30 days for rape.

This absolutely shocked me that this guy, Stacey Rambold, had raped his 14 year old student over and over again and when she killed herself.. he only got 30 days in jail. 30 days.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2405280/Cherice-Moralez-case-Family-speak-living-hell-rape-Stacey-Rambold.html

Then, a post on the WashingtonPost defending Rambold in this article claiming that "I don’t believe that all sexual conduct between under-age students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape" arguing because when she was 14 she was "Sexually ready and mature" and obviously doesn't understand that everyone sexually matures at different ages and this girl who got raped might of not understood what was happening to her.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sex-between-students-and-teachers-should-not-be-a-crime/2013/08/30/dbf7dcca-1107-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

Just.. what, ugh. I cannot deal with these people.

(edited 10 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Psyk

I actually agree with the statement

"I don’t believe that all sexual conduct between under-age students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape"

If it happened in England it actually wouldn't have been counted rape if it was consensual. Still illegal of course, and 30 days seems like a pretty light sentence.

Reply 2

Exon

Instead Judge G Todd Baugh appeared to agree with the defense assertion that Rambold had 'suffered enough' in losing his job, his wife, his teaching license and his house.

What a pathetic excuse to effectively let the crime go unpunished, considering he admitted to raping her and it led to suicide - an aggravating factor.

Daily fail but still cringe worthy.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 3

Joeman560

Was it rape or sex with a minor?

Reply 4

Psyk

Original post by Exon

What a pathetic excuse to effectively let the crime go unpunished, considering he admitted to raping her and it led to suicide - an aggravating factor.

Daily fail but still cringe worthy.

There are some aspects of it that aren't entirely clear. I think in the US 'rape' includes consensual sex with a minor. Where as here it doesn't (at least for her age). So it's possible he just admitted to having sex with her and under their laws that counts as admitting to rape.

Also the second article suggests that it's possible this all going public, going through the legal system, etc. could have been more of an aggravating factor than the sex itself.

These are just possibilities based on the information available though. Obviously people involved in the case know more.

Reply 5

montstar

Rape or not, consent or no consent, whether she knew what she was doing or didn't; the fact is he had sex with someone under legal age. It's paedophillia, and what's more he abused his position of responsibility.

I know the American legal system differs from ours, but what's so hard to understand about that?!

Reply 6

Exon

Original post by Psyk

Fair enough if it was consensual but I didn't find anything suggesting so, even though it may very well be a case of the minor not being able to legally consent. Still the guy is supposed to be an adult and a professional with a position of trust. He knew it was illegal and should've turned it down if it was offered.

Of course, the DM likes to sensationalise everything so they don't give us the full story.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 7

lucaf

well from the sound of it he didn't actually rape her. yes it was sex with a minor and should still have warranted a greater punishment, but I think it would be unfair to give him a sentence on the same level as actual violent rape.

Reply 8

tooosh

"Rambold was charged on three counts of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent (Felony) in July 2010."

Sounds like it was more than statutory rape.

It's a very emotive article which doesn't actually leave much room for the facts though. Daily Mail is the Daily Mail...

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 9

The_Duck

Sex with an underage person is sex without legal consent.
Rape is sex without legal consent.

Reply 10

Spontogical

I'm more concerned about the fact that his parents named him 'Stacey'.. of course he's bound to do dodgy things when he grows up..

all jokes side...

30 days!? what the actual Batman... :eek4:

Reply 11

XxelliexX

It is indeed absolutely disgusting.

The low rate of conviction is equally, if not more, disgusting. Only 7% of reported rapes resulted in convictions during 2011/2012, so there are many rapists that get absolutely nothing for their crime and continue to live their lives as normal and potentially re-offend, and the victim has the added worry of not being believed. A young person who has been repeatedly abused by an adult and finally finds the courage to tell someone deserves to be listened to! And yet it happens too often that their abuser gets off scot-free.

If someone is actually proven guilty and yet still only gets such an abysmally small sentence, it is absolutely ridiculous.

Reply 12

XxelliexX

Original post by Joeman560

Was it rape or sex with a minor?

They are both rape.

Reply 13

XxelliexX

Original post by lucaf

Sex with a minor IS rape. The definition of rape is not that it is violent, it's that it's a sexual act committed without the other person's consent! A minor is incapable of giving that consent!
With your reasoning, someone who is being sexually abused and freezes and shuts off due to fear and an inability to process what is happening to them rather than fruitlessly trying to fight back and getting hurt worse in return isn't actually being raped, because it's not 'violent'. Similarly, with your definition, someone in a coma who is being raped isn't 'actually' being raped because it's not violent!

All of these cases are 'actual' rape! Violence isn't a necessary condition for rape - if you think that all rapes are cases of women being violently molested in alleyways then you are very misinformed.

Reply 14

XxelliexX

Original post by montstar

Technically, peadophilia is a sexual interest in prepubescent children. For children aged 11-14 it is hebephilia.

Reply 15

lucaf

Original post by XxelliexX

well I suppose I could have phrased it better, I do understand that it is rape, but I still feel that there is a great deal of difference between statutory rape (such as this case) and other kinds. the girl had given consent, she is just of an age where her consent isn't legally valid. while still wrong I wouldn't think it should deserve the same punishment as other kinds, the crimes simply are not equal.

Reply 16

lucaf

Original post by XxelliexX

Technically, peadophilia is a sexual interest in prepubescent children. For children aged 11-14 it is hebephilia.

I have always wondered, is there actually a legal distinction between the two?

Reply 17

Psyk

Original post by Exon

Yes, even if it was consensual (although perhaps not legally valid according to their laws), I still agree he should be punished.

Original post by The_Duck

Sex with an underage person is sex without legal consent.
Rape is sex without legal consent.

Original post by XxelliexX

Sex with a minor IS rape. The definition of rape is not that it is violent, it's that it's a sexual act committed without the other person's consent! A minor is incapable of giving that consent!

It actually depends on the legal jurisdiction. I think that's how it works in the US, but in England it's different. English law does recognise the consent of someone over the age of 13, hence having consensual sex with someone between the ages of 13-15 is not considered rape. It's still illegal regardless of their consent.

So you could say that if you take the phrase "age of consent" more literally, the age of consent is actually 13 in England and Wales (not sure about the rest of the UK), despite the fact it's illegal to have sex before you're 16.

Original post by lucaf

I have always wondered, is there actually a legal distinction between the two?

They're not legal terms. But as I've said above, the law here does make a distinction between having sex with someone 12 and under and having sex with someone between the ages of 13 and 15.

Reply 18

InnerTemple

Original post by XxelliexX

The use of the 7% figure is misleading.

The 7% figure is the attrition rate. It represents the number of offences reported to the police which end up going to court.

Once in court, the conviction rate for rape is about 60%, which is in line with offer offences.

The 7% figure itself is slightly useless. It seems low, but no other criminal offences are measured by their attrition rates, so we have no idea whether an attrition rate of 7% is below average, above average or normal.

Reply 19

lucaf

Original post by Psyk

They're not legal terms. But as I've said above, the law here does make a distinction between having sex with someone 12 and under and having sex with someone between the ages of 13 and 15.