@momofthreeboys Sounds nice, but it isn’t the truth. No time to look up studies for you. But race is a huge factor in sentencing.
It’s only interesting to me if the control factors are the same. Comparing populations against populations solely by skin color for control factors would be less than meaningful.
@younghoss:
Jameis Winston was in another category, he was an athlete at a big division one football school and was its star quarterback. With University of Florida, it has been documented that when it came to athletes the school, the campus police and the local police department/da’s office swept anything to do with athletes getting into trouble under the rug. That is a different kind of privilege.Put it this way, if Jameis Winston was a black kid working in the local Walmart and was busted for doing what he did, he would prob get put away for 10 years.
@momofthreeboys:
Skin color plays a role, but I think you are correct, it is more about ‘use’ or ‘value’. In the Stanford case the judge saw a “Stanford” boy who was a star swimmer, from a ‘good’ family and so forth, and saw that ‘value to society’ and IMO decided he didn’t need to be harshly punished. If it had been someone who was black and a star on Stanford’s football team, it isn’t unlikely the judge would do the same thing. I would argue (and stats back this up) that if you compared the sentence given to a white perp versus a black one where they were from the same background/economic class, that the black kid would likely get a harsher sentence if all else was equal.
@sculptordad:
What you leave out is the prosecutor’s office wanted two years of jail time and at least one article I read implied that the probation department and one of the victims wanted him to serve jail time, so the judge did go against recommendations (does anyone have an article that is more in depth about who wanted what in this case?). I haven’t seen where either of the two victims said they didn’t want him to have jail time, I didn’t see what the probation department said. One of the problems with judges doing this is it sends a message to kids who are seen as ‘useful’ that they can commit a major crime and expect not to have to pay that much of a price, one of the prime reason crimes have penalties associated with them is the deterrence factor, if a jock or a kid from a good family going to a top notch school knows they will be given special treatment, it would be like making the penalty for rape 30 days in jail with probation likely, while most people still would not commit rape, you can bet that those with the bent towards doing so will be a lot more likely to do it if the penalty is low rather than if it could get them 10-15 years.
I’m more likely to cut some slack to some inner city kid who hasn’t been given a chance in life, may have various strikes against them than I am to some kid who has been raised with a lot of privilege and opportunities. The latter kid should know better.
Perhaps, but punishment and rehabilitation is about the moment, but it is also about the future society.
I would posit that a rapist is a rapist, a shoplifter is a shoplifter, a burglar is a burglar and the judicial system is set up to err on the cautious first and foremost. It is all about potential for re-offending and harm to society. I would far prefer to live in a society that starts at the presumption of innocence and the presumption of change of re-offending rather than a one size fits all sentencing guidelines.
I’m not convinced that race would play a factor here. Yes, I know there are countless websites with stats on non-white incarceration rates etc etc, but none of these stats really explain why those rates are higher for non-whites. What is mostly given are speculation, comparisons based on loose correlations, and ‘evil white boogeyman’ reasoning rather than a hard, thorough analysis (that I have seen, anyway).
^ Statements like this only work to undermine the narrative behind these racial injustice arguments. I agree with momofthreeboys here – a crime is a crime. I don’t care how “privileged” the person is, nor do I care what color the skin is.
Once again, we are focusing on how rape impacts the rapist. We can’t seem to get away from that point of view.
" a crime is a crime"
I agree but don’t cut them slack in either case, don’t cut them slack for being privileged. It sends the wrong message for one thing. Punishments are doled out for two reasons, one of them is to send a message to society about what is and isn’t right, for prevention. @alh is correct. Where is the focus on the victims?
If a crime is a crime, then the penalties should be consistent, too. @momofthreeboys makes a good point, that the law is supposed to presume innocence and that there should be mitigating factors in sentencing, someone with a long string of sexual assaults should be looked at differently in sentencing than someone who has been clean up until now and it might well have been a one off…but one of the reasons that we have mandatory sentencing laws is because there were disparities with this, where someone committed a serious offense and gets off with a relative slap on the wrist (and where someone else with a similar record and such would get a lot more). The judge in the Stanford case and this one in effect said the perp was too good a person to fully punish, and while I don’t think a first time offender in this case deserves 10 years in jail,. I also think there needs to be a penalty that fits the crime.
The analogy I’ll use is what DUI laws used to be like, before MADD and others pushed for reform, the death toll from DUI was staggering as was the injury rate not to mention the cost of all those accidents. Back then someone could kill someone in a DUI and get away with a 6 month suspended sentence and loss of driving privileges (often, they could drive to work and back, but not elsewhere). These days the penalties are stiff, enforcement is a lot stronger and the DUI rates are way, way off from what they were back then, and the highway death rate is significantly lower than it was 40 years ago , especially on a per 100,000 mile driven basis, and a good part of that is DUI elimination.
But that’s not what’s going on here… This case has nothing to do with privilege, and everything to do with the victim accepting the assailant’s apology. We can argue about the legality of that (even though I strongly believe ‘mercy’ should be factored into these situations), but the fact of the matter remains that the judge made his ruling based heavily (if not entirely) on the victim’s apology statement. That is, by all accounts, a fair judgment.
Where is there not focus on the victims? I think we need to be careful taking strong sides with victims in these cases as the perpetrator can also end up becoming a victim due to personal biases and agendas.
We can all agree that what the David did was wrong, but to make him out to be some sort of super villain is exaggerated given the final outcome of the situation.
Neither victim contacted the police. A girl told a resource officer about the incident from a rumor who then contacted the victims.
I’m sure at least part of the judge’s decision to be more lenient had to do with the sex offender laws (you’ll notice that the boy will be evaluated however). It really is a chance to lead a productive life. I don’t think the judge just cavalierly let him go–I think he was pretty fair actually considering the circumstances.
The sex offender laws are virtually life destroying. They limit where you can live (many are homeless because of the laws), can’t get work, it’s public information on a registry that follows you for life. For LIFE. Not just until you’ve served time in jail and done regular probation. You are under scrutiny of the court for life. Your driver’s license says SEX OFFENDER in big red letters across it. No matter what crime you actually committed big or small, once or many times.
There is no registry for murderers and robbers.Do your time for murder or burglary and you’re done. No MURDERER or ROBBER on your driver’s license. Go live where you can get a place. Feel safer?
Have sex with your underage girlfriend (even if you too are underage) and suddenly you are a “sex offender” for life. Go pee in the bushes and expose yourself–you too can be a sex offender on a state registry with ongoing probation for virtually life with limited access to housing and work for “exposing yourself” . Don’t have sex on the beach no matter how dark it is.
Really love the girl you had sex with at 17 (and she was 16) and you get married? Or you fall in love with someone else? Think you can get life going for once? Forget it.
You aren’t allowed to be near the kids you just had. You have to move out. You can’t take them to school or sports You can’t live near a school. It’s illegal for you to be around your wife. You are on a sex registry.You are supposed to put up notices to all your neighbors that you are a sex offender no matter what your actual crime was or when it was committed. For LIFE (at least where I live)
Worse yet–the registry doesn’t change the age of the victim to reflect the seriousness of the crime… It doesn’t say your crime was being 17 and having sex with your 16 y/o girlfriend. Now it shows you’re 50 years old (current age) having sex with a 16 y/o. Suddenly your 17 year old self who was just in love is a real pervert
Flip side for the public–there are thousands of people on the sex registry–you can’t just find the serial rapists and child molesters. It’s pretty useless.
One thing I will say, the reporting on this story stinks, it is all boilerplate AP style reporting for the most part, for example no one has anything about why the judge ruled as he did, and I haven’t seen a reference to where one of the victims (yes, @fractalmstr ,there were two victims, not one) ever made a statement to the court saying she didn’t want him to get jail time. From several news reports:
“In a text message to one of the victims the next day, Becker apologized for the assault, court records show. The victim responded with a text telling Becker “don’t even worry about it,” but later told police that she said this because “she did not know what else to say,” Ingalls’ police report states.”
So if this is the apology some are using to justify the light sentence, it doesn’t sound like it is the victim saying he shouldn’t have jail time…and it also was in the record that she said she only said that because she didn’t know what else to say…so it doesn’t sound like the girl actually forgave him or said it was no big deal…and the article doesn’t say anything about the second victim, so even if victim #1 had truly been forgiven, what about #2.
“Palmer District Court Judge Thomas Estes ordered on Aug. 15 that Becker’s case be continued without finding for two years (effectively a probation sentence), during which time he has to remain drug- and alcohol-free, submit to evaluation for sex offender treatment, and stay away from the two 18-year-old victims in the case, according to MassLive. This sentence also doesn’t require Becker to register as a sex offender, and provided he doesn’t violate any of the terms of his probation, a conviction won’t show up on his criminal record.”
So basically if he keeps clean for two years, his record will be expunged, no sex offender status (which I don’t have a problem with), but basically no real penalty. Sure, his name is out there, but that is true of people found innocent of a crime, but in reality how much did he really pay? When you get true probation, as far as I know the record isn’t expunged.
@fractalmastr:
Thanks, I didn’t see that in the other articles. Even with that, there would be the other victim to think about, too, what about her feelings? If she didn’t issue a statement, does the judge assume she didn’t care? I also think that a victim’s statement shouldn’t have that much impact on the sentencing, and that applies both if they want to throw the book at the person and if they want them to go lenient, basing the sentencing on the victim’s wishes alone, or giving them undue weight, would be abrogating other factors, like setting an example for others who do what this guy did or the likelyhood of him doing this again. After reading the articles I did, where the lawyer in court kept stressing this was a boy who planned to go to college, who had been a three sport athlete, that the judge basically looked at this as a ‘youthful mistake’ rather than as a serious crime. The sentence was almost as little as he could give, it wasn’t really probation, it was more like “keep out of trouble and all will be reset to zero” kind of thing.
This man committed bona fide rape as an intercourse without consent. One who doesn’t want the punishment can simply elect to not do rape.
^^actually, he was only charged with rape. He copped a plea to a lesser charge. No proof of rape, regardless of what the title to this thread imagines. (That being said, I would have still put him behind bars.)
Not so happy to realize some of you think you know more than the judge, prosecutors, attorney, the alleged perpetrator and alleged victims based on an AP article with a total lack of all the facts and mostly are willing to lock someone up and throw away the key based not on facts but just because the charge was rape.
SculptorDad - where exactly is that stated anywhere (your post #34)? I live in the area and that is not at ALL what is being reported here. Just because it’s a rape charge does not mean nonconsensual intercourse occurred.
This case is just not comparable to the Turner case, but once again, the media jumps on stories like this and do not (cannot, due to privacy, no doubt) report all the facts. The reason we know so much about the Turner victim’s account is that she spoke out on her own.
This was a case started on rumor, with one girl declining to press charges (allegedly because she said nothing happened). The other girl, who did cooperate with prosecutors, said she did not want him in jail. And yes, the judge does take that into consideration in sentencing.
Uh no. The FACTS are that the perp admitted to sexual assault, in a public court. And that deserves time away from family and friends, IMO, and certainly not attending college OOS. The DA asked for two years. The Judge turned it down.
Just bcos we criticize the Judge doesn’t mean that we know “more”, just that we disagree with his decision. No different than when many disagree with Supreme Court decisions, which I assume that you have done gouf78, yes?
Yes I’ve disagreed with Supreme Court decisions. Their decisions are written out so you can follow their reasoning (or lack of it depending on your view).