I Pit This Gang Rapist and His Legal Team

[crowmanyclouds]

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
That same mindset is just not applicable to rape, not one bit. …
[/QUOTE]
Tell that to the folks who write the criminal laws and the sentencing guidelines, not me.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
… So in your mind: I punch a guy in the eye, he gets a black eye, and other than that is fine. I get charged with assault.

I rape a girl, but she’s physically fine (so we think). I get charged with assault. …
[/QUOTE]
Uh, no you get charged with rape, but thanks for jumping to the conclusion that I don’t know the difference between rape and assault (given the above it’s not clear that you get it). I really appreciate it! :rolleyes:

You might want to go back and really read what I wrote.
[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
… Isn’t rape a different crime, with different paramaters to define it than simple assault? Isn’t violation of that type worse than getting punched in the eye?

Don’t sentencing guidelines reflect that?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course. Obviously. Yes.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the specific characteristics of an offense change how those guilty of that offense are sentenced.

The criminal law,

UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I - CRIMES, CHAPTER 109A - SEXUAL ABUSE
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04

Section 2241. Aggravated sexual abuse

  (a) By Force or Threat. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act -(1) by using force against that other person; or
    (2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

  (b) By Other Means. - Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly -(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
    (2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby - 
      [INDENT](A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
      (B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;[/INDENT]or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(c) With Children. - Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.

  (d) State of Mind Proof Requirement. - In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.

the sentencing guidelines,

2007 FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL
CHAPTER TWO - OFFENSE CONDUCT, PART A - OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
3. CRIMINAL SEXUAL ABUSE AND OFFENSES RELATED TO REGISTRATION AS A SEX OFFENDER §2A3.1
§2A3.1. Criminal Sexual Abuse; Attempt to Commit Criminal Sexual Abuse
{^ This one should jump right to the section}

(a) Base Offense Level:(1) 38, if the defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c); or
(2) 30, otherwise.(b) Specific Offense Characteristics(1) If the offense involved conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) or (b), increase by 4 levels.

(2) If subsection (a)(2) {of 18 U.S.C. § 2241} applies and (A) the victim had not attained the age of twelve years, increase by 4 levels; or (B) the victim had attained the age of twelve years but had not attained the age of sixteen years, increase by 2 levels.

(3) If the victim was (A) in the custody, care, or supervisory control of the defendant; or (B) a person held in the custody of a correctional facility, increase by 2 levels.

(4) (A) If the victim sustained permanent or life-threatening bodily injury, increase by 4 levels; (B) if the victim sustained serious bodily injury, increase by 2 levels; or (C) if the degree of injury is between that specified in subdivisions (A) and (B), increase by 3 levels.

(5) If the victim was abducted, increase by 4 levels.

(6) If, to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct, or if, to facilitate transportation or travel, by a minor or a participant, to engage in prohibited sexual conduct, the offense involved (A) the knowing misrepresentation of a participant’s identity; or (B) the use of a computer or an interactive computer service, increase by 2 levels.

remembering that we sentence under a “[del]mandatory[/del] advisory minimum” rubric.

You can see exactly what kind of sentence would be give for rape, 2241, and what the various adjustments to the final sentence could be, here.

CMC +fnord!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I’m paraphrasing a bit here, but Jefferson once said something to the effect that “it’s better that 100 guilty men go free than that one innocent man be punished.”

And he was right.

[Rhythmdvl]

The generalized disdain for defense attorneys is something completely foreign and perhaps a bit beyond my visceral understanding. I get loathing particular attorneys, but generalized contempt is so … so un-American. As has been mentioned upthread, Katie et al are protecting our taken-for-granted freedoms by making sure the prosecutors do their job within the bounds of established law and justice. Matt’s sincere question—how do you do it, not why—points to the service and toll the profession can demand.

Here’s as close as I can get to understanding the mindset—I’d appreciate it if someone could let me know if I’m on track. Say a defense attorney based a motion/argument on something like but your honor, my client should be let out early because after all, the victim was black…, or …the victim was asking for it…, or …she probably enjoyed it…, …but she was gay…, …but she was a Jewess… etc. You get the point. There’d be a general and just uproar and excoriation of said attorney.

Now, I get that I’m using extreme examples, but somewhere between those and honest, post-conviction mitigating circumstances is a whole spectrum between universally contemptible and innocuous. Do you generally see the line of what is a morally permissible argument as being very close to the clearly acceptable end, and therefore, since as a class, defense attorneys are so much more often on the ‘wrong’ side of the line as to lump them in as evil? In this particular case, is “but she wasn’t (physically) harmed” in the same category as above? Is it equally baffling to you that people don’t the as being equally vile?

(Oh, please forgive my rather jingoistic use of “un-American.” Insert the country of your choice.)

[OtakuLoki]

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
Here’s as close as I can get to understanding the mindset—I’d appreciate it if someone could let me know if I’m on track. Say a defense attorney based a motion/argument on something like but your honor, my client should be let out early because after all, the victim was black…, or …the victim was asking for it…, or …she probably enjoyed it…, …but she was gay…, …but she was a Jewess… etc. You get the point. There’d be a general and just uproar and excoriation of said attorney.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not so sure that this is accurate. The easiest counter-example I can think of is the Kobe Bryant rape case. The various pre-trial evidenciary battles before the defense team managed to scare the alleged victim into refusing to get on the stand were building for a defense of “she was just a slut, so she couldn’t possible have been raped.” I won’t say that there was no uproar, nor excoriation of the attorney team. But it was drowned out by the a lot of other voices. It certainly wasn’t universal, nor even general, I don’t think.

[Rhythmdvl]

Oh, sorry, you’re right. Perhaps I was thinking more along the lines of the board’s reaction. I think, though, that a defense attorney threatening to put the victim on the stand, to depose all her friends and relatives with the express intent to intimidate is/should be considered ethically wrong. I think this is reflected in the model rules of evidence, which has some strong guidelines against bringing up past actions in court.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=huck tooey]
FUCK YOU YOU FUCKIN LIBERAL BLEEDING HEART FUCKS .
[/QUOTE]

Wow.

When was the last time I was called a liberal bleeding heart?

[Bricker]

You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll ask it again:

@Bricker

Ok. So since he didn’t maim her physically, you agree his sentence should be lower than the absolute maximum.

So why do you castigate the lawyer for laying out that fact at his sentencing hearing - a proceeding meant to apprise the judge of all the relevant factors for imposing a sentence?

What should the lawyer have done, if not mention that there was no physical harm?

You replied:

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Because rape is a physical crime, whether or not actual “damage” was caused to the woman’s vagina or body.

Uhh, that’s why rape crimes are punished by long prison sentences.

Jeez, the only problem I ever had with that was false accusation, not so much bandying about the ligatory aspects of mitigating circumstances.
[/QUOTE]

What should the lawyer have done, given the fact that different sentences are handed out for crimes that leave lasting physical damage?

[Mr.Excellent]

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I’m paraphrasing a bit here, but Jefferson once said something to the effect that “it’s better that 100 guilty men go free than that one innocent man be punished.”

And he was right.
[/QUOTE]

To elaborate upon this a bit: Jefferson was right because, while it’s rare for a single criminal (or even many criminals) to seriously threaten a country’s freedom and stability, it’s easy for a corrupt or broken justice system to destroy a country’s freedom. For example - I live in Washington, DC. We have a lot of murders, and that’s a truly terrible thing. However - and I don’t mean to minimize the suffering of victims, families, friends, and so on - life for the general public goes on. I wake up, go to work, vote as I please, associate with whom I please, and so on.

However, let’s say the government decided to adopt some really draconian measures to curtail the violence - say, establishing checkpoints in high-crime neighborhoods, and only allowing people to drive through if they had a purpose that was on the “approved” list for that checkpoint. Sort of like this one: http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1238,q,565197,mpdcNav_GID,1541.asp

Now, all of a sudden, personal tragedies are being converted into public tragedies, in the name of crime-prevention. Suddenly, people are less free to travel as they wish, attend political protests or lectures that can’t be “verified” by police, and so on - and this is the basic stuff of democracy, folks. A people who can’t travel or speak as they wish can’t act as an effective check on their government - and this principle applies to any overzealous law-enforcement activity. People who live in fear of arrest, searches, and so on tend not to be active citizens, engaged in the political process. And the way we prevent overzealousness is - well, with all due respect to Huck, we keep law enforcement in check with courts. And appeals. And all the balances that ensure our police and courts protect us from criminals, but we are also protected from abuses of that power.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Wow.

When was the last time I was called a liberal bleeding heart?
[/QUOTE]

You left out fuck.

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

[QUOTE= RNATB]
You left out fuck.
[/QUOTE]

And that’s why the ladies give him grief.

[Yookeroo]

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
Whatever happened to accepting your punishment because you acknowledge you were wrong and committed a crime?
[/QUOTE]

I’m innocent.

[VinylTurnip]

[QUOTE=huck tooey]
DO THE CRIME DO THE TIME BRING BACK THE DEATH PENELTY
[/QUOTE]

Yeah! An’ then let’s end the draft and overturn Prohibition!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

We should probably do away with that “make it fair for the negroes” business too. It’d be much easier to quash the gay agenda if they didn’t have that pesky Civil Rights Act to point to in their arguments.

[Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup]

[QUOTE= RNATB]
We should probably do away with that “make it fair for the negroes” business too. It’d be much easier to quash the gay agenda if they didn’t have that pesky Civil Rights Act to point to in their arguments.
[/QUOTE]

You mean there are gays running around outside of the CAMPS?!?!?
I certainly hope they’re registered.

[DrDeth]

[QUOTE=matt]
It’s the mental disconnect required in order to do this that gets to people.

I can see how you can represent someone who you strongly suspect to be guilty. You think they’ve told you a pack of lies, you’ve gently hinted that lying to your lawyer isn’t a good strategy, but they’re insistent, so you go with it. You do the best you can, and that’s fair enough.

But representing someone who you know to be guilty is something else. Presumably you know for sure because of some piece of evidence you successfully excluded. So you advise them not to take the stand so they don’t perjure themselves, and otherwise attack the credibility of eyewitnesses, introduce uncertainty about timing and motive, and generally fight the case. Knowing the whole time that they did it. I can see it needs to be done, for want of anything better. But I couldn’t do it personally, and I’m not sure how I feel about people who CAN do it. Don’t you ever find yourself wishing the prosecution did a better job? Are you thinking, “come on you idiot, I’m practically giving it to you on a plate here?” How does it work, inside your head, if that’s not too personal a question?
[/QUOTE]

Well, maybe they think the crime shouldn’t be one? I (IANAL but I work with quite a few) could happily defend a dude who was guilty as hell of some personal pot use, as I think our pot laws are stupid and outdated. Some lawyer fought the Texas anti-sodamy law all the way to SCOTUS, even though his cleint was undoubtedly having gay sex. Would you not agree that lawyer did the right thing, even though his client was guilty as charged?

I know some defence lawyers. If their client is really guilty of a crime we’d all say is a real crime, then in general what they try to do is make a deal, not get them completely off. Generally, if they are forced into a trial it’s because the DA- possibly sensing some political benefit- refuses to make a deal.

[Bricker]

@matt

How does it work, inside your head, if that’s not too personal a question?

When I was doing it for a living, here’s what I thought: the Commonwealth has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, using evidence that was obtained legally. I’m not standing up for my guy’s right to rob a house or sell heroin – I’m standing up for my guy’s right to not get jailed if the Commonwealth can’t prove, with legal evidence, what it’s accusing him of. I’m not doing it FOR my guy; I’m doing it for the system that protects everyone.

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
You haven’t answered the question posed above. If the range of punishments is, say, 8 to 25 years, and you argue that a victim who wasn’t physically harmed should get the 25, what sentence should be imposed when the victim was raped AND given permanant scars on her face and breasts?

If your “grudging agreement” above was an admission that this makes a difference, then why is the defense out of line?

If your grudging agreement referred to something else, then answer the orginal question – should the rapist that inflicted physical scarring get the same sentence as one that didn’t?
[/QUOTE]

This is a bullshit argument. Inflicting serious physical harm/scarring is a separate offense for which consecutive sentences could be imposed.

The discussion here about lawyers lying has centered entirely on the courtroom, when actually most lawyers do most of their work outside the courtroom. So when a lawyer calls me on the phone, as they do every day, and lies to me or tries to manipulate me, is that a violation of their ethics?

[ivan_astikov]

From personal experience, the best bit of legal advice I have ever heard is, “If you’ve done it, don’t tell me!”.

Lord forbid a lawyers work should give him sleepless nights!

[Muffin]

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
From personal experience, the best bit of legal advice I have ever heard is, “If you’ve done it, don’t tell me!”.

Lord forbid a lawyers work should give him sleepless nights!
[/QUOTE]
That advice has nothing to do with avoiding sleepless nights. The reason for it is for your lawyer to avoid having to quit in the middle of your case when he or she finds you lying to the court. Your lawyer must not knowing mislead the court, so if your lawyer knows that your are misleading the court, the lawyer has to drop out of your case. If you keep your dirty little crimes to yourself, then your lawyer will not know if you are misleading the court, and will be able to continue on as your lawyer. In short, don’t expect your lawyer to help you in your lying to the court.

[ivan_astikov]

[QUOTE=Muffin]
That advice has nothing to do with avoiding sleepless nights. The reason for it is for your lawyer to avoid having to quit in the middle of your case when he or she finds you lying to the court. Your lawyer must not knowing mislead the court, so if your lawyer knows that your are misleading the court, the lawyer has to drop out of your case. If you keep your dirty little crimes to yourself, then your lawyer will not know if you are misleading the court, and will be able to continue on as your lawyer. In short, don’t expect your lawyer to help you in your lying to the court.
[/QUOTE]

My “dirty little crimes” go back before 1991, so the legal system may have really cleaned up its act since then. Thanks for not being too judgmental!