Child Rapist Gets One Year in Prison

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.adaeveningnews.com/editorials/local_story_166124421.html?keyword=topstory

Oddly enough, Earls, 64, entered a plea of no contest to charges of raping and sodomizing the girl. He was only sentenced to serve one year of a 20-year sentence. What is even more unbelievable is the judge in the case, Thomas Bartheld, recommended Earls receive credit for time served — leaving Earls with only three more months behind bars. In articles by The McAlester News-Capital, the district attorney in the case, Jim Bob Miller, said everyone involved in the case agreed to the plea bargain because they were afraid Earls would go free.

 

[CoryKS]

They thought he'd make it a year? That's optimistic.

 

[Amazon]

In articles by The McAlester News-Capital, the district attorney in the case, Jim Bob Miller, said everyone involved in the case agreed to the plea bargain because they were afraid Earls would go free."

I wonder why they were so afraid he would go free? Did they have no evidence at all? That's the only reason to cut a plea bargain that ridiculous...

They thought he'd make it a year? That's optimistic.

HA! Too true...

 

[celtic_crippler]

Unbelievable...:jaw-dropping:

I bet if they'd found a joint on the old fart they'd have put him under the jail. Man...to say our countries priorities are srcrewed up is a major understatement.

 

[blindsage]

Watch the CNN article here:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/06/15/pn.one.year.rape.sentence.cnn

These lawyers shine a little bit more light on the situation and details.

The judge didn't just let him off. Doesn't mean the situation doesn't still suck.

 

[Archangel M]

I dont know why the judge is taking all the heat here. The DA seems to be skating free of any bad publicity....

Sound bite decision making here. Nothing is ever really that cut and dry.

 

[yorkshirelad]

I dont know why the judge is taking all the heat here. The DA seems to be skating free of any bad publicity....

Sound bite decision making here. Nothing is ever really that cut and dry.

The judge has to take the heat here. The guy ordered that the young girl give her testimony in front of this pissant rapist. They could have used a video to take her testimony but the judge refused. She broke down while facing her tormentor and the DA caved.

The judge is to blame. This **** makes my blood boil.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Watch the CNN article here:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/06/15/pn.one.year.rape.sentence.cnn

These lawyers shine a little bit more light on the situation and details.

The judge didn't just let him off. Doesn't mean the situation doesn't still suck.

Typical CNN. The lawyers on this newscast were misinformed. The child was refused testimony on CCTV and made to face this bastard. That's why the DA came to the table with a plea bargain.

 

[Amazon]

Typical CNN. The lawyers on this newscast were misinformed. The child was refused testimony on CCTV and made to face this bastard. That's why the DA came to the table with a plea bargain.

To me that is totally unethical. Did you happen to see what reasons they used/gave for refusing to allow testimony via video or other affidavit?

 

[arnisador]

Did you happen to see what reasons they used/gave for refusing to allow testimony via video or other affidavit?

I assume it was the U.S. Constitution:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Like it or not, that's the law, and exceptions are rare (but not unheard of).

 

[Amazon]

I assume it was the U.S. Constitution:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. "

Like it or not, that's the law, and exceptions are rare (but not unheard of).

How sad - it seems like that must have been established on precedent ruling if that is how it is enforced.

Otherwise, it could be argued that presenting the defendant and their counsel with copies of the testimony would also count as being "confronted with the witnesses against him".

At least that's how I would argue it....

 

[Empty Hands]

Otherwise, it could be argued that presenting the defendant and their counsel with copies of the testimony would also count as being "confronted with the witnesses against him".

Nope. Defendant's counsel has the right to cross-examine all witnesses. Of course, it doesn't always happen - people have been railroaded by affidavit or video with no chance to respond. The balance of justice is definitely on the side of the accused, with the burden on the state.

 

[Amazon]

Nope. Defendant's counsel has the right to cross-examine all witnesses. Of course, it doesn't always happen - people have been railroaded by affidavit or video with no chance to respond. The balance of justice is definitely on the side of the accused, with the burden on the state.

Good point, but separate. I was only addressing the "confronted with the witnesses against him" part. That particular bit didn't say anything about a right to cross examine.

 

[yorkshirelad]

I assume it was the U.S. Constitution:

I believe the founding fathers never saw technology such as CCTV (I could be wrong). I have been confornted a few times by telephone and once by Skype. It is common for minors to give evidence via video and the judge could have and should have allowed it.
Do you think he would've allowed it, if it was his 4 year old child who was buggered and vaginally raped by this nonce?
I do hope the prison guards conveniently look the other way when this bastard takes a shower.

 

[yorkshirelad]

I wonder why they were so afraid he would go free? Did they have no evidence at all? That's the only reason to cut a plea bargain that ridiculous...

As I said previously, the child went into the courtroom and upon seeing said rapist, placed her hands infront of her eyes and became hysterical. This poor little lass could not physically confront her tormentor.

This kind of thing is happening more and more in the US. What this judge obviously doesn't realize, is that decisions such as this lead to lawlessness and vigilanteism. I know for one thing, that if one of my family members were raped by a nonce like this, I'd want to get at them before the law did.

Why is it that Jessica's Law has not been passed by ALL states, after over a year of fighting for it? 25 years to life for the 1st time rape of a child under 12 sounds reasonable to me. There are too many do gooders who crusade for the rights of perps over victims if you ask me.

 

[blindsage]

I'm firmly in the camp that most forms of rape, adult or child, should carry a sentence of at least 25 to life.

 

[Amazon]

As I said previously, the child went into the courtroom and upon seeing said rapist, placed her hands infront of her eyes and became hysterical. This poor little lass could not physically confront her tormentor.

This kind of thing is happening more and more in the US. What this judge obviously doesn't realize, is that decisions such as this lead to lawlessness and vigilanteism. I know for one thing, that if one of my family members were raped by a nonce like this, I'd want to get at them before the law did.

Why is it that Jessica's Law has not been passed by ALL states, after over a year of fighting for it? 25 years to life for the 1st time rape of a child under 12 sounds reasonable to me. There are too many do gooders who crusade for the rights of perps over victims if you ask me.

Definitely a terrible thing to do to a child, however when I was referring to evidence, I wasn't just talking about the testimony of the child. For a plea bargain like they they must not have been able to collect any physical evidence, either (i.e. DNA from semen/hair/skin, stains on materials in the area, etc..). Also, what about the testimony from the other child that was present?

I would agree with the 25 year sentence if this was not a conviction that were abused as often as it is. Were the abuses fixed, yes. However there are too many stories of rape/molestation convictions that get handed down on cases that never should have been brought to court in the first place (parents changing diapers / legitimate medical treatment). There will never be a crime for which there has never been an innocent person convicted, but the rate for these types of crimes seems to be much higher than for other types of crimes, so before supporting a change in the minimum I would want to see more controls put in place to ensure that the people who are being convicted are actually guilty.

Again - don't get me wrong - I'm all for the 25 years for anyone who actually committed the crime.

 

[seasoned]

I'm firmly in the camp that most forms of rape, adult or child, should carry a sentence of at least 25 to life.

His one year in jail will seem like 25 to life. As bad as the scumbags are, in prison, they will hurt this guy in ways he can't imagine.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Having read the articles, I think it's not the judge who is to blame. Before the plea bargain they didn't really have a solid case. And from what I read, child services agreed with the deal. Let's be realistic: it's not likely that the DA and the judge said 'you know what, let's get a predator out on the street again'

That doesn't make it any less of a tragedy of course. That man should have been in jail for the rest of his life.

 

[Thems Fighting Words]

The system fails children yet again? That's pretty common. Well here's a few from Australia and these were just in the last week.

1. Man caught attempting to rape five year old gets nine months jail.Story here

2. Man given five years for raping three children. Then released without proper monitoring. Caught soon after taking photos of naked child. Story here

3. Child Welfare agency places boy into care of sex predator despite father's pleas against it. STory here