Teacher gets 30 days for rape of 14 year old girl; Girl committed suicide.

[LSN80]

Prosecutors in Montana are attempting to appeal a 30 day sentence given to S.D. Rambold, a former teacher at Billings Senior High School in Montana. Rambold admitted to and was convicted of the statutory rape of Cherice Moralez, a 14 year old freshman. At the same time, hundreds of protesters have rallied around the courthouse, calling for the resignation of Judge G. Todd Baugh due to the nature of the sentence, and controversial comments he made in explaining the sentence. The victim, Cherice Moralez, was 14 when the rape occured. As the legal process transpired, Moralez took her life three years later when she was 17.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/28/justice/montana-teacher-rape-sentence/

In Montana, the minimum sentence that is to be given for cases of statutory rape is 2 years, but Judge Baugh gave Rambold only 30 days. In his explanation, Baugh said the following:

She(Cherice)seemed older then her chronological age, and was as much in control as Rambold of the situation.

First off, this isn't a 'situation.' It's a 49 year old man taking advantage of a 14 year old high school freshman. To minimalize what happened as a 'situation' is an affront to the girl and her family, who have had to live with the aftermath. While Rambold lost his job, he received only 30 days in jail for raping a young woman. Consent, by law, doesn't apply here, as the girl is too young to be considered at the age of consent.

Further, the girl took her own life as a result. Rambold took advantage of a young girl, then went about his life as the young woman committed suicide during the legal process. Cherice's mother, Auliea Hanlon, was both distraught and angered at both the sentence and the comments made by the judge following it. Hanlon said the following:

"He(Rambold)admitted raping the girl while he was a teacher at her high school, received only a month in prison, whereas Cherice took her own life.It discourages other kids from coming forward. If they come forward, what's going to happen? Nothing. How could she be in control of the situation? He was a teacher. She was a student. She wasn't in control of anything. She was 14.[She wasn't even old enough to get a driver's license. But Judge Baugh, who never met our daughter, justified the paltry sentence saying she was older than her chronological age. I guess somehow it makes a rape more acceptable if you blame the victim, even if she was only 14."

Baugh originally sentenced Rambold to 15 years, but suspended all but 31 days of the sentence. In defending his sentence, Baugh said the following, while apologizing for his earlier comments:

"I made some references to the victim's age and control. I'm not sure just what I was attempting to say at that point, but it didn't come out correct. What I said was demeaning to all women, not what I believe in and irrelevant to the sentencing.[It's not probably the kind of rape most people think about. It was not a violent, forcible, beat-the-victim rape, like you see in the movies. But it was nonetheless a rape. It was a troubled young girl, and he was a teacher. And this should not have occurred.

While Charice's mother filed a complaint against Rambold, holding him accountable for his daughter's death, Baugh said the following regarding it:

"She seemed older than her chronological age.Basically what we had was a troubled young girl. I simply did not have the evidence to conclude that her taking her life was because of her sexual offense by Mr. Rambold."

I'm not sure one could come to any other conclusion but Rambold's actions lead Charice down the path to her suicide. If she was a troubled girl, that makes Rambold's actions even more appalling, as he took advantage of her while she was troubled.

He deserves more than 30 days in jail, and as the 33,000 people who signed a petition said, Baugh should resign from his position as a judge.

Thoughts on this story?

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Where is this? Africa?

Are you kidding me? Montana?


Well see I dunno what happened but it kinda sounds like the Judge is trying to say Rambold didn't know how old she was. Nonetheless, he was the fucking teacher! And the sex wasn't consensual!

I really don't understand what the Judge is trying to prove here.

 

[Loveless]

What the fucking fuck!
Attitudes like this have to be completely removed from the courts. The judge should be sacked on the spot and a new sentence passed. The guy fucking admitted he was guilty, what the hell.

 

[Mr. Book This Section]

End of the day, what the judge says goes. Somethings are said in court that aren't written in this broadcasts so until the Judge says otherwise or someone gives me solid proof he deserves longer then I'll agree with the 30 day sentence.

 

[HBK-aholic]

End of the day, what the judge says goes. Somethings are said in court that aren't written in this broadcasts so until the Judge says otherwise or someone gives me solid proof he deserves longer then I'll agree with the 30 day sentence.

A 49 year old man raped a 14 year old girl; he ADMITS to doing so, thus there is no possibility of innocence - What more 'solid proof' do you need? This isn't one of those 'You have to hear every second of the trial in order to make a decision' things - the facts are the facts regardless of which way a lawyer wants to spin them. 30 days for a rape is never going to be an okay sentence, regardless of circumstance.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

"She seemed older than her chronological age.Basically what we had was a troubled young girl. I simply did not have the evidence to conclude that her taking her life was because of her sexual offense by Mr. Rambold."

When the fuck did "seeming older" become a rebuttal?? Is "seeming older" something the Judge thinks could have been prevented? That she was asking for it because she looked old enough?

Jesus. He's suppose to uphold the law. The law in Montana states that children younger than 16 cannot consent to sexual intercourse. So even if the 14 year old girl wanted to (which I highly fucking doubt) it's still rape. The judge had to have known that. Rape anywhere in the United States is illegal. This should have been a closed case and Rumbold should be serving the maximum penalty for rape.

This outcome probably did result to her eventual suicide because shit, she had to live with this Hell everyday because of what her teacher and the judge did. It's a damn disgrace and Baugh should step down for simply being a dumbass.

 

[Davi323]

14 is 14. 49 is 49. These are the only two facts that are necessary to understand why the judge needs to be removed from the bench for a bullshit sentence like that. Since when has "she seemed older" EVER been a valid legal defense? And for the judge to use that as an excuse for sentencing a rapist far under the mandatory minimum sentence? Complete fucking bullshit. Any judge who uses that as a justification for the rape of a 14 year old is clearly unfit to sit on the bench.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

Has anyone ever been to a courthouse to see how the process of judgement works? The person to decide how long a person should serve sentence is the district attorney (the prosecutor) not the judge. What the teacher did is considered by law the worst crime of all time: sex offense. No prosecutor nor courthouse as a whole would ever make such an unlawful decision as to give only 30 days of punishment. It's way too outside of court normalities.

Also, in a court house, responses like the one the Judge stated about the girl looking older than her actual age holds no credibility for the defendant's side. All that is mattered for these types of cases is whether the rape was done or not. It was. Guilty. End Story/

Cases like these go for years of imprisonment to life. But for this news of only 30 days being a sentence for rape? Laugh.my.fucking.ass.out. -- Not in fucking America.

#Fake Story.

 

[Trill Co$by]

Has anyone ever been to a courthouse to see how the process of judgement works? The person to decide how long a person should serve sentence is the district attorney (the prosecutor) not the judge. What the teacher did is considered by law the worst crime of all time: sex offense. No prosecutor nor courthouse as a whole would ever make such an unlawful decision as to give only 30 days of punishment. It's way too outside of court normalities.

The prosecutor gives possible sentences. Basically some options for the judge to give. However, if the judge feels necessary to give other punishments without them being weird and unusual, then he/she is free to do so. That's what their job is there for.

Now while I don't exactly advocate the 30 days by any means... I will say that those 30 days will forever be the worst 30 days of his life. There's nothing that prisoners use up more than the rear end of a pedophile/sex offender...

 

[Ultra Awesome]

The prosecutor gives possible sentences. Basically some options for the judge to give. However, if the judge feels necessary to give other punishments without them being weird and unusual, then he/she is free to do so. That's what their job is there for.

In 99% of the cases out there, the judge rarely gets invovled. He may have the ultimate say in the court but for the most part he remains as the neutral person that keeps order. It is the prosecutor that prosecutes and the lawyer that defends. This, as the jury watches and dictates guilty or not guilty. Evenly, the battle in the court house mainly revolves around the prosecution and the defense.

In the case that we are presented with, it shows the judge going way out of his way doing something too outlandish for a lame reason. This is blasphemy in court, especially considering the case is a sex offense. A sentence like this would never ever be given in real life. Not for rape; never.

#Fake Story.

 

[Davi323]

Has anyone ever been to a courthouse to see how the process of judgement works? The person to decide how long a person should serve sentence is the district attorney (the prosecutor) not the judge. What the teacher did is considered by law the worst crime of all time: sex offense. No prosecutor nor courthouse as a whole would ever make such an unlawful decision as to give only 30 days of punishment. It's way too outside of court normalities.

Also, in a court house, responses like the one the Judge stated about the girl looking older than her actual age holds no credibility for the defendant's side. All that is mattered for these types of cases is whether the rape was done or not. It was. Guilty. End Story/

Cases like these go for years of imprisonment to life. But for this news of only 30 days being a sentence for rape? Laugh.my.fucking.ass.out. -- Not in fucking America.

#Fake Story.

You clearly didn't actually read the story.

The judge originally had sentenced him for 15 years, and then commuted all but 31 days of it. That is not the prosecutor, that is the judge, and the judge alone.

"She seemed older than her chronological age. Basically what we had was a troubled young girl. I simply did not have the evidence to conclude that her taking her life was because of her sexual offense by Mr. Rambold."

If it was the prosecutor, the judge would have simply said so, instead of offering a pitiful defense. The judge's quote reveals that he believes statutory rape is really not a big deal, and that is why he must go.

#Reading Comprehension Skills

 

[klunderbunker]

"Just because a girl is old enough to act like a woman does not mean she's ready to do what a woman does."

- Ellen Page in Hard Candy.

That's the response to the judge's line about the girl being older than her chronological age. The girl may have acted, thought, dressed like and had the figure of an adult, but at the end of the day she wasn't alive fifteen years before the adult had sex with her. There's a reason these laws are in place: adults, especially ones in positions of authority like the man here, can forget that people are older than they act. The girl was just that: a girl, not a woman. No matter how developed she was, no matter how mature she sounded, no matter how anything she was, she was underage, plain and simple.

This would be no different than a 15 year old being allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes because they said they wouldn't drink to excess or smoke a pack a day. There's a firm line between legal and illegal and it's appalling for a judge to give a lighter sentence to someone because the girl apparently acted older than she was. Teenagers, especially younger ones like her, are often told to grow up. What does this teach them? Act more mature like you're told to and someone who rapes you gets off with only a month in jail?

No way this judge should get away with this, period.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

You clearly didn't actually read the story.The judge originally had sentenced him for 15 years, and then commuted all but 31 days of it. That is not the prosecutor, that is the judge, and the judge alone.

That's obvious. What the problem is is that the judge actually involved himself instead of letting the prosecutor do his thing.

If it was the prosecutor, the judge would have simply said so, instead of offering a pitiful defense. The judge's quote reveals that he believes statutory rape is really not a big deal, and that is why he must go.

Such is why this story is fake. The reasoning is pitifull. In any court house this would fail to stand. Statutory rape is a big deal, and it's well cleverly understood amongst all court houses as the greatest crime of all time. It's the one that receives the worst punishment. No court house would ever let something like this pass by.

#Reading Comprehension Skills

Not today.

 

[Davi323]

Judge don't typically order re-sentencing for fake stories.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/todd-baugh-new-hearing_n_3862714.html

Nor do they typically write statements apologizing for the fake original sentence of fake cases, nor do non-existent apologies, complete on fake notarized State of Montana letterhead appear in PDF form in the local newspaper.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/loc...pdf_5bb2c5d5-90d8-556a-a2e4-5e2174d23eab.html

Nor would the fake defendant of the fake story attempt to block the order to re-sentence the fake original sentence.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...cle_a99fbf03-b488-5483-85ec-9f985e57c903.html

The local Montana newspaper's website is full of fake stories about this fake case, apparently. Because heaven forbid, they wouldn't be the ones who had local reporters in the local courtroom when this was going down, they certainly would be the most obvious suckers for this obviously fake story, right? How could they possibly have fallen victim to such an obvious ruse? After all, it's not as if the Yellowstone County Courthouse in which judge G. Todd Baugh currently sits and this fake case was supposedly held is in Billings, Montana, right? Right?

---end sarcasm---

not today

yeah. Today.

 

[ocekit]

Such is why this story is fake.

The Montana Department of Justice put up a news release stating that the Attorney General's appealed the sentencing. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think they'd do that for a fake story.

Quote from Montana Department of Justice Website

Today, the Attorney General’s Office appealed Judge G. Todd Baugh’s sentence in the Stacey Rambold case. The appeal was filed with the Montana Supreme Court.

“We believe that the sentence Judge Baugh imposed on Stacey Rambold is illegal,” Attorney General Tim Fox said. “Using the means provided by state law, we are appealing his sentence and working diligently to ensure that justice is served.”

In criminal cases, the state has a limited right of appeal, which includes the right to appeal a sentence that is “contrary to law” as provided in MCA Section 46-20-103(2)(h). The state believes that Rambold’s 30-day jail sentence for statutory rape is contrary to law.

Judge Baugh has indicated he plans to reconsider the case on Friday at 1:30pm, but Montana law is clear that illegal sentences can only be remedied by appeal to the Montana Supreme Court or by a petition for post-conviction relief.

The Attorney General’s Office is coordinating with the Yellowstone County Attorney’s Office, which will be asking Judge Baugh to cancel Friday’s hearing and stop all proceedings pending a decision by the Montana Supreme Court.

For those of you who are really bored, you can find the PDF of the State's Notice of Appeal here

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Where is this? Africa?

Are you kidding me? Montana?

Its as close to Africa as your gonna get here in the States. Cept, y'know, with no black people.

This thread has to set an all time record for absolute idiocy. On the part of the people involved in it, and on the part of a few posters.

I saw the story on CNN earlier, it is not one bit fake. What is not fake, is your mental ******ation.

This will obviously be overruled in some way, and this judge will probably never step foot in a court again. The ruling is fucking obscene, justfying a 49 year old teacher having sex with a girl that young. Fuckin' please.

 

[Mustang Sally]

The law is the law, and at 14, she couldn't legally give consent to the sex. I can understand the whole "....she seemed older than her chronological age" stuff although, of course, society doesn't want me to say that out loud, particularly as I'm a woman. I remember a 15-year-old girl in high school who went with a 24-year-old guy: As a young girl well-versed in the ways of sex, she was the initiator of all that happened and when the hammer fell and her parents had the guy prosecuted, she pretended to be the helpless victim who was raped "over and over" against her will. Those of us who knew her were aware it wasn't against her will at all. It was always "Tom and I did this....and Tom and I did that" and the change in her tone after her parents stepped in was hard to reconcile with all that had gone before.

Still, the guy should have known better.....and in the case being discussed, that the man was 49 and a person who was responsible as an educator for her well-being.....he definitely should have known better.

Yes, his actual sentence is 15 years, although people are focusing only on the 30 days he has to serve. It does seem a ridiculously short period of time and should be longer, if for no other purpose than to give these authority figure guys the message that the penalty for sex with young girls will get them in hot water every time. If they're unable to say no when the girl is asking for it, they shouldn't be allowed to work as teachers, which is something that had already been taken care of in this teacher's case.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I heard about his case in late August and saw a piece about it on CNN. Now while I know that men sometimes get a raw deal when it comes to sentencing for some sexually related crimes, this is definitely a FAR too radical turn in the other direction.

When it comes to statutory rape, it's sometimes not as open & shut at it looks. For instance, if you're 19 and you have a girlfriend who is 16, 16 is below the age of consent in some states, that doesn't automatically make you a pervert or sexual deviant. I'm not necessarily saying this guy is either but...well it certainly seems that way. He's a grown man of nearly 50 yeas of age and is a teacher, so there's absolutely zero way to spin it without him looking like a total creep. There's no feasible excuse or explanation he can give. Also, if this girl was someone who'd lived a troubled existence, then it makes what he did all the more despicable. It gets even worse if he knew of her troubles, yet still took advantage of her.

The judge's comments were beyond ludicrous and seemed analogous to the old "she was asking for it" defense rapists used as a defense, often citing if the victim had a rep for sleeping around and/or wore provocative clothing. The fact that this girl may have looked of age isn't an adequate excuse. To top it all off, I'm pretty sure he 30 day sentence is illegal in & of itself. If the mandatory minimum for stat rape in Montana was set by a higher court, then I don't see how the judge can simply ignore that and impose a sentence that's beyond inappropriate.