Former Montana teacher gets 30 days for student rape

[creekland]

Ok, this is a Fox News story.  Someone please tell me it's not really the way they wrote it... I don't have time to search.  If true, this story makes me sick.  There's very little I'd say is 100% wrong, but this judgment (as written) would be at the top of my list.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/28/former-montana-teacher-gets-30-days-for-student-rape/?test=latestnews

 

Does anyone local know more?  Did I miss a thread already started about it with more info?

 

That poor girl - and family.

[Whereneverever]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57600324-504083/stacey-dean-rambold-former-mont-teacher-who-raped-student-sentenced-to-30-days-in-jail/

 

 

CBS is running it, too. :(

[unsinkable]

The girl killed herself. It's horrifying that a judge...an elected judge...can be so f7cked up.

 

Here's a CBS story before the Forum Police come in and accuse you of starting a political thread:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57600324-504083/stacey-dean-rambold-former-mont-teacher-who-raped-student-sentenced-to-30-days-in-jail/

[Cinder]

That is beyond horrifying!

[Mandylubug]

uggghhhhh horrible

[Flowing Brook]

I can't think of a single scenario where she would be even partly to blame. The girl was a child. How is he getting off is beyond me.

[swellmomma]

oh my word.  My dd is 14 and as mature as she may seem she is still only 14.  So she is dead as a result of all of this and he gets 30 days? Any bets on how long the parents get for hunting his predator a$$ down and beating the life out of him when he is released? Because I can say without a doubt that if this had been my little girl, I would be looking at 20-life and proud of it.

[NicAnn]

I'm not even slightly shocked. We practically beg men to rape our children and woman in this country-by hiding it, by giving short or no sentences, by victim blaming.

 

 

Pot smokers get sentences 2-3x longer than rapists.

[Catwoman]

I could hardly believe it when I saw this story on the news. :angry:

 

It is an absolute outrage, and that judge should be out of a job.

 

I can't even imagine how that poor girl's mother must feel. :(

[Guest submarines]

What the heck is "older than her chronological age"? She is 14! So if we have an exceptionally mature 12 year old, she's suddenly old enough to consent? What about a 10 year old? Sick. 

[TXBeth]

I am wondering where the outrage was when he got the deferred adjudication originally? I have never heard of this case before today, and at first he didnt get any jail time at all! It is absolutely disgusting.

[Χά�ων]

Uh yeah I read that.  There must be something more to it.  So bizarre.

That was my thought as well

[Laurie4b]

How can there possibly be any more to it when we know she was 14, he was 49, AND a teacher? In some states, a teacher can be jailed even for sex with a student who is 18 because of the power differential.

 

I feel very sorry for her parents, for the teen, and for the other girls who will cross this guy's path.

[Xuzi]

It doesn't matter how mature she looked, you'd have to be an absolute idiot to not know that a class of HS SOPHOMORES = MINORS = UNTOUCHABLE. I hope this judge loses his position.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am wondering where the outrage was when he got the deferred adjudication originally? I have never heard of this case before today, and at first he didnt get any jail time at all! It is absolutely disgusting.

 

I don't even understand how he was still teaching in 2008. "Rambold had been warned by school officials in 2004 to avoid touching or being alone with female students."

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-senior-high-teacher-gets-days-for-rape-of-student/article_b1f84190-ef23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html#ixzz2dJh17JET

 

I agree with NicAnn that there is a LOT of victim blaming in the US. But, I agree with Laurie that he was 49, she was 14, he was a teacher, she was a student, he was dead wrong. The fact he had been warned before should tell you everything you need to know, IMO.

[Guest submarines]

It doesn't matter how mature she looked, you'd have to be an absolute idiot to not know that a class of HS SOPHOMORES = MINORS = UNTOUCHABLE. I hope this judge loses his position.

 

It seems that the judge is referring to her developmental age, not the way she looked, which is such a dangerous argument. 

[Parrothead]

The only redeeming thing about this may be a bit of jailhouse justice when the other inmates find out what he is in for,

[Rubix]

That is totally wrong...

[RanchGirl]

Absolutely sickening. From what I read, the judge with the "older than her chronological age" tripe never even met the victim, so how could he possibly come to that conclusion, even if it was somehow a valid legal reason for a known pedophile teacher to rape a student 40 years younger than him. Smells like corruption to me, there is no other logical way to explain this.

[Katy]

I saw this on the news the other day.  There's not more to it.  That judge is always soft on sex offenders.  The problem is that he's elected and no one ever runs against him.

[Mrs Mungo]

How does the judge figure this when the teacher was warned *four years* before starting a relationship with this girl? 

 

 

Baugh has defended his ruling. He told CNN he believes Rambold is "treatable" and a "low risk to re-offend."

 

If the girl suffered so much at the school that she committed suicide, maybe there are other girls who aren't willing to come forward.

[Dory]

This makes my stomach churn, but it doesn't really surprise me.

[Laura Corin]

Is there any kind of sentence review procedure that can be put in train?

 

ETA: It's being reviewed.

 

L

[Laurie4b]

Is there any kind of sentence review procedure that can be put in train?

 

ETA: It's being reviewed.

 

L

 

The problem is that it sounds like the ridiculousness of the actual sentence cannot be grounds for review. Prosecutors have to look for a technical violation; they can' t appeal just because they adamantly disagree with the judge's ruling.

 

Even if the judge is elected, wouldn't the state judicial board be able to open a case against him for breach of judicial ethnics (or if he's an atty, the state bar?) for making it about the victim.

 

I wonder what the process is for impeaching a judge in that area and who can start it?

 

If this jurisdiction doesn't get someone to run against him next time, every pedophile in the US ought to be moving to that area so as to continue their molesting unmolested.

[creekland]

I was hoping there was more to the story somehow - no clue how.  Now it just seems sad and frustrating.  If this judge is truly always soft on predators it makes me wonder what he has (or had) going on in his own life to be honest.  If this had happened to my daughter (I don't have one, but...) I'd definitely be considering vigilante justice in order to get SOME justice.  I wouldn't give a hoot what happened to me at that point.  When the courts fail (remember, he pled guilty), something has to happen.

[kiwik]

Can it not be appealed on the grounds that it is outside normal practice or could cause the public to hold the judiciary in contempt? Usually legal decisions are made on precedent and this is an alarming precedent to set. A 14 year old is a minor and therefore not legally able to give consent. This means any sexual activity is without consent even if she begged him for it which doesn't sound likely.

 

There is a tendency to say consent is not saying NO when in fact to consent you must not only say yes but legally be able to do so.

[Ravin]

I'm going to take this apart a little bit.

He was sentenced to 15 years, with all but 31days suspended. So the actual incarceration time is short, yes. But he will be a registered sex offender. He will never teach again. His wife left him, he's broke, and there could be substantial criminal restitution to pay or a civil suit to follow. If he ever does anything felonious ever again, that 14.5 years can be unsuspended and stacked on top of whatever sentence he gets for the new crime.

 

Meanwhile, the State of Montana does not have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars for the next 15 years to keep a non-violent offender (from the article I gather it was statutory non-consent) incarcerated.

 

It doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

[creekland]

I'm going to take this apart a little bit.

He was sentenced to 15 years, with all but 31days suspended. So the actual incarceration time is short, yes. But he will be a registered sex offender. He will never teach again. His wife left him, he's broke, and there could be substantial criminal restitution to pay or a civil suit to follow. If he ever does anything felonious ever again, that 14.5 years can be unsuspended and stacked on top of whatever sentence he gets for the new crime.

 

Meanwhile, the State of Montana does not have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars for the next 15 years to keep a non-violent offender (from the article I gather it was statutory non-consent) incarcerated.

 

It doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

If your daughter committed suicide due to what this guy had done to her (consensual really does not happen between a 14 year old and a teacher... it's a typical high school crush that most male teachers (and some female teachers) deal with on a regular basis without acting on it), you'd be ok with his being left broke and without a job - meaning he is likely to live off the public dole anyway?

 

I would not.  Punishment needs to fit the crime.

 

He obviously isn't too "damaged" by the ordeal if people are letting him have unsupervised visits with relative minors. I'm gathering those folks consider the whole thing "no big deal."   Her life (and her family's) has been ended and/or scarred forever.

[Erin]

THE MYTH OF THE TEENAGE TEMPTRESS: OR WHY A YOUNG GIRL CAN NOT CONSENT TO SEX WITH AN ADULT MAN

 

My sister in law posted this op-ed piece she'd found in response to this judgement.  I think anyone who makes the "older than she seems" argument, or, "as much in control" as the teacher, should be required to read it.   :(

[Ravin]

He was not convicted for contributing to her suicide. He was convicted of rape. The effect on the victim can indeed be an aggravator for steeper sentencing, but generally that sort of aggravator must be proven to a fact-finder in court, usually to a high standard. That isn't an easy thing to do. The judge apparently took into account the victim's recorded statements, and the victim's mother's statements.

 

He is also required to take mitigating circumstances into account, such as that it was a first offense, he has obligations to meet that he can better meet if he's not incarcerated (for example, if the victim's family gets restitution or sues him, they have a better shot at collecting if he's holding down a job than if he's sitting in prison.)

 

I don't see anything in the information at hand that amounts to the judge's abuse of discretion. His comments about the victim were rather dickish and uncalled for, but that doesn't impair the validity of his sentence. Of course, I don't have the full record of evidence, and the reviewing court will and could see it differently.

[LostSurprise]

Because she committed suicide and couldn't testify, he got a sweet deal to begin with. No prison time and only 3 years of treatment for being a sexual predator. That's it. He started skipping meetings over a year ago and would not fulfill the needs of the program (contact with minors, not reporting sexual relationships). He was terminated from it and that's why he faced prison time. 

 

Its understandable that the prosecutor's office felt they had limited choices when prosecuting this case. They lost the majority of their case when she committed suicide. However, its inappropriate for a judge to say its okay for the guy to refuse the terms given by the court (which he agreed with) because the judge didn't feel the case had merit ('she was old for her age' 'she had as much control as he did'). The judge did not take this man's refusal to abide by the terms of the agreement seriously. 

[LostSurprise]

The double bubble attacks.

[mommymilkies]

Rape is not a nonviolent offense. And if it's categorized there as such, then that is screwed up.

 

I don't consider myself a violent person, but I wish nothing good for that piece of trash. The judge should be stripped of his position.

[creekland]

 The judge apparently took into account the victim's recorded statements, and the victim's mother's statements.

 

He is also required to take mitigating circumstances into account, such as that it was a first offense, he has obligations to meet that he can better meet if he's not incarcerated (for example, if the victim's family gets restitution or sues him, they have a better shot at collecting if he's holding down a job than if he's sitting in prison.)

 

 

It sure didn't sound like the victim's mother was in agreement with the judge's decision.

 

Again, a serious crime was committed (a teacher taking advantage of a 14 year old student).  He pled guilty.  This was not a "he said, she said" situation although it definitely appears she had a crush on him - as many teenaged girls do at some point in their life.  It, in no way, make what he did "petty."

 

He then thumbed his nose at the weak agreement that he somehow swung (I seriously wonder about the ability of the prosecuting attorney with that one).

 

Punishment should fit the crime.  31 days in prison hardly does that IMO.

 

This case reeks of "Good Ole Boys Club" taking care of each other.  That's not justice.  Imagine if every teacher took the liberty with a student who had a crush on them... and got a slap on the wrist along with a wink from the judge since it was "the girl who had the crush."  Crushes are COMMON.  In no way, shape, or form should any teacher be allowed to get away with what he did.

 

[Joanne]

I see the post I was going to offer has already been posted. Please be warned; it is graphic

 

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

[Ravin]

"Violent offense" is a legal term of art. It doesn't always mean exactly what a lay person might expect it to mean. For example, in my state, a "violent" offense is one that results in physical injury or involves a weapon. Statutory rape generally doesn't fall in that category. 

 

It sounds from what LostSurprise added (info that wasn't in the CBS article I read), his initial sentence was probation on sex offense terms with treatment, which again is a more cost effective and reasonable way of dealing with something like this than the lock 'em up and throw away the key approach. To find the sentencing on revocation satisfactory from a sense-of-moral-justice standpoint, I'd want to hear more detail of the Court's mitigating factors than his inappropriate statements about the victim. 

 

Abuse of judicial discretion is a standard of review that is very hard to meet, though. Unless he straight up violated the statutes that dictate how sentencing works or made a clear error in how he applied the law, what he decided will stick. If his error was in fact-finding, that has even GREATER deference.on review. Odds are, what he decided will stick. 

[Kim in Appalachia]

It made me so angry.  I don't care how "old" the girl acted.  He's an adult.  He knew what he did was wrong.  She was so destroyed by it all that she killed herself.  And he gets off......!!!!!  The judge thought he suffered enough?!  The whole thing is a sick joke.  I feel for the mother.  

 

Even just sitting here thinking about it again makes me want to cry.  The judge needs to be dismissed from the bench.  

 

And I agree, there were/are probably other girls.  I hope they can find the strength to come forward.  

[mommymilkies]

I see the post I was going to offer has already been posted. Please be warned; it is graphic

 

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

Thank you for that. I just can't understand how some people don't understand this. It deeply disturbs me that people believe she could consent and that he's somehow not responsible here.

[MyThreeSons]

Someone said "He'll never teach again." It would be nice to believe that's true, but I wouldn't count on it.

[Mrs Mungo]

What bothers me about the sentence:

 

1) The judge said he had a low likelihood to re-offend. But, this was not his first offense or he would not have been warned and told to not be alone with female students back in 2004.

 

2) Given that the abuse heaped upon this girl at school (according to the article I read) caused her to commit suicide? I would not be surprised is there were other victims who are not coming forward.

 

3) The fact that he was kicked out of the sex offenders programs demonstrates a rather cavalier attitude toward the whole thing, which is not what I would expect from someone with a low likelihood to re-offend.

 

4) I don't expect child rapists with a history of inappropriate behavior who reject counseling tools to be walking the streets.

[Mom2OandE]

This mans refusal to head the warning in 2004 and his refusal to complete the sex offender program and its terms tell me he thinks he is above the law. He has a complete disregard for people and society. If he was truly unlikely to do this again it would have never gone beyond 2004. I'm seeing signs of a sociopath and now he's free to continue to commit these crimes.

[mommaduck]

30days? This has to be small town politics at play. I'm not kidding. This is the kind of thing I'd expect in Southern Illinois or South Carolina.

[HRAAB]

I'm going to take this apart a little bit.

He was sentenced to 15 years, with all but 31days suspended. So the actual incarceration time is short, yes. But he will be a registered sex offender. He will never teach again. His wife left him, he's broke, and there could be substantial criminal restitution to pay or a civil suit to follow. If he ever does anything felonious ever again, that 14.5 years can be unsuspended and stacked on top of whatever sentence he gets for the new crime.

 

Meanwhile, the State of Montana does not have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars for the next 15 years to keep a non-violent offender (from the article I gather it was statutory non-consent) incarcerated.

 

It doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

 

I got as far as your response and am wondering if I'm understanding correctly.  Rape is considered a non-violent crime?  Or is it in this case because it's statutory rape - she wasn't of age to consent?

 

eta:  I see you already addressed this.  I need to read further before posting.

[Ravin]

 

What bothers me about the sentence:

 

1) The judge said he had a low likelihood to re-offend. But, this was not his first offense or he would not have been warned and told to not be alone with female students back in 2004.

 

2) Given that the abuse heaped upon this girl at school (according to the article I read) caused her to commit suicide? I would not be surprised is there were other victims who are not coming forward.

 

3) The fact that he was kicked out of the sex offenders programs demonstrates a rather cavalier attitude toward the whole thing, which is not what I would expect from someone with a low likelihood to re-offend.

 

4) I don't expect child rapists with a history of inappropriate behavior who reject counseling tools to be walking the streets.

 

1. If he was not previously convicted of anything, then it is a "first offense". A warning with dismissed charges or from his employer does not equal an "offense" when it comes time for sentencing.

 

2. The problem with the suicide thing is that the prosecution has to prove that what he did caused her to suicide for it to weigh as victim harm. That, as I said before, is not an easy thing to do. "Her mom said so." is not an adequate show of proof for a court of law. We don't know what proof was placed before the judge. Whether there are other victims who come forward depends on a lot of things. So far there haven't been. If any do, he'll have that 15 years prison hanging over him.

 

3. We do not know the circumstances of his failure to comply with the program. It could be that he had a cavalier attitude about it, or it could be that he had serious difficulties with compliance because of transportation or money or who knows what. Speculation about the defendant's state of mind when he fell out of compliance is not part of the judge's analysis.

 

4. He's still going to be a registered sex offender, and failure to comply with registry terms is often a separate offense in itself which could be brought against him if a pattern of non-compliance continues. Next time (if there is one) he might not get the "easy" judge. Having non-violent sex offenders walking the streets doesn't trouble me all that much. The public is on notice about them. That's the point of registry. The high-recidivism profile pedophiles are notorious for doesn't fit all sex offenders.

[LostSurprise]

 

3. We do not know the circumstances of his failure to comply with the program. It could be that he had a cavalier attitude about it, or it could be that he had serious difficulties with compliance because of transportation or money or who knows what. Speculation about the defendant's state of mind when he fell out of compliance is not part of the judge's analysis.

 

 

Read one of the longer articles (the BBC has one I think) about this case. He skipped sessions for up to a year (we're not just talking one mistake or a month where he was getting transportation set) and did not fulfill the obligations of the program. He was required to stay away from minors and report sexual relationships to his counselor within the counseling relationship. He simply didn't fulfill his obligations so the counseling center had to terminate their relationship with him. 

 

The prosecutor's office (who made the original deal with him) then requested that he serve 10 years of his original 15 year term, since he could/would not fulfill the terms of probation. 

 

The judge does not need to speculate on the defendant's state of mind. The facts should be in a report from the program from which he was terminated. Obviously a report was made to the prosecutor's office or he would not be back in front of a judge. The judge just didn't find this important, even though it was the reason the defendant was in front of him. 

 

The judge is not required to comment on, or judge, whether the girl was 'adult enough' for a sexual relationship. That is defined by Texas law and handled during the original prosecution and deal. What he was required to do was uphold the law and the agreement made and chose a sentence based on factors involved with the man's probation (time served, difficulties). He chose not to. He chose to set the sentence based on how he would have judged the case itself, not whether the defendant was fulfilling his probation agreement. 

 

Bad stuff all around. 

[Ravin]

What it comes down to is whether the judge is allowed to do what he did. In my state, when probation is revoked, you automatically go to prison. Any discretion in whether or not to revoke lies with the probation department and prosecutor. I don't know what the state laws in the case are. But if the judge has the discretion to rule as he did, it's unlikely it'll be overturned on review. Stupid reasons don't necessarily amount to abuse of discretion.

[LMD]

I don't even understand how he was still teaching in 2008. "Rambold had been warned by school officials in 2004 to avoid touching or being alone with female students."

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/former-senior-high-teacher-gets-days-for-rape-of-student/article_b1f84190-ef23-5868-8799-b779c0421dc1.html#ixzz2dJh17JET

 

I agree with NicAnn that there is a LOT of victim blaming in the US. But, I agree with Laurie that he was 49, she was 14, he was a teacher, she was a student, he was dead wrong. The fact he had been warned before should tell you everything you need to know, IMO.

 

Respectable adults do not need a warning like this - 'please don't touch the female students, ok?' :cursing: .  Having to spell out to grown men that having sex with a child = wrong, just... I have no words.  It's not a difficult concept.  :banghead:

[Mrs Mungo]

What it comes down to is whether the judge is allowed to do what he did. In my state, when probation is revoked, you automatically go to prison. Any discretion in whether or not to revoke lies with the probation department and prosecutor. I don't know what the state laws in the case are. But if the judge has the discretion to rule as he did, it's unlikely it'll be overturned on review. Stupid reasons don't necessarily amount to abuse of discretion.

 

In no way am I saying that it should be overturned or that it is illegal for the judge to rule as he did. I'm saying the judge was wrong to rule as he did, especially given his reasons. 

 

Compare it to this story from MA:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/rachelle-gendron-sex-ed-teacher-rape_n_3817160.html

 

 

 

In court Friday, Gendron appeared crying and visibly shaken as she was arraigned on charges including five counts of rape aggravated by age difference.

 

 

 

Gendron pleaded not guilty to all charges against her. If convicted, each count of rape carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison.

[Erin]

 

 

That is defined by Texas law and handled during the original prosecution and deal.

Montana.

The big cowboy state that borders Canada, rather than Mexico.  
 

[Ravin]

In no way am I saying that it should be overturned or that it is illegal for the judge to rule as he did. I'm saying the judge was wrong to rule as he did, especially given his reasons.

 

Compare it to this story from MA:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/rachelle-gendron-sex-ed-teacher-rape_n_3817160.tml

This one makes me wonder what the plea deal will look like. It's common to charge multiple counts when there was an ongoing relationship/abuse. That can be changed in a plea agreement. Most people facing 10-50 years in prison plead guilty for a lesser sentence.

 

The initial case here he pled to just one count. It was a weaker case to prosecute from the sound of it as well, partly because of the victim's death.

 

In no way am I saying the ruling was right. It's just that people get hung up on things that aren't relevant when they say it's wrong. There is clearly wrongheadedness in the judge's characterization of the victim. But he also had reasonable reasons, such as a lack of evidence that he's likely to do something like this again.