rape", and carry a minimum sentence of 10 years.

[Ohio Joe]

50. "sexually mature"

When you spout non-sense like this, you are blaming the girl for what happened. That is not ok... It's fucking vile.

[niyad]

27. dear goddess, please tell us you forgot the sarcasm icon.

[LeftyMom]

28. That would make you a rape apologist.

Just thought you should know there's a word for what you are.

[JTFrog]

34. +1 n/t

[Chemisse]

42. Oh sure. My opinion that 4 years is a good sentence is JUST like saying rape is perfectly dandy.

[LeftyMom]

45. You were splitting hairs between kinds of rape,

and you think this one is less deserving of punishment than most. Yes, that makes you a rape apologist, by definition. Deal.

[knitter4democracy]

29. He was her teacher. She was raped.

It's not just her age that's the issue here but also the power differential, not to mention the fact that any teacher who has sex with a student is a freaking monster.

[moriah]

32. I'm sorry to reply again, but this gets me. "Violent, forcible rape" is extremely redundant, and...

.... if you don't see why, I agree with others about wondering why this post wasn't hidden, at the very least. It was a 3-4 vote apparently.

Rape *is* a violent crime. It doesn't require fists, death threats, guns, knives, or anything else other than the sexual assault itself. This child, this 14-year-old girl who you are calling "sexually mature", completed suicide before her rapist was convicted, and if you think it wasn't at least somewhat related I've got a bridge to sell you.

http://www.xojane.com/issues/stacey-rambold-cherice-morales

Please read this and consider self-deleting your post. If there was ever a candidate....

[JTFrog]

33. Sick.

There is a reason that the judge who tried to place blame on the victim the way you are is looking at a hearing of his own. Absolutely beyond disgusting to blame the victim. Rape is fucking rape. The only folks I've seen trying to redefine rape are right wing assholes and MRA's. Don't carry their water.

The victim killed herself. You should be highly ashamed of your post.

[WhiteTara]

51. Didn't the girl kill herself? So, somehow, I don't think it is

appropriate.

[passiveporcupine]

12. Slate has an interesting take on this

The problem isn’t the mandatory minimums or prosecutorial error so much as it is his own profound failure to understand the nature of sexual abuse. Voting him off the island doesn’t fix the larger problem of judges who don’t understand that teen girls can’t give meaningful consent, much less “control” the relationship with a teacher. It just encourages us to vote other judges off the island as well and emboldens groups who target and harass judges for unpopular (but legally correct) decisions to double down. We already have a fix for judicial screw-ups of the magnitude seen last week in Montana: appellate review, motions to reconsider, and—in extreme cases—even impeachment.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/09/montana_judge_j_todd_baugh_wants_a_do_over_in_the_stacey_rambold_rape_case.html

They are saying that public pressure should not be used to get rid of a judge, or even to make him change his position...instead it should be done by "the system"...but I'm wondering if the system would even address his error, without the public outrage over his position, statements and ruling.

But they certainly got this part right:

his own profound failure to understand the nature of sexual abuse

This judge really should be benched, by the system, not necessarily by public outrage. Due to personal history, I am biased on this issue, and I wonder if older male judges should even preside in rape cases.

[GOPee]

53. I may be the wrong person to take this position on this board, being a woman.

But, I am getting increasingly upset with some of my favorite posters taking a troubling turn in an apparent anti-man position. I have wonderful men in my life, all of them honorable and respectable to the women in their lives and those that they interact with, not just in some cases, but my entire life..

Your post was insightful and thoughtful until your final sentence. " I wonder if older male judges should even preside in rape cases." GOOD HEAVENS, how broad a brush do we want to take in summarizing a stance on an entire segment of our society, especially in a case that caused such outrage in the general public, not just with women, but men as well.

I'm not picking on you, but I want to take a stand for the men in my life, who earned my respect and admiration.

[passiveporcupine]

55. I understand your concern

And I don't like broad brush either. My point is that the older generation of men grew up in a different time, where pedophilia was not discussed, and probably not seen quite the same way it is today. I think many of the older generation didn't have such a problem with "young wives" and younger women having "the right to consent" even if they weren't legally an adult.

My generation (I'm 64) is probably a lot more open, but having been sexually molested as a child, and knowing more than one pedophile and seeing how they "protected" each other...and knowing that society's views constantly change, I'm just wondering how well judges that are in their upper 70's or higher, might not see things the same way. Apparently this one didn't. I know it was broad brush and it shouldn't apply to all older men, but how do you "pick" the good ones from the bad ones? How do you discriminate against old social concepts without discriminating?

I also have problems with older judges (maybe more men than women, because it seems men have a harder time accepting gays than women do) making rulings on gay rights and marriage equality. Not because there aren't some out there who are really open minded. Just that there are probably more out there that are not, and not necessarily something they can change that late in life.

But I agree, it was probably not a good choice to label them by age. It's just how I feel. And maybe that is my problem with "men", and I should keep it to myself. It's only older men I fear today...not younger men. Too many skeletons I guess.

[athenasatanjesus]

14. Judges that hand out weak sentences have some control over the situation as well.

[davidpdx]

56. It is good to hear that the Montana Supreme Court overturned the original sentence

It was a farce giving the guy a month. I am also glad to hear a new judge will be handling the case. Hopefully one that is more competent.