Montana teacher -- initially given 31 days in rape of student -- now gets 10 years

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/justice/montana-rape-sentence/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Billings, Montana (CNN) -- Fighting back tears, Auliea Hanlon sat on the witness stand in a Montana courtroom, just feet away from the man who pleaded guilty to raping her 14-year-old daughter -- and initially received a sentence that required him to serve just 31 days in prison.

"Here we are -- six, seven years later, still waiting for justice," she said, according to video of the sentencing from CNN affiliate KTVQ. "He knew what he was doing. He knew what was going to happen to her."
"And he didn't care."

Stacey Dean Rambold was accused of raping Cherice Moralez, a freshman in his business class at Billings Senior High, in 2007.

Moralez committed suicide in 2010, before the case went to trial and before she reached her 17th birthday.

The 55-year-old teacher pleaded guilty to sexual intercourse without consent; last year Judge G. Todd Baugh handed Rambold a 15-year sentence with all but 31 days suspended.

On Friday, Judge Randal Spaulding resentenced Rambold, this time to 15 years in prison, with five years of that suspended, according to a prosecutor in the case. Rambold was then handcuffed in court and taken to Montana State Prison.

Rambold will get credit for the month he served behind bars earlier in the case, according to Yellowstone County prosecutor Scott Twito.

The first sentence
Rambold was first charged in 2008, after Moralez confided in a church group leader.

After the initial ruling, Baugh drew intense criticism for both the brief duration of his initial sentence and comments he made, which some said placed blame on the victim.

Baugh said the victim looked older than her years and was "probably as much in control of the situation as was the defendant," according to the Montana attorney general's office.

Montana's Supreme Court ruled that Baugh used an inapplicable statute to impose the original sentence and that a new judge would have to resentence Rambold.

State Supreme Court Justice Michael E. Wheat wrote in ruling in April that Baugh's comments reflected an improper bias and "cast serious doubt on the appearance of justice."

Baugh apologized for the comments but defended his initial sentence. Writing to a judicial review board, he said: "I am sorry I made those remarks. They focused on the victim when that aspect of the case should have been focused on the defendant."

Baugh told KTVQ in January that he would retire at the end of the year. The decision, he said, wasn't related to the Rambold controversy.

**d-usa**

About damn time that guy faces some serious time.

**Ouze**

I'm simultaneous glad that justice was eventually done, and concerned that a man who was sentenced had the sentence nulled and was resentenced to one 120fold over what the original one was. I do not believe I've ever heard a case previously where a conviction and sentence was appealed and then massively compounded upon appeal - have any of you?

To reiterate, I have no love for this rapist, but also am concerned when public opinion drives sentencing, which I prefer to be impartial.

**d-usa**

He basically got the same sentence though, 15 years. The only difference is the amount suspended.

It's hard to compare the first to the second and figure out how much of it was to appease the public. We would probably have to look at other rape cases and see how much a "normal" rapist of a teenager is sentenced to and how much is suspended. The first sentence is such an outlier that it's pretty much useless for that purpose IMO.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
About damn time that guy faces some serious time.

I know that a lot of posters here rightly shocked by the lenient sentence, so an update might be appreciated

**Bran Dawri**

Not just a rapist. A rapist and a murderer. The girl he raped committed suicide. Assuming she did this because of what he did to her, that makes him as guilty of killing as if he had actually killed, as far as I'm concerned.

And yeah, the original sentence was waaaaaay to lenient. Even discounting the general revulsion to rape (especially underage and in today's society), that did not even come close to approaching justice.

**Kilkrazy**

31 days does not seem very much for any crime of violence, to be honest.

**cincydooley**

They must have thought he was a female initially with that sentence. That's about the going rate for female teachers that have sex with male students, right?

**Grey Templar**

Kilkrazy wrote:
31 days does not seem very much for any crime of violence, to be honest.

That wouldn't be much for a non-violent crime sentence which didn't involve probation.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
About damn time that guy faces some serious time.

Should have shot him in the head right in the courtroom. How many times has he done this before that were never found out?

**IAmTheWalrus**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
About damn time that guy faces some serious time.

Should have shot him in the head right in the courtroom. How many times has he done this before that were never found out?

Summary execution for crimes he might have possibly committed? Sounds great.

**Tibbsy**

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
About damn time that guy faces some serious time.

Should have shot him in the head right in the courtroom. How many times has he done this before that were never found out?

Summary execution for crimes he might have possibly committed? Sounds great.

You're speaking to Frazzled remember...

He'll set the wieners on you just for looking at him funny.

**Frazzled**

IAmTheWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
About damn time that guy faces some serious time.

Should have shot him in the head right in the courtroom. How many times has he done this before that were never found out?

Summary execution for crimes he might have possibly committed? Sounds great.

Once convicted, death by wiener dog. There has been no question of his guilt.

**curran12**

Wiener dogs smell the guilt on people. They can replace judge, jury and executioner.

All you need to do is lock the accused in a wiener dog chamber. If they are not guilty, the wiener dogs will allow them to carry on, but if they are judged and found wanting, no mercy shall be afforded. (Of course, if you can smuggle a few hot dogs in, you might be able to bribe them...)

**Frazzled**

The wiener legions do believe in "tangible" gratitude, that is true.