Does that mean the DA’s office, who recommended 2 years in jail, knew less than the judge? The DA’s office knew the girl didn’t want the kid to get jail time, they knew this wasn’t full intercourse, they knew the other girl denied it happened, but yet they still recommended jail time, they knew the same facts, same circumstances, but still wanted jail time. More importantly, the judge took this one step further, from a legal standpoint after 2 years this didn’t exist at all, it will be totally expunged, this isn’t even two years probation, this is basically a slap on the wrist.
@musicprnt: The DA is an advocate. They’re not supposed to balance the factors and decide a sentence they think is just (though they generally do have a mandate to be “fair”), they’re supposed to zealously argue for their side. The same is true of the CDL arguing for the least sentence, while also knowing all the same facts as the DA.
The DA has their own agenda.
Yeah, the DA’s office is doing this to curry political favor, or worse, they are out to get red blooded young american men who simply made a mistake…I have a couple of relatives who worked as ADA’s in NYC, and one of the things to keep in mind is that DA’s offices are loathe to prosecute cases where they think the facts are muddied, this is very different than the Kangaroo court systems colleges are often using. You can argue that the DA’s office had a political reason to prosecute this, that they were afraid of public reaction, but this was no page one headline story, the DA initially seemed to be operating alone on this case, there wasn’t any intense public pressure, the one victim was seemingly reluctant, so this wasn’t about fear of public reaction, so I don’t know what the agenda is here.Usually when DA’s trump up charges, it is because of politicial pressure, if it is a high profile crime where there is pressure to get the perp, when there is political advantage to be gained, then yeah, but in this one? The political outcry has happened after the judge gave his sentence, not before.
What this strikes me as is another judge dismissing the idea that sexual assault, I don’t care what kind, is some innocent mistake made by some good kid so therefore shouldn’t be penalized. What Brock Turner did was much worse than this (and deserved a much heavier penalty), but the judge in this case did everything but throw out the charges, he might as well said “sorry, this was a fine, outstanding young man, an athlete, and we mustn’t hurt his future” and throw the charges out, least then he would be a lot more honest. Among other things, a victim saying the kid shouldn’t get jail time should not be taken as the only reason to give a non jail sentence (not to mention, again, the kid did not get probation, it was lighter than that), judges are supposed to weigh other factors, like the nature of what he did, and also what the sentence does or doesn’t do to help society (the deterrent factor). There is no comparison between this and thhe Brock turner case, this was a relatively lightweight crime, and if the judge had given him what Turner got, 6 months + probabation, it at least would have sent some sort of message, what the judge sent was “I hate to ruin the lives of good young men who make an innocent mistake” gag
The one thing that bothers me is the sex offender list. It hurts a person’s chance for rehabilitation.
I think some of these sentences are backwards. A little more jail time…and less time on a sex offender’s list.
^^Concur with dstark. (I’m shocked, shocked…) 
gouf–" some of you are… willing to lock someone up and throw away the key based not on facts but just because the charge was rape."
Musicprint: " What this strikes me as is another judge dismissing the idea that sexual assault, I don’t care what kind, is some innocent mistake made by some good kid so therefore shouldn’t be penalized. is some innocent mistake made by some good kid so therefore shouldn’t be penalized. "
That’s a valid opinion but.
You proved my point. You have no basis to say the judge has any bias for or against any parties involved. You appear from your posts to have a black and white opinion with no gray area. Your words “I don’t care what kind” speak volumes.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I’m just not one who thinks “making an example” is a good thing. I care “what kind” of grievance or crime actually occurred.
I actually thinks it speaks volumes that one teen said nothing occurred and the other teen who did cooperate didn’t want him in jail. Now that said, this was, as I mentioned earlier, media “lite”…low on facts, and no published testimony. But any rational person would question in their mind what actually went on that night during a high school party and co-ed sleepover and you don’t lock people up and throw away the key when there is doubt. Where were the parents anyway?
Let’s change the terminology. Instead of “making an example”, how about “deterrence”? Isn’t that supposed to be a part of the justice system, keeping what happened from happening again–convincing others (who apparently don’t know better) that society says this is illegitimate behavior? A sentences of, basically nothing, is the opposite of deterrence; it is countenance.
I saw a piece with Dan Abrams and Nancy Grace. From what they said, this was a ‘Blind Plea’ where the defendant agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge (and I don’t think he was charged, or at least didn’t plea to, a second charge; he denied every touching the second girl and this never went to trial so he wasn’t pleading to that and wasn’t sentenced on that), the DA states his opinion that he felt 2 years was the right sentence and the defense attorney requested probation. I do not know what the range of the sentence for the crime he actually pleaded to is; it may have been 0-2 years, so maybe the DA was asking for the max. Anyway, the judge could ask questions, he had the probation department report, he had the victim’s statement if there was one.
The judge did take an even more lenient view of it and not only gave the defendant the probation he asked for, he also did it as a deferred judgment so that if the defendant successfully serves the probation, the record will be expunged. That doesn’t mean there is never a record of this and that he will not have to answer that he was charged for the rest of his life. The internet knows all. We know all. Nancy Grace also pointed out that the judge had been a public defender for 30 years and he should never be allowed to be a judge. She has no problem with someone who was an DA for 30 years being a judge, but doesn’t want anyone who might have seen what a harsh sentence does to an 18 year old decide a case.
The ‘facts’ of the case that he admitted to was that this was a party at the home of a high school senior, with lots of drinking and drugs and no parental supervision. The girl was lying in a bed and the defendant digitally penetrated her. He says he thought she was wake and wasn’t objecting. That’s what the judge had to work with.
What wasn’t clear was who or when this was brought to the police (not that night).
Another thing that was brought up by Dan Abrams was that we don’t know what evidence the DA could have presented. One girl has moved away (the one he denies touching). We don’t know what kind of a witness the other would be, or if she even wanted to be a witness. She may have requested the DA take a plea, any plea, as she didn’t want any of this. The defendant may have won at a full trial. We just don’t know what the legal evidence, presentable evidence, was.
I actually think the deferred sentence has been a much harsher punishment than if the judge would have entered judgment and given him probation or jail time. No one in the rest of the country would have heard of this case if he’d just pleaded, been sentenced, next case. Now we all know, we’ve seen his picture, Dayton U has withdrawn his admission. He doesn’t feel like he got away with anything.
There is no “doubt” here. The accused admitted in open court to sexual assault. The only question is what is a just penalty for that crime. What is standard for such a first offense under MA law? The DA, who obviously has a POV, but is also a member of the court system, thought two years + Sex Registry was appropriate. The Judge said zero.
Since the accused admitted to a crime, couldn’t “any rational person” come to a conclusion that something in between zero and two years would also be just result?
Yes and the judge chose zero time in jail. I am not quite sure when it became a national sport to go after judges personally for a singular decision. Nancy Grace is a TV caricature. Really, so only DAs are qualified to be judges? She opens her mouth and I shake my head in disbelief that she’s allowed on the air just about any time I hear a soundbite.
I agree with @momofthreeboys about Nancy Grace.
^^Nancy Grace is not party to this thread, so irrelevant, and probably being used as a diversion. (But then I don’t watch her program.)
And good tax paying citizens cannot have a different POV? Or, are we just all supposed to nod in agreement?
(Hint: local Judges sit for re-election for a reason.)
Umm, I’m pretty sure it has been that way since the founding of the country. Plenty of Supreme Court cases, for example.
California residents threw out its state Chief Supreme Court justice over decision(s) related to the death penalty.
Actually someone posted a link to a clip of her talking about this case which got me thinking about her…I wouldn’t call anything she does journalism…but it was relevant to the thread.
I don’t mind people’s opinions, but lately “the people” have felt that the anonymity of the internet is protection to say whatever they feel like about anyone they feel like. Intellectual discourse has flown out the window in favor of personal attacks. I KNOW some judges are elected…that happens to be something I’m involved with in my personal life and yes, the people’s perception rules.
Not all judges are elected or sit for re-election. Federal judges do not because the system doesn’t want the judges to be politicians, doesn’t what their decisions to be based in any part on whether they will retain their jobs. In my state by far the majority of judges are ‘retained’ (not elected or re-elected, so just need a majority of votes to be retained); I’ve only known of a few who weren’t.
That’s the DA’s job, to ask for a sentence (or high bail, or bring charges) that is probably toward the maximum end of the range for that offense. The defense attorney’s job is to ask for the minimum. I don’t know what the probation report said, but in the Turner case and in the recent Boulder case, the probation reports recommended the more lenient sentences (jail time or probation, not prison). The probation (pre-sentence) reports are supposed to be neutral.
Yeah, I specifically said “local judges” for a reason. But I guess if your neighbor is an Article III judge, you might consider him/her a ‘local’ judge. 
A distinction without a difference, IMO.
I bookmarked an editorial from the LA times earlier this summer (I assumed the reference was about mandatory minimums and three-strike laws) and personally I think the Times got it right: