15-year-old raped in court: Rapist gets probation, teen gets 12 mo

Remove all ads!

Your first sentence was correct; anything after this is stipulation. No one here can prove 100% that Ashley's prison guards were not pigs. Nor can you, Mordea, prove 100% that the guards at this particular institution were pigs.

As an aside, quoting you, Mordea

If you feel this way; why do you operate on the assumption that other people do not? Do you feel that we should waste our time hunting for sources to convince you, if you will not do the same for us? If you clearly tell us that you've made up your mind, know you're right and that we are wrong, what is the point of talking to you in any discussion with substance?

I am not saying this to insult you, Mordea, or even for you to take this as a comment directed at you personally; it's a very general statement. Therefore I will state this very simply, we as humans contribute very little to conceptual clarification/collective knowledge when we demand everyone explain themselves but refuse to explain our own opinion. Explaining our own opinions helps to formulate and improve upon them. I am not asking you to change your opinion or your way of thinking, but explaining yourself does not mean you have given in to my way of thinking, it simply strengthens your point of view. If you do not explain the reasons behind what you say, I beget you the question: what are you contributing to our discussions?

 

I see this from a German law standard point of view, expecting the protection of accused and witnesses to be comparable and not lower than in US law:

In German law there is a privilege that you do not have to, and cannot be forced to, testify against close relatives and partners (certainly for married partners, as for unmarried partners, to some extent).

False testimony, even when not under oath, is only a crime in court i.e. you can lie to the police all you want, they expect that. While that isn't necessarily a good idea, it is not a crime. Lying to the FBI (or other federal authorities) in the US would be another matter, but that isn't relevant here.

Saying you didn't know who assaulted you when you in fact did is not filing a false police report as I understand it i.e. lying about having been assaulted, or accusing an innocent. Both variants are not supported by the available facts.

For all these reasons the initial charges against that girl appear excessive to me.

 

To address this argument with more balanced criticism, I would point out that much of what prison terms get extended for is not illegal outside of prison. That she wasn't a model prisoner is obvious. That her grasp of actions and consequences is not is strong as it should be is almost certain. Neither of these facts however indicate that she behaved criminally in prison, nor would it be relevant if she did. None of that would mitigate in any way the travesty one finds when juxtaposing the penalty meted out to an adult rapist of a minor against the prison term to which this minor which for a comparably venial offense. Any way you look at the issue, the proportion remains....off. This incident, by any measure one would care to employ, constitutes an egregious miscarriage of justice for which no excuse exists. In a nation of laws, this type of thing simply should not happen.

 

I haven't lived long, but I've seen, heard, and read enough to know that my distrust of authority is legitimate. I've had friends who have had run-ins with the law, I've seen the youtube videos, I've read the news articles, I've perused scholarly research articles and studies done by human rights organisations. My eyes are wide open. I try to avoid authority whenever possible. A police officer fills me with more dread than ten armed citizens, simply because it is the police officer's job to take issue with you. You could just be sleeping on the side of the road after a long drive, and they could haul you to the police station and smash your face into the concrete.

I've also done the research on juvenile detention, and such institutions are no place for children that we are hoping to reform. Bullying by grown adults of kids is always despicable, even if the kids are little shits who need a slap across the ear. Putting a child who was a recent rape victim in detention for *three years*, to be bullied by adults into compliance (don't even deny it, The Stanford Prison Experiment shows that such a result is *inevitable*) instead of exploring the cause of her 'bad behaviour', is atrocious. It's despicable. It's unbelievable. It's really ****ed up. I find it unusual that even an ******* like me can recognise this, while 'sociable' people cannot. Heh.

I could (partly) understand the initial punishment if she falsely accused someone, but even then, I'd need the context of the situation to appraise whether such behaviour merited punishment.But she got a *year* in juvenile because she didn't want to name her attacker? What the...?

Even in a nation without laws, it should not happen. Society would be at the rapist's door to lynch him, while providing support for the victim.

 

As an afterthought: She eventually got out after almost three years, because of what must be infraction tickets effectively tripled the punishment she was given - purely on administrative grounds, with limited recourse or review by a judge?

Personal liberty is an important right. It can be infringed so drastically as a result of administrative action only because you are in jail? Startling.

Actually, it reeks of being disproportional. The disproportional aspect namely being the relation of the intended purpose (i.e. punishing her for whatever she was originally found guilty of) and the ends as (sentencing her to 12 months). Prison administration almost tripled that as sanctions for misconduct? To what purpose? They tried to punish her into conformity? Conformity with the prison system is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. Nearly tripling a sentence because of that is overkill.

The end result is extremely questionable, in particular as far as short prison terms for minor, non-violent misdemeanours (and while at it, minors) are concerned. If 'that's just how the system works', it works poorly, and has some flaws that need addressing.

 

Extending prison sentences goes through the courts. It's not just an administrative thing (at least not in the states I've lived in). My wife just completed jury duty; the case she was selected to hear was an issue where the prisoner commited a crime while incarcerated. He still had representation and trial by jury. I think the article is downplaying her offenses to get to the bigger picture -- no matter what she did, she didn't deserve to be raped. The correction officer committed a major felony and only got a slap on the hand.

Her sentence and extentions may have been completely justified, but those are not the issue. The leniency given the correction officer was simply unconscionable.

mordea: You're going to have a very hard life with that point of view. I trust people to be professional and yet any encounter with police I assume he or she is looking for a reason to escalate. To be honest, I understand the police spend 90% of their time dealing with the dregs of society; they know their lives are in danger in any situation. I do everything in my power to ensure they do not feel threatened by me (I didn't always do this and I've been lucky I wasn't pile driven into the pavement). Simply showing respect to the police officer goes a long way to alleviate tension. By the way, sleeping on the side of the road is dangerous -- the police officer telling someone sleeping to move on simply doesn't want to see anyone hurt. The smart thing is to agree with the officer and move on, an argument can get you face first into concrete (the whole respect thing again).

 

It is a well known fact that I have no problem with harsh sentences. That said, we have little evidence here to tell us if the sentence levied against the teen was excessive or not. So without that data I can't judge her sentence one way or the other.

But the guy that raped her, well, I don't need to know much more about that one. He took a shackled teenager and raped her. End of story. His punishement is ridiculously light. I would say this regardless of whether the girl was a saint or a criminal withh a lengthy record. Her previous acts are irrelevant. The legal system that gave him such a pass is a disgrace, and those individuals within the system who were specifically involved should be flogged.

 

Regarding Simmons, I had a bit of a look into this ...

In 12/2008 he was charged specifically with two counts of Rape in the Third Degree as well two counts of Criminal Sexual Act in the Third Degree, and four related misdemeanors. The rape and criminal sexual act charges are class E felonies, which are of the lowest level of severity in NY (with A being highest), but for which the minimum sentence is 1.5 years in prison. The only related felony charge categories for which probation but not jail are possible sentences are class C & D non-violent felonies. Rape is obviously not a non-violent felony.

So at some point the charges must have been reduced to something less than rape, and the judge followed sentencing guidelines within his or her discretion.

The questions that come to mind for me are:

• Why wasn't he charged with a more serious class of felony in the first place, if he committed rape?
• Why were the charges pled down?

I would tend to suspect prosecutorial incompetence more than anything, particularly given the prosecutor's remarks that he sort of objected to the sentence, only off the record.

It's tempting to think that there was some sort of conspiracy to protect Simmons, but why would the prosecutor's office particularly want to go out on a limb for some guy who works in the juvenile counseling department? And even if they wanted to see him go free, why would they put themselves in the spotlight this way? I don't think they would, knowingly.

Bureaucrats pretty much always act in their own best interests, so even if Simmons was the DA's 'special buddy,' chances are the DA would have suddenly found himself recollecting only a distant awareness of Simmons, particularly given the near-certainty of drawing media attention by giving the guy a pass. The case was, after all, publicized when the charges were brought in 2008.

One last note: Simmons' bail was set at $100,000 cash upon being arrested in 2008, so, if he didn't post bail and sat in jail until now, that may have gone towards credit as time served.

[edit]

This is the New York state penal code for Rape in the Third Degree:

 

I agree with this completely.

Well, technically the charge was "filing a false police report", not lying to the police. I think Ragusa is correct when he says lying to a police officer is not a crime in itself, unless you happen to be under oath when the lie occurs. Hell, everyone has the basic right to remain silent when arrested, and everyone has the right to not self-incriminate, and so even if she already had a rap sheet a mile long, and knew the attacker and was protecting him/her, it still suggests that in filing the false police report, she attributed the attack to someone she knew didn't attack her. And yes, I'm speculating somewhat, but to be charged with filing a false police report, I'm assuming you at least have to file a police report.

Your second question answers the first. Initially, he probably WAS charged with a more serious class felony. He showed up for his initial court hearing, and plead not guilty. He couldn't meet bail so they shipped him off to prison. Then, while in prison his lawyers met with the prosecutors to attempt to hammer out a plea bargain.

In order for both parties to agree, both parties must gain some benefit from the plea deal. Simmons agreed to plea guilty to a lesser charge, thereby guaranteeing a conviction for the prosecutors (that's what they got). In return, Simmons would receive a lesser sentence because the charges were reduced (that's what he got).

The second question is why did the prosecuting attorneys agree to a plea? In most cases, the only time they will agree to a plea is if they aren't guaranteed a conviction if they go through the entire process. I am speculating at this point, but it would appear that the only evidence they had (since the girl said nothing at the time it happened) was the victim's testimony. That does not make for a very strong case by itself. It is further compounded by the fact that the victim may not make for a very credible witness. While her actions prior to getting raped should not directly impact the case, the jurors may feel that a juvenile who was sent to a detention facility for "filing a false police report" may just as easily be lying to them.

 

That not quite correct though, because those charges were announced on the date of his arrest, which suggests they were the original charges. Also, Simmons wasn't sentenced within the guidelines for a class E violent felony, but either a class C or D non-violent felony, which means the Rape in the Third Degree charge was not the crime he was sentenced for either. It had to have also gone down from that. If he started out with rape as it is commonly understood (forcible, coerced, violent, etc. - in other words a class B felony), he sure pled down a looong way from that.

Remember though - there were actually three victims that he was charged with assaulting, not just Ashley.

[edit again]

By way of comparison, this is NY penal code for Rape in the First Degree, which I think is what we all assume happened to Ashley:

 

I misunderstood your question then. I thought you were asking why he wasn't charged with a Class E felony, and I was saying he probably was initially. He certainly pleaded down from that, as the Class E felony carries a minimum 1.5 years in prison.

As to why he was initially charged with a class E felony, I would guess that's the law that most fit the crime he was accused of. Specifically part 2 of the law you quoted above:

And that seem reasonable given the crime he was accused of.

I think you'd have a hard time proving forcible rape - the Class B felony. There is nothing in the testimony that suggests it was forcible. I do not think being handcuffed is what is meant by "physically helpless". I read "phyically helpless" as being drugged (as with the date rape drug), unconscious, etc. Being handcuffed certainly reduces you ability to stop him, but I do not think it qualifies you as physically helpless. The thrid and fourth cases are for people of less than 11 and 13 years old, which Ashley is not.

There were two he was charged with, and Ashley was one of them. The other one was also from a detention facility, and would have faced similar credibility issues.

 

What I was getting at specifically is that when people hear "rape," they don't assume something like statutory rape or a mild version of rape; they assume the worst, and the articles in The New York Daily News and The Raw Story certainly promoted that impression. It may be that, as you alluded to, he was actually guilty of something less egregious. (I have to admit that I was not aware that there were so many different 'degrees' of rape.)

I'm not sure I agree with the 'helpless' standard, but that doesn't matter. The point is that if the sentence he received according to sentencing guidelines is commensurate with the crime he was charged with and found guilty of, do we really have any grounds to be so horrified at the outcome?

According to the New York District Attorney's Office and The Raw Story, there were indeed three. And yeah, they all involved those under his supervision at the court, which is sort of what the shock is all about - abuse of authority and public trust and all that.

 

Idiot typo corrected.

 

I'm a bit confused. If a person was sentenced to 1 year imprisonment, is it right for the institution to extend that sentence for their behavior while serving the term. I mean convicts getting off early for good conduct is one thing but extending it 3 fold because of poor behavior? And you have to consider the fact that convicts getting off early for good conduct still went through a due process. But I don't think I've ever heard of a convict getting an extended stay by going through a corresponding due process.

As for the Juvenile Counselor, I think that is plain injustice. I may be swayed to see that the sentence was justifiable if he raped an adult, of course you have to be very convincing at that. But the fact that he rape the very group of people he was supposed to be protecting (irregardless of the victims behavior or circumstances) gives the crime a heavier weight. If it was just one rape incident, I might consider that he might not be in total control of himself during the incident but 3 times... that already qualifies as a serial offender.

 

According to the law you posted, it said "incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless". How does one give consent? Usually verbally. So what type of physical incapacity would leave you helpless to give consent? The most obvious would be because you were unable to speak, as if you were unconscious, drugged, etc. I'd say this part of the law is there specifically for things like the date rape drug.

I'd say it goes back to not knowing enough information. If this guy was cut a plea bargain just because he was buddies with people in the legal system, that stinks to high heaven. If the prosecutors didn't have a strong case for getting him convicted of rape in the third degree, and they went with the guaranteed conviction of a lesser charge to at least force this guy to register as a sex offender, then perhaps not so much.

According to your initial post, he was brought up on charges of two counts of rape in the third degree. I was just going by what you posted. The story alludes to the possibility of a third incident, but he was never charged for that alleged crime.

That's a great point nior. And indeed it does seem to be the exact opposite of how the system typically works. Usually, when you get sentenced, it's the maximum amount of time you can serve, but you can be let out early for good behavior. The only way they could keep you longer is if your poor behavior was actually criminal - at which point you'd have to go back to trial for that too - like you said, you'd get due process.

I am also left to wonder if they had any plans of letting her go early at all. In many states, if you are charged for a crime as a juvenile, they cannot keep you in the juvenile detention facility beyond your 18th birthday. Since you weren't charged as an adult, they also cannot send you to a regular jail, so such people are normally just released. That said, I have no idea if she was tried as an adult. If she was, then they certainly could send her to a regular prison. I'm just thinking that if she was 15 when this happened, and she spent 3 years in jail, it suggest she was 18 when they let her out, which sounds like it may have happened because she turned 18.

Well, I think we have to be careful about calling him a rapist. He was never actually found guilty of rape. He plead down to a misdeamor. I still contend that we don't know the full story here. Now from what we know, it certainly doesn't look good for this guy, but I must remind you again that if this was a slam dunk case with a near certain conviction, there never would have been a plea bargain offered. Like I said initially, the most common reason for a plea bargain is the prosecuting attorney doesn't have a guarantee at a conviction, and by allowing them to plead guilty to a lesser charge, they know they are at least going to get the guy for something.

 

I guess that may be, but then what about the first qulaifier, "By forcible compulsion?" That would seem to encompass almost all rape, as the victim is never complicit in a rape. I would think they are 'forcibly compelled' any time they don't consent, whether through violence or threat of violence or intimidation or what have you. (This wouldn't include things like tricking mentally handicapped persons and the like.) I'm sure we'd all prefer that rape victims not be beaten up as well as raped, but is the intent of a rapist (not to mention the outcome) really any different if they threaten violence or repraisal or whatever as opposed to actually carrying it out? I would think the rape would still be the same, regardless, and the only difference would be that if the rapist also beat them up, they would additionally be charged with another count of assault. That's just my opinion, but I'd have a hard time thinking any more highly of someone who raped my daughter but didn't beat her up as opposed to someone who did.

There were also the two counts of Criminal Sexual Act in the Third Degree and the four misdemeanors, which presumably were spread across the three victims, although it isn't enumerated exactly how.

Looking at that again, maybe it was actually the misdemeanors he was charged with ultimately. The sentencing guidelines for a class A misdemeanor are from no jail to 1 year in jail, and presumably probabtion would fall in the middle.

NY penal code for sexual abuse in the second degree:

Personally I agree that we don't seem to have enough information here to be jumping to any conclusions, including absolute condemnation of Simmons if the sexual encounter was really some sort of consensual affair that was deemed unsatisfactory afterward or something like that (what else could this rape but not rape business really be anyway?), although I puzzle over the standard by which rape is apparently judged. I'd like to see the actual arrest, conviction, and sentencing documents. If this was really not rape, then it shouldn't be promoted as such by the Raw Story or New York Daily News or anybody else.

 

While I agree with you in principle, the mere fact that there are three different degrees of rape on the books in NY, means that the legal system doesn't treat all types of rape equally.

 

The way the story was told, the girl was in handcuffs. I have a hard time believing that she consented to sexual contact while handcuffed. Even on the 1 in a 1,000,000 chance that she did "consent", the fact is that he was in a position of authority, which may make his crime less than a violent rape but it's still pretty darn serious.

OK, I just checked earlier posts, she's not able to consent in NY as she is under 17, so handcuffed or not, even if she was begging 'give it to me' or not, it's rape. The fact that he's in a position of authority makes it worse.

This quote got me thinking:

To me, stat rape is just as bad -- there is no 'mild form' of rape in a case where the person knows what they are doing is wrong. It's one thing for a 24 year old guy to believe, because of a well-crafted fake ID, that the girl is 18 when she is really 15, and have sex with her. It's another when he knows damn well that she is underage. The onus is on the elder person to prove that he* didn't know and had no reasonable way of knowing she was underage. In this particular case, the guy knew perfectly well that any sexual contact between him and this girl would be wrong 12 ways from Sunday.

*some gender assumptions being made here for ease of reading.