Stacey Rambold & Judge G. Todd Baugh
The latest judicial outrage to come to our attention is the sentence handed down by Yellowstone County, Montana, District Court Judge G. Todd Baugh. He sentenced former Billings Senior High School teacher Stacey Dean Rambold to 15 years in prison, all but 31 days suspended, for the admitted rape of a 14-year-old student when he was 49.
The student wasn’t in court to hear the sentencing. She had taken her own life more than three years before, a few weeks before she would have turned 17.
Now, this was not the “standard” rape, if there is such a thing. The girl was not beaten or threatened with a knife or in fear for her life. But it was a teacher initiating sex with a troubled student whom he had “pre-groomed,” and by no definition can that be anything other than sexual assault.
As reported by CNN, Judge Baugh’s reasoning for the lenient sentence was that the girl “seemed older than her chronological age” and was “as much in control of the situation” as Rambold.
Huh? We wonder how much time the judge has spent around 14-year-old girls, especially the ones who try to act mature and sophisticated. Girl, not woman.
The story dates back to 2008, when school officials learned of Rambold’s exploits and forced him to resign. He was charged with three counts of sexual intercourse without consent. According to the girl’s mother, she tried to go on with her life and fit in, but couldn’t get away from “severe emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment and fell into irreversible depression.”
Following the suicide, Rambold agreed to a deferred prosecution during which he would undergo a sex offender treatment program and have no contact with minors.
At the sentencing hearing, his lawyers argued that he had been punished enough by losing his career and marriage, as well as “the scarlet letter of the Internet.”
For a long time, we have supported and promoted the use of victim impact statements, whereby the victim or his or her family has an opportunity to tell the court what impact the crime has had on them. We believe it is only fair, since the defendant has abundant opportunity to try to mitigate the sentence. In this case, the fact that the victim took her own life at age 16 should be the most powerful kind of victim impact statement there is. And for the judge, who never met the girl, to make his decision about her from a couple of videotaped interviews, is unconscionable.
What kind of message does this case and sentence send to other would-be violators of children and young teens? Think about that as you send your children off to begin the new school year.
Depending upon your criteria, most relationships are unequal. The question becomes one of which ones makes a more stable relationship. I believe that marrying someone closer to you in age is the most equitable. Marry younger, and you are one who is trying to be younger. You don’t share a common outlook on the world.
A 14 year old is not competent to make decisions regarding sex. other primates do not let their adolescents have offspring. For a teacher to become predatory takes a certain callousness and self-centeredness. Are these good traits for a teacher?
The man should be in prison. Justice was not served in this case. The judge had an opportunity, and let it slip.
You make good points, whosear, and I agree.
There is another point of view 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 My view is that unequal bargaining positions equals unfair relationships. But that’s just me.
Thank you Joe. The op ed you cite, which I also read, makes some good points about not criminalizing all sexual contact between teachers and students. But I submit to you that while all teacher-student sexual relationships are inherently unequal, a relationship between a 14-year-old and a 49-year-old is still reprehensible and ought to be criminalized under any circumstances. This man needs to be in prison and this judge needs to reexamine his values or get the hell off the bench.
Fully agree. The judge’s comment was a clear window to *his* injudicial prejudices. It’s as if he could not have cared less about the victim’s death.
Sounds like a guy with an agenda who’s not far from retirement.