We agree, a 17 year sentence is completely out-of-line.
And yes, I am a bit surprised that this taken to the courts. Usually, like you say, it’s just handled within the system, between parents and the institution that is looking after the clients. But of course, God Forbid the State (or whatever institution that is in charge here) actually pay attention to what’s going on, and not allow this thing to escalate to the point that it has. :rolleyes:
My guess would be that if this had happened at my workplace, the two clients would be separated, kept in different facilities, different homes (if the guardians wanted that). And if this 17-year-old was guilty of manipulation/rape or anything of that sort, off to a more secure facility he goes, where he can be supervised better. (But even then sometimes, they are not supervised better, or nothing is done when abuse occurs. Which is why that one client was able to bite a multitude of people before he was stopped. I will never stop fuming about that.)
Can you tell, I’m pretty much fed up with “the system”? Not with the clients (who are often the highlight of my work day), but the co-workers, and the system. Some definite problems there, I think.
I know what you mean, I’ve had experience with very aggressive clients (Rule 40s) where the company chose to blame the staff for aggressive behaviors without providing staff with adequate intervention techniques or allowing for a more restrictive program. In some ways the system is so geared towards protecting the rights of the clients (which is a good thing, don’t get me wrong) that the clients start to realize that they can get away with pretty much anything, including violating the rights of other clients. It’s been my experience that the clients with the most vocal families (and thus more likely to sue) get the most support from the company. Clients who are WOS get less support because no one is going to make a stink or sue on their behalf.
I realize the offender in this case had previous problems, but really, this should have been dealt with programmatically. What’s going to happen to this kid in prison? He’s certainly not going to be rehabilitated or learn anything, and he’s probably just going to be victimized in much more vicious ways than anything that he did.
Yeah, we have some “vocal” parents. And as coincidence has it, their kids are the most problematic, or most violent. Their first reaction when they hear about an injury to staff or to another client is to ask, “What did the staff (client) do to bring it on?” It never has anything to do with their kid, oh no. Oh, and if the kid were medicated differently (more “traditionally”, in order to control behavior problems) the violence might not occur. But will the parents allow this? Oh no, not necessarily. The minimum amount of drugs possible—that’s what they insist on. (Yeesh. Don’t get me started!)
And staff? I don’t know why we put up with it sometimes. (Well, not me necessarily, I refused to work with one particular client. I liked keeping my hair in my head, and this client had a certain technique for yanking out staff’s hair—the stories were legendary.) There was a client that was before my time (thankfully) that was so violent, he put many female staff members in the hospital. But was he moved to a more secure area? Oh no! Not for a long while. I guess they thought that staff were more “expendable”. I just don’t get it.
Yes, I agree—we certainly want policies in place that protect clients. But it should be ALL clients, not just the one with the most vocal parents. And yeah, staff should be entitled to be protected as well. And the way things are right now where I work, it seems as if the staff’s “right” to not get hurt comes last. Sheesh. No wonder I want to get out of this job. Once again, it’s not the clients that are the problem, it’s the system. <grumble grumble>
And in regards to this 17 year old—not knowing his whole history, of course, I agree with you there—why was he not moved to a different facility? Why this overkill with 17 years in prison? What chance does he have in prison?
But aren’t males more sexually adventureous and females more sensitive?
The R&J law attempts (feebly IMO) the parse the distinction between older men sexually exploiting young girls and teenagers having sex with each other, but why can’t it parse the distinction between various types of sexual contact? There’s a big difference between geting your (presumedly erect) dick sucked and being brutally penetrated by someone else’s.
That said, same vs opposite sex can be an important distinction trauma-wise, it depends if the vicitim is gay, and the law obviously ignores that. Wouldn’t it be worse if a teenage lesbian was seduced/raped by a man than by a woman?
Blalron this is the defendant’s third offense. He is a habitual offender. It is apparent the law has not sufficiently deterred him from committing three offenses. The object of the law is to deter criminal behavior, especially deviant sexual misconduct with teenagers below a particular age. Perhaps the 17 year sentence is justified in that it will deter him from engaging in sex acts with teenagers below the required legal age. In my opinion receiving a 17 year sentence is hopefully going to deter him from doing this a fourth time, a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh. If so, then he has been deterred and one purpose of the law, deterrence, has been satisfied. Hence, in my opinion 17 years is not extreme but justified.
Blalron this is the defendant’s third offense. He is a habitual offender. It is apparent the law has not sufficiently deterred him from committing three offenses. The object of the law is to deter criminal behavior, especially deviant sexual misconduct with teenagers below a particular age. Perhaps the 17 year sentence is justified in that it will deter him from engaging in sex acts with teenagers below the required legal age. In my opinion receiving a 17 year sentence is hopefully going to deter him from doing this a fourth time, a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh. If so, then he has been deterred and one purpose of the law, deterrence, has been satisfied. Hence, in my opinion 17 years is not extreme but justified.
Blalron this is the defendant’s third offense. He is a habitual offender. It is apparent the law has not sufficiently deterred him from committing three offenses. The object of the law is to deter criminal behavior, especially deviant sexual misconduct with teenagers below a particular age. Perhaps the 17 year sentence is justified in that it will deter him from engaging in sex acts with teenagers below the required legal age. In my opinion receiving a 17 year sentence is hopefully going to deter him from doing this a fourth time, a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh. If so, then he has been deterred and one purpose of the law, deterrence, has been satisfied. Hence, in my opinion 17 years is not extreme but justified.
Having at one time been a 14 year old male, and having observed my peers at the time, and having observed our female counterparts at the time, I would have to say that yes, the average 14 year old girl is more mature than the average 14 year old boy.
I don’t want to hijack this thread into a discussion of mandatory sentencing but this is clearly a case that was crying out for some judicial discretion. It must be intensely frustrating for a judge to have to apply what was an patently inappropriate sentence. Obviously the “Romeo and Juliet” provision should also be extended to homosexual relations.
Blalron I am not really addressing this aspect of the issue. Rather I am stating the 17 years is perhaps not as harsh and is perhaps warranted by the fact this is his third offense and is habitual offender.
There are more people to blame here than the parties involved. These kids had mental defects, that’s the long and short of it, the 17 year sentence is vicarious guilt. Not that I’m in favor of child rape, or even in favor of kids having sex, but much of the fault lies with the caretakers. Why we’re hung up on the 3 strikes thing is beyond me, his third offense makes him habitual? nonsense. Once, shame on you, twice, you’re in the klink. In this case though, all that needed be done is move the predator out of the path of the prey, period. This kid, what ever chance he had at a normal life is finished. He’s a felon now, he’ll never vote, never hold a decent job or state license, probably be kicking back his wages to a crooked PO after his 7 years in the can (if Kansas is day for a day). All for a (presumably) innocent blowjob, that for all intents and purposes took place with unilateral consent.
It’s too bad for the kid, but examine the damn system, and fix the craks these kids are slipping through. If this was caught, think of what they’re missing!?!?
This is one thing that bothers me in regards to cases with the mentally retarded.
“He knows right from wrong”.
Well, ok. But does he fully understand how wrong that action is considered to be by the law, and did he understand the consequences of his actions? Otherwise, why hold him to the same standard?
Who says I want to hold him to the same standard? Not me.
But to get a “free pass”, and allowed to carry on with life as usual, as if he did nothing wrong? No. If indeed he is sexually victimizing others (which would be a judgment call, depending on who you ask), my opinion would be that he probably needs to be placed in a facility where he can be more closely supervised. And Dio and I were discussing just that very thing, earlier in this thread.
