Comments on: Court Sentences Montana Man to 225 Years for Indecent Exposure http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/ Res ipsa loquitur ("The thing itself speaks") Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:48:35 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: jonathanturley http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3696 jonathanturley Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:47:26 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3696 Well, pattern of recidivism are relevant to sentencing. It is not the same as being punished twice for the same crime because the increase is only within the discretionary range of the current offense or offenses. History can be a factor in showing risk to society and culpability. Well, pattern of recidivism are relevant to sentencing. It is not the same as being punished twice for the same crime because the increase is only within the discretionary range of the current offense or offenses. History can be a factor in showing risk to society and culpability.

]]> By: Erica http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3661 Erica Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:07:06 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3661 "Obviously, this history should have pushed the sentence dramatically higher." If the history "should" cause a higher penalty doesn't ring of double jeopardy? I mean he served his time for those past crimes, yes? Personally I think the single count of "sexual intercourse without consent" should have kept him in jail for life. “Obviously, this history should have pushed the sentence dramatically higher.” If the history “should” cause a higher penalty doesn’t ring of double jeopardy? I mean he served his time for those past crimes, yes? Personally I think the single count of “sexual intercourse without consent” should have kept him in jail for life.

]]> By: Patty C http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3652 Patty C Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:37:17 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3652 Thank you for saying that. While we were both right AND wrong, about the facts, I believe we can all agree there's more to this story - as is so often the case. Thank you for saying that.

While we were both right AND wrong, about the facts, I believe we can all agree there’s more to this story – as is so often the case.

]]> By: jonathanturley http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3651 jonathanturley Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:36:29 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3651 I should have included the assaults and I have now added the information. However, it does not change he problem. He was sentenced on counts of indecent exposure. While past conduct should increase the sentence (perhaps even above ten years), he was given a sentence akin to a serial killer. There is no question that he is a danger to society. Yet, the law must strive for some uniformity in sentencing. If he were charged as a serial rapist, we would not be having this discussion. A person should be sentenced according to his charges with possible increases for past conduct. I should have included the assaults and I have now added the information. However, it does not change he problem. He was sentenced on counts of indecent exposure. While past conduct should increase the sentence (perhaps even above ten years), he was given a sentence akin to a serial killer. There is no question that he is a danger to society. Yet, the law must strive for some uniformity in sentencing. If he were charged as a serial rapist, we would not be having this discussion. A person should be sentenced according to his charges with possible increases for past conduct.

]]> By: deeply worried http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3647 deeply worried Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:57:15 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3647 In light of Patty C and Jmanus additions, I withdraw my comment. In light of Patty C and Jmanus additions, I withdraw my comment.

]]> By: Jmanus http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3613 Jmanus Thu, 13 Dec 2007 02:47:25 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3613 You failed to include that he is also a rapist. One conviction 30 years ago for attempted sexual assault and one of the recent victims was orally raped. In addition, he refused to submit to treatment. There is a very large difference between what you have presented - over-reaction by a judge - and what the article states - he is a pathological deviant and threat, demanding of being locked away for good. Also the previous commenters should really read the article before making such broad and pc statements as they have. You failed to include that he is also a rapist. One conviction 30 years ago for attempted sexual assault and one of the recent victims was orally raped. In addition, he refused to submit to treatment. There is a very large difference between what you have presented – over-reaction by a judge – and what the article states – he is a pathological deviant and threat, demanding of being locked away for good. Also the previous commenters should really read the article before making such broad and pc statements as they have.

]]> By: Jmanus http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3612 Jmanus Thu, 13 Dec 2007 02:45:30 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3612 You failed to include that he is also a rapist. One conviction 30 years ago for attempted sexual assault and one of the recent victims was orally raped. In addition, he refused to submit to treatment. There is a very large difference between what you have presented - over-reaction by a judge - and what the article states - he is a pathological deviant and threat, demanding of being locked away for good. You failed to include that he is also a rapist. One conviction 30 years ago for attempted sexual assault and one of the recent victims was orally raped. In addition, he refused to submit to treatment. There is a very large difference between what you have presented – over-reaction by a judge – and what the article states – he is a pathological deviant and threat, demanding of being locked away for good.

]]> By: Patty C http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3611 Patty C Thu, 13 Dec 2007 02:44:46 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3611 Even though 225 years is excessive - you didn't read the story. This guy has been assaulting woman since he was 15 - for 30 years. Just last year he the forced one of his latest three unwilling participants to perform oral sex - while he was on probation for other sexual offenses. He is not just a harmless pathetic flasher. He is a repeat visual sexual offender who has not responded to rehabilitation and whose behavior appears to be escalating. Even though 225 years is excessive – you didn’t read the story.

This guy has been assaulting woman since he was 15 – for 30 years. Just last year he the forced one of his latest three unwilling participants to perform oral sex – while he was on probation for other sexual offenses.

He is not just a harmless pathetic flasher. He is a repeat visual sexual offender who has not responded to rehabilitation and whose behavior appears to be escalating.

]]> By: opit http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3608 opit Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:36:34 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3608 The next trick is to get rid of the judge, who is about as crazy as the schmuck he sentenced. The next trick is to get rid of the judge, who is about as crazy as the schmuck he sentenced.

]]> By: K. S. Knight http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3590 K. S. Knight Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:39:29 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3590 Oh, and if fairness even matters in this case (which, apparently it doesn't and didn't), how does this man's sentence square with the recent brouhaha over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe failure?" If length of sentence is in part based on scale of harm, and public exposure is in fact harmful, wouldn't Ms. Jackson's exposure to millions of people be the far greater harm? Oh My God, a bare breast seen everywhere! I mean, I for one have never gotten over it... (j/k, of course). Not only did Ms. Jackson not get jailtime, she was never even charged, yet from the furor over the incident you'd think she'd committed a crime on par with the Kennedy assassination. But come to think of it, nobody was charged in that one either... ;-) Facetiousness aside, this case demonstrates the hypocrisy and lunacy run amok in Amerika today. Sigh... Oh, and if fairness even matters in this case (which, apparently it doesn’t and didn’t), how does this man’s sentence square with the recent brouhaha over Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe failure?” If length of sentence is in part based on scale of harm, and public exposure is in fact harmful, wouldn’t Ms. Jackson’s exposure to millions of people be the far greater harm? Oh My God, a bare breast seen everywhere! I mean, I for one have never gotten over it… (j/k, of course).

Not only did Ms. Jackson not get jailtime, she was never even charged, yet from the furor over the incident you’d think she’d committed a crime on par with the Kennedy assassination. But come to think of it, nobody was charged in that one either… ;-)

Facetiousness aside, this case demonstrates the hypocrisy and lunacy run amok in Amerika today. Sigh…

]]> By: K. S. Knight http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3589 K. S. Knight Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:30:44 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3589 War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Sex. All phony, all equally damaging to what's left of so-called Amerikan freedom. While nobody supports flashers, what is it about seeing a naked body that throws Amerikans (as opposed to so many other people around the world) into a complete tizzy? I would argue that it's our Victorian past, which still festers and oozes intolerance, bigotry and wrong-thinking over a century later. This poor bastard deserved a few years in the clink (at most, in my opinion). I mean, as distasteful as exposing oneself in public may be, it is simply a human body he is exposing. We've all got one and they come in two models. It's not like anybody should be all that shocked by what they see. He didn't actually hurt anybody, except perhaps someone's sense of propriety... The best way to deal with a flasher may be to laugh at them and ridicule them, rather than send them to prison. Imagine if instead of being shocked, people said something like: "Hey pal, nobody wants to see your little shriveled-up pee-pee anyway..." From what I understand, flashers do what they do 'cause they get off on the shock value. If nobody was shocked, they wouldn't do it. More nudist beaches, I say! ;-) This is just a further example of the rightest insanity that characterizes so much of our "modern" Amerikan legal system. Amerika 2007: Commit a Victimless Crime, Goto Prison for Life! War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Sex. All phony, all equally damaging to what’s left of so-called Amerikan freedom.

While nobody supports flashers, what is it about seeing a naked body that throws Amerikans (as opposed to so many other people around the world) into a complete tizzy? I would argue that it’s our Victorian past, which still festers and oozes intolerance, bigotry and wrong-thinking over a century later.

This poor bastard deserved a few years in the clink (at most, in my opinion). I mean, as distasteful as exposing oneself in public may be, it is simply a human body he is exposing. We’ve all got one and they come in two models. It’s not like anybody should be all that shocked by what they see. He didn’t actually hurt anybody, except perhaps someone’s sense of propriety…

The best way to deal with a flasher may be to laugh at them and ridicule them, rather than send them to prison. Imagine if instead of being shocked, people said something like: “Hey pal, nobody wants to see your little shriveled-up pee-pee anyway…” From what I understand, flashers do what they do ’cause they get off on the shock value. If nobody was shocked, they wouldn’t do it.

More nudist beaches, I say! ;-)

This is just a further example of the rightest insanity that characterizes so much of our “modern” Amerikan legal system.

Amerika 2007: Commit a Victimless Crime, Goto Prison for Life!

]]> By: deeply worried http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3576 deeply worried Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:49:53 +0000 http://jonathanturley.org/2007/12/12/court-sentences-montana-man-to-225-years-for-indecent-exposure/#comment-3576 outrageous!! outrageous!!

]]>