I have a real issue with those type of cases. A jury is going to believe a child or young woman for precisely the reasons the prosecutor stated. I’m sure that the girl had SANE nurses, counselors, and everyone else in the system telling her how much of a “victim” she was. There is no check valve in the system to filter out those who are fabricating.
I’m not saying we should have a return to the MPC’s requirement of corroboration in rape cases, but the due process aspect of those cases is sincerely flawed. Juries run on emotion and do not give the accused the benefit of doubt. As long as the alleged victim’s story is not insanely crazy, they believe it.
Further, although she certainly deserves the two months in jail and the restitution, I think that has terrible adverse consequences. Maybe another “victim” is thinking about doing the right thing but decides to hell with it because I don’t want to spend two months in jail or pay $90,000. It’s not like anyone will find out anyways.
I’m not sure how these cases are/were handled in NJ, but around here, I’m not sure how the case “falls apart.” Virtually any sort of behavior is consistent with rape/abuse. If the person is emotional and crying, see look, she isn’t lying. If she is cold and emotionally distant, well, who could blame her after what she’s been through?
If she gives a number of details about the assault, see how consistent she is? If she cannot remember the day, month, or even year, wouldn’t you try to put something like that out of your mind?
If she hates her alleged assailant, wouldn’t you? If she loves/still loves him, Stockholm Syndrome.
I have a young daughter. I am very sympathetic to abuse, because if something bad happens to her, I want her to get help. But I have a real issue with the “everything is consistent with abuse” theory unless the story is just over the top incredible.
As far as special knowledge of the facts, well, I am extremely familiar with the Mormon culture which leads to this. See below.
Do you believe for one nanosecond that he would cry if a non-Mormon or lapsed Mormon were being sentenced? If so, then send me a PM, I’ve got some great investment property which is just too good for me to keep to myself.
Actually, it sounds like he’s speaking as a member of the stake High Council, the lay leaders in the Mormon church who are charged to judge wayward priesthood members in special disciplinary courts. You could take his words and they would be much more be completely at home there. They’re code talk, any Mormon could recognize what he’s saying.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he were a High Councilor. In fact, as he’s an attorney and now a judge, I would be really surprised if he isn’t or hadn’t been a bishop, a bishop’s councilor, a stake president, a stake president’s councilor or a High Councilor at some point. There’s a really, really high percent chance that he’s been involved in Mormon discipline counts and his terminology comes directly from there.
Mormon culture is completely intertwined in the judge’s message here, and that’s what’s bothering a lot of people. There’s another article in the Salt Lake Tribute (written last year, but updated a couple of days ago) which deals with Mormonism and the rape culture.
Most of the article isn’t really relevant to this situation, but the following is:
This is exactly what the judge’s whole message about this man is a “great man” and why the judge was crying. It just wasn’t the bishop’s fault, you see. Even great people get tempted by Satan. In fact, we know that these are the last days because even the elect shall be deceived. (Not that a predator was wrongfully selected as a leader of course. Were that to have happened, then maybe the victims were got the short end of the stick, but that impossible.) This is why the judge wasn’t concerned about releasing a convicted rapist back into a house with eight children while the rapist was awaiting sentencing. All he needs to do is just repent and not let Satan back into his heart and it’s a win-win for everyone.
Probably now there’s a higher punishment within Mormonism for rape or molesting someone, but the overwhelming message in Mormonism is that it’s the sexual nature of the sin which is what’s bad, and forcing someone is just a side note.
The victim doesn’t count here. It’s the sinner and God who are important. That’s why the judge doesn’t discuss or perhaps even consider what the sinner has done to the victim.
What really unfortunate here is that bishop was in a position of authority as a “judge of Israel” over his flock, and Mormonism places a high degree of importance in sexual purity over the woman. This bishop will have been in a position to impose ecclesiastical punishment over members for such minor offenses such as masturbation, all while molesting and raping minor girls in his home.
Mormon bishops are lay members who are in charge of a congregation. Being one when he was 40 means that he was on the fast track in the LDS faith. Truly an “extraordinary” man. I donno. Maybe he had also found a cure for cancer but the Trib simply failed to mention it. False news!
For me, it’s personal. My father was a member of the bishopric while he was molesting my sisters. There wasn’t a question of going to the law back then and my sisters were an afterthought. Their feelings and experiences were completely ignored or discounted. They were forced to forgive him.
I have seen far too many sexual predators being allowed to escape legal punishment because of their membership as Mormons.
I have no doubt that the judge is truly sorry that he had to sentence the bishop to prison.
Setting aside the question of whether the sentence was appropriate or not, if the judge is crying during sentencing because he’s sure the accused is a good man, then that’s a sign that he should have recused himself in the first place.
The crying is a concern, but this statement much moreso.
To those who have been victimized by this “extraordinary, good man”, it took a huge amount of courage to come forward against him. Especially if they, like a lot of Mormons, were brought up to revere the clergy.
So their reward for seeing this through and actually proving their case? It’s hearing the judge say that the court is confident that, in spite of his nasty crimes, he’s still an “extraordinary, good man”.
Yes, he was convicted, but if the judge’s emotional commentary only serves to exacerbate the guilt and shame that rape victims feel when they speak up, then he’s sabotaging justice in the greater scheme of things. There should be a point when a great man ceases to be great if his actions are bad enough. If rape isn’t one of those actions, what else is?
With the Mormon judge that sentenced this Mormon bishop as a character witness at his first parole hearing, with a likelihood that the parole board will have a majority of Mormons, how many years do you think he’ll serve?
I find the behavior of the judge in this case extremely troubling. How can he claim to do his job impartially if he weeps when sentencing a creep like this guy? And praising him as “extraordinary” and “good”? Where is the sympathy and praise for the victims, who displayed real courage in reporting the man’s vile conduct even with the weight of Mormon culture ranged against them?
TokyoBayer, thanks for the excellent post about the mentality that lies beneath the crimes and the judge’s reaction to them.
Well said. One of the reasons I take occasional breaks from this site is the misogyny that seems to appear with depressing regularity.
How does someone convicted of multiple sex offenses get to go home to his family after the verdict? Even ignoring the ridiculousness of calling a sex offender an “extraordinary, good man”, guilty people don’t get to go home.
He acted very human, yet in accordance with the law. Humanity is the very factor we want in the judicial system, as that provides mercy for those unintentionally caught in the net of law. It also has a side effect that human mercy is extended on both sides of the equation, though this judge still allowed the lawful conviction of this man.
It appears that the law requires that very thing if it is proven that the man is not a threat to others and will not flee sentencing. Again it is a temporary reprieve which is within the law. Some who are convicted but not given this reprieve are given credit for time served before sentencing, so in that the time served should be equatable.
I would argue with the bolded statement. I would re-phrase it as “*the police have determined that *it didn’t happen, or at least that a crime did not occur.” For reference, I refer to the article I posted upthread - the woman *was *raped, it *did *happen, yet her case was reported to the FBI as “unfounded.”
Was her case typical? God, I hope not, and I feel confident in saying that it isn’t. Do actual victims sometimes recant? I would say yes, for many possible reasons. Do some police officers try to “talk them out of the allegation”? Again, I would say yes. Do officers sometimes find a victim to be non-credible, and therefore decline to pursue? Have practices improved in dealing with sexual assault cases in the last 20 years? (Remember, the 8% figure is from 1996.)
I imagine an SVU officer has enhanced training in dealing with victims of sexual assault, but many departments do not have a dedicated SVU unit.
Folks defending the judge, imagine your kids were repeatedly raped by an authority figure, and at the trial, after the rapist is convicted, the judge calls him a great man, and makes petulant comments about how he hopes you get closure and how he can’t endorse sending your child’s rapist to prison.
What would you do or say at this juncture? Would you get away with a contempt of court citation, or would the charges against you be more severe?
Concurrent means that he will get out sooner than he would if he were serving consecutive sentences, but it doesn’t mean 2.5 years.
Most prison systems give credit for an extra day for good time served, so every day counts for two, and a person serving a single sentence of five years can be out in 2.5 if he serves perfect time, but someone serving two concurrent five year terms gets real time on both terms, but good time on only one, so after 2.5 years of perfect time, one sentence is done, but he still has 2.5 years left on the other sentence. If he keeps serving perfect time, he still has another one year and 3 months. At least it works that way around here, last I heard. I suppose it could be different in other states.
But for the most part, that’s the purpose of concurrent sentences-- other than having a “fall back” sentence, if one is successfully appealed.
Two issues here. One is the “great man” part and the other is the guilt and shame." I’ll talk more about the great man below, but first the guilt and shame.
Mormonism didn’t create misogyny, but it sure as hell practices it well.
Elizabeth Smart, the girl who was kidnapped by the self-proclaimed polygamous prophet in Salt Lake says that one of the reasons she never attempted to escape was the feelings of worthlessness after being raped. She was being held a few hundred yards from where the searchers were calling her name, but all she could remember was the chewed gum examples* from her Young Women’s lessons.
*Yes, they teach this. No one wants chewed gum, so never have sex with anyone. The other is to take a beautiful rose blossom and crush it in front of 12-year-old girls.
Spencer Kimball, “my” prophet – the guy who was the leader for most of my youth – famously wrote in a book ironically called The Miracle of Forgiveness
From another article in the Trib about Mormon young women as victims.
I personally experienced that profound shock myself, both when my older brother (still Mormon) who raped me a several times and also when my father described to me in detail about how he had molested my sisters. I was 12 or so for both of these.
My brother claimed later that he confessed his conduct (in addition to me, he also raped our younger brother and several other boys) to mission president. Rather than have my brother return home and face legal action (my brother would have been 20 and no statue of limitation for rape of a child), the president “forgave” my brother and allowed him to honorably finish his service. Nothing was required of my brother to address any of his victims. The sin was against God and not necessarily against mortals. Bitter? Funny that you would ask that.
I can just see my brother’s mission president saying exactly the same thing to him as what this judge said to the bishop. “You are a great man, but just made a mistake.” Years later when I confronted my brother about it, he told me that I can’t image the pain he suffered over the years because of the guilt he felt about his sin. Not the hurt he had caused others, not the pain they had but because he was no longer as worthy in God’s eyes.
This is the problem. There’s no other victim there, other than the poor guy who let Satan tempt him. Mormonism doesn’t recognize sexual victims as such. OK, they say some words, but you can clearly see for yourself what that means.
I did get quite an education from my father’s case concerning the Mormon views of sexual sin. Now as a father of a daughter (8) not that much younger than the younger of my victimized sisters, the church’s response completely blows my mind. My sisters were 13 and 14 at the time. Kids!
My father always over-shared everything, but telling a son how one molests your own daughter has to be up there in completely inappropriate behavior. (Not to lessen the actual damage he did to my sisters.)
So, I got a complete blow-by-blow account of not only his direct action, but how my sisters did him wrong by turning him in, and then the bishop’s response. That was more than 40 years ago and our judge would not have felt out of place as a bishop back then.
My father was also a “good man.” He only needed to avoid the natural temptations which good men also fall victim to. Nothing that the bishop told my father had the slightest thing to do about causing harm to my sisters or cousins. It never registered with him at all.
Back here in 2017, this “extraordinary, good man” committed a victimless crime, if you listen to the judge. Why no tears for the victims when so many can be spilled for the priesthood holders?
Another point which also reminds me of my family’s situation was the judge telling the victim that “you have been heard and believed” and then assuming that takes care of everything. My mother takes an huge amount of pride in the fact she believed my sisters and fails to understand their pain.
She doesn’t understand anymore than this judge that there is more to simply nodding when someone speaks. Mormonism doesn’t create or foster empathy for the victims of sex crimes.
As a kid through late teen years, we were obligated to visit the bishop yearly to “confess” any immorality sins. Highly creepy in retrospect! Sometimes another “man of authority” was in the office, but it was mostly just a kid and a middle-aged guy behind a closed office door discussing sexual activity.
There are a lot of whispers throughout Utah Mormondom of molestation and rape. If I were still a Mo-Mo you can bet my kids would never be alone with a grown man behind closed doors.