I think you were in the right ballpark, but am more interested in your theory on the woman juror. Obviously, everyone is different, but would there be a statistically significant difference in male vs. female sentencing on this case? One thing is certain, it is absolutely impossible for a man to know how this may have affected the girl. It's impossible for most women, too, but they are coming from at least a more similar perspective. It almost seems as if there should be a requirement for something like this for the jury to be equally weighted by sex. EDIT: May be changing my mind on the sentencing. How do you reconcile the details of the case with the sentencing? That is, it still seems like a fair amount of heresay in the case. But I wasn't there. And even if I was, once you make the guilty vs. not-guilt decision, shouldn't you throw aside the fact that there wasn't stronger evidence. You've determined he was guilty. As such, I think the sentencing should be harsher.
I actually think we take these cases to seriously, i know some girls who have been raped and it really doesnt effect them to much after a year or so, depending on how mentally strong they are. Each girl takes rape different, and to say someone should be put to death is idiotic. Obviously i'm not a girl so i cant speak for girls, but if someone accidently kills you, they dont get the death penelty, so how would it make sence to get the death penalty for rape?
Dude "you know some girls which have been raped and it doesnt affect them much" I know first hand how horrible this thing can turn out for a young child (especially a girl) and our society really doesnt care much about it given that most molestors/rapist get out within 5-10 years, which is ridiculous
yeah..what's the big deal? it's just forced sexual aggression on a child. come on!!! i'm not sure there's ever been a post on this board that i more strongly disagreed with.
i dont think i worded it exactly how i wanted, but unless there was physical assault, you're judging emotional damage to a person, and that varies a great deal with each person.
I believe aggravated offenses require serving half of the sentence (called "flat time", I think) before you can get out. A guy I played basketball with growing up is 9.5 years into a 10 year sentence for aggravated sexual assault and two counts of indecency with a child. He'll be out in September of this year. I would never have thought that guy would have done something like that. I remember he had a bit of a temper playing ball (who doesn't in Jr High/High School...), but outside of that he seemed to be very well adjusted and was actually quite religious and didn't drink or do drugs or anything like that. I guess when he was around little kids things changed...
i understand that, and for some people it can ruin there lives, but other's eventually are able to get past it, so how would u judge how much jail time the rapist should get? for the record i think rape is one of the worst things a human being can do, and those people do not deserve to live
You may not have worded how you wanted, but you definitely said we take these cases too seriously. In any light, that's ridiculous. There is almost always physical assault. In the sense that the physical act of the rape itself is a physical assault. Maybe the emotional damage is different with different people--so what? That doesn't change the intent of the person commiting the crime, or the fact that he's usually going after an easy(ish) target (when it's a guy raping a girl, that's usually the case)..
Now very confused. You think those people don't deserve to live. Except you think we take the cases too seriously and that the death penalty is not justified and that 20 years is too serious.
i agree, but to say that they should get life, how much should a drunk driver who kills a person get? i dont think they get life (i could be wrong) the physical damage isnt nearly as bad as the emotional damage with rape, some girls can never recover from it, but even in those cases should they get the same amount of jail time as if they had killed the girl?
i think it's a horrible crime, but no matter how horrible the crime, the punishment still needs to fit, and 20 years is not to serious, i said life is to serious
rape is by very definition a physical assault. let me also suggest to you that children who are raped don't come to deal with it for years. that they live in a shame about it that affects their personality from that day forward. i have a very close friend who went through this experience. the damage caused by that is often latent...but every bit as catastrophic.
depending on which correctional facility he's shipped to, he likely will die inside the walls (from murder.) i've had a couple of friends do some "hard time" and they both confirmed the "myth" that convicts do not tolerate child molesters. apparently, rapists, drug dealers, theives, and murderers are above child molesting.
stop changing the argument. you make a statement and then back away from it. your statement was, "unless there was physcial assault..." i'm saying there is no "unless." rape is...in and of itself...physical assault. i'm not suggesting he should get life. i'm suggesting the comment that we take this too seriously is ridiculous.
i'd be the greatest juror ever. read everything i can about the case, and sell my guilty/innocent verdict to the highest bidder.
Man, I thought I'd get maybe 2 replies or something. Well, I did ask for it. But, I know it's hard for other people to judge whether the jury did the right thing or not when they didn't even see the case. So, to respond to everyone: RM95, I don't know if it's the same person, but if it is, I like her even better now. Surfguy and others, apparently, he'll be eligible for parole once he serves half the term. So, he'll be 68 before he's even eligible. Of course, as one juror pointed out, a 68 year old can take viagra and be as dangerous as when he was 30. But, I don't know if the parole board is eager to let pedophiles go, as jlaw pointed out. I really was hoping that maybe the Victoria DA would reconsider prosecuting for the more recent rape so he could do time for that crime as well, but the lawyers after the trial said that probably won't happen. That's too bad. Macalu, some jurors had the same concern. My own feeling is that testimony is evidence, so I won't discount that and say we convicted him without evidence. It was a he-said/she-said thing. But, her testimony was strong, detailed, and rang true, while his was complete weaksauce and an obvious lie. For several of the jurors, he confirmed his guilt with his testimony. His lawyer actually was not court-appointed, which surprised me. He was not great -- but of course he didn't have much to work with. He was a lawyer from South Texas that the guy hired for himself. No Worries is right, we weren't allowed to rig it to account for parole. Actually, what the charge said was we were allowed to consider the fact the parole law exists, but now how that applies to the man in question. We were all wondering, wtf? Jlaw, I felt sorry for the prosecutor. He told us after the trial that all his cases are murders, sexual assaults and armed robbery. That's got to wear on you. Pope, I was thinking the same thing. I wish I could make a living as a juror. Of course, the job is more cushy because they don't pay you. JayZ, that's total speculation on my part. My thinking is that women would be softer on rape than men. I think men and women will identify with the crime differently. Men would think, "What if that was my daughter?" while women would think, "What if that was me?" So, a protective impulse will more likely come over a man. A woman is more likely to moderate her thinking and think, it's not the end of the world after all. Many women have been victims of rape or lesser versions of sexual exploitation and, while they know it's bad, it's an evil they know and one they know you can live through a recover from. For men, it's the unknown evil, one they will never experience the way a woman would. So, fearing the unknown over the known, men would be harder on rape than a woman. That's how I figure it. In that vein, I sorta agree with astrosrule. I think we as a society can easily go overboard on issues of rape because it can be so easily villainized. But, many or most women have had to endure some form of exploitation by men eventually, and don't have their lives completely ruined. In this case, the girl didn't seem to be ruined by it. She said it's something she's carried inside her all this time and that had an effect. And, as a teenager she was a major problem, lying to her guardian, skipping school, running away. She got pregnant at 17 or 18. But, even so, she managed to graduate high school, she kept the baby, has a long-time boyfriend, has a fulltime job. She hasn't been crippled. And, this is with a very turbulent childhood with having a crazy-r****ded-deaf-mute mother and no father, no supervision, getting bounced around by CPS, before you even get to the rape. I'm glad she's doing as well as she is considering the obstacles she's had to overcome. I don't want to trivialize the effect either -- and I did give him 20 years for it, essentially -- but I think the temptation is against moderation in punishment. I tell people about the case and they want to hang the guy by the scrotum until dead. Umm, sorry, that wasn't one of my choices. But, even if it were, I wasn't serving to wreck revenge for some poor girl. I was trying to mete out a just punishment that fits the crime -- not too light and not too heavy.
