Stacey Dean Rambold, 54, is a former teacher who confessed to a sexual relationship with Cherice Morales, a 14-year-old girl at his high school — a girl who later committed suicide. Despite the original charge of multiple counts of statutory rape and a sentencing to 15 years in prison, Yellowstone County District Judge G. Todd Baugh suspended all of that sentence but 31 days and then gave him credit for one day in jail. That left a sentence of 30 days for statutory rape.
In response to the sentence, the girl’s mother yelled “You people suck!” at the judge and courtroom.
Rambold pleaded guilty to the single felony charge in April. It was a delayed plea in a case from 2008. He resigned his teaching job and surrendered his teaching certificate after the disclosure of the relationship. After the girl committed suicide, the prosecution appears to have thrown in the towel on the prosecution and cut a remarkable deal with Rambold. The prosecutors agreed to put the case on hold for three years and then dismiss the rape charges if Rambold completed a sex offender treatment program and complied with other conditions. However, Rambold was terminated from the program after completing two of the three treatment phases. He had met with minors in violation of the rules, even though it was later found to be children in his own family. He was also accused of having a sexual relationship with a woman in violation of the guidelines. I am a bit surprised that this would be serious enough to terminate him but he was thrown out of the program in violation of the agreement.
Judge Baugh disagreed with the renewed prosecution and the removal of Rambold from the treatment program. He said that tapes indicated to him that the 14-year-old girl was “as much in control of the situation” as the teacher. He also decided that Cherice was “older than her chronological age.” the age of consent in Montana is 16 years old.
While I agree with the concern over the termination for visiting with minors in his own family (though it should not have happened), I still find the original prosecution deal rather surprising for a teacher who not only committed statutory rape but abused his position of authority in a public school setting. It would seem that some jail time would be warranted even if a long incarceration may be viewed as inappropriate in the circumstances. On the same measure, 30 days is remarkably low though the judge appears to be motivated in part by his view that the defendant should not have been deprived of the benefit of the original plea.
What do you think?
So Es,
Question, do you think school zone speed limits should be the regular speed limits… And that people should be able to pass school buses just like any other public transportation…. There are reasons that both have enhanced penalties for violation…. Care to gander as to why they should be treated differently? I’m interested in what you have to offer…. So far, I’m not impressed…
Ed,
“Tax Feeders” was a clue, but UPB was the confirmation of yet another person challenged by a libertarian mindset. Next comes Von Mises. The entire premise falls apart in the case of sociopathic, narcissisistic and psychotic behavioral disorders. One does not self regulate when these conditions cloud their world view and everyone else is seen as sheep to be sheared. Believing in UPB is the dream of those with these disorders because it leaves society vulnerable to their predations. This is not to say that all libertarians suffer from these disorders for that is hardly the case. Most libertarians are decent folk who are steeped in an impractical utopianism that simply can’t work.
You’re clueless. Read the book.
G. Todd Baugh Petition: Judge Who Gave Stacey Rambold 30 Days For Rape Of Student Urged To Resign
There is no such thing as “universally preferable behavior”, so its principles do not exist, or are a lie.
A sociopath or psychopath is not going to agree to any rules that constrain their behavior or punish them for their behavior. Therefore, universality is impossible. Therefore, claiming it exists is a lie, told in service of trying to get people to live their life the way you want them to live it.
In this case, this teacher would undoubtedly claim that he should not be punished at all because the 14 year old was willing.
All that ever exists is a majority by some measure; universality is an unattainable absolute because there have always been and as far as we know will always be violent criminals that do not want to be punished.
You will have to come up with something besides empty platitudes and outright lies.
Read: http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_2_PDF_UPB.pdf
I suspect that the prosecution may have realized, once the complainant committed suicide, that they might have a significant challenge meeting their burden of proof. If so, they may have figured that the arrangement was better than nothing. That said, the judge’s comments about the girl being in as much control of the situation as the teacher is such complete and utter nonsense that i can only hope he misspoke horribly.
As for the conditions of having contact with no minors, with no exception for relatives, and having no sexual contact with women, even those of age, I struggle to see how effectively preventing him from having contact with family is helpful and how barring him from a sexual relationship with a woman who is of age is rationally connected to his offense or his treatment.
Ed,
What kind of testing should you propose to sort those predictors out? I’m really interested…..
Learn the principles of universally preferable behavior and live it. You will be able to spot the actions and words of those who don’t live it. Your children will learn from you how to identify the corrupt.
Ed: “tax feeders?”
Whatever. I do not control all children that are underage, nor can I punish them for what they do. However, I can punish mature adults for what they do, they are either rational and capable of making choices and obeying the law, or if they have not developed sufficient self-control to not act upon their impulses with regard to children, they need to be incarcerated and separated from society in order to keep the rest of us safe; both ourselves and our children.
One parent’s control is limited to their own children, and what they “allow” really has very little to do with what their post-pubescent under-age children engage in. If you keep them on too tight a leash, they will not learn responsibility (and will probably develop personality disorders). If you allow them the freedom they need to develop a normal psychology and learn to navigate the world, some will abuse that freedom. We can understand that abuse because they are not fully rational adults; and we can mitigate the pain of that abuse by making adults think twice before they exploit a child’s emotional impulsiveness.
Although this was apparently just sexual, we have good statistics on the rates of pregnancy in girls 12-15. For non-incestual pregnancy, the average age of the father is 22, but extends to over 50. Nearly all of the fathers are adults over 18. Most of the girls, when interviewed, claim they are in love with the father of their child. There is no reason to suspect the typical 22 year old father is employed by the government in any way; most of them are partying college kids.
There is also no statistically significant correlation in under-age pregnancy for stated religion or level of religiosity (as measured by self-reported church attendance, belief, and frequency of prayer, measured separately for the girl and her parents). High or low religiosity does not affect the actual rates of non-incestual pregnancy observed in 12-15 year olds, which makes me think “teaching the kids” has a relatively low rate of effectiveness.
We don’t want children, who are forced to be with teachers and in inequitable power relationships to have to be the grownup. It is the adult who has the responsibility to behave responsibly.
People who may look good on paper and in interviews, say for teaching positions, do not have to be/appear immature. A predator is a predator is a predator and many are very adept at hiding who they really are. I daresay immaturity has nothing to do with it.
And a child is by definition :immature”. That is why there are laws protecting them.
(“tax feeder”. I have no idea what you are talking about. (I may have missed it form an earlier posting)
@ Anonymously Yours, Tony C., elrondsilvermaul, leejcaroll
It appears to me that none of you want to be responsible. Everyone with their eyes open knows that tax feeders are, for the most part, unprincipled and are more likely to be a predator. Why would you, or anybody else, allow someone, that you thought was too immature, to be anywhere near them before you checked them out?
“Everyone with their eyes open knows that tax feeders are, for the most part, unprincipled and are more likely to be a predator. Why would you, or anybody else, allow someone, that you thought was too immature, to be anywhere near them before you checked them out?”
Ed,
“Tax feeders”? Libertarian much? Are you commenting on this particular case, or are you trying to make a broader point? In any event you are wide of the mark on all counts and suffering from a lack of logical conception.
Ed, as an adult I was “forced” into a sexual situation with a doctor of mine. I truly felt that if I did not submit it would adversely affect my medical care. Add the inequality of power, student/teacher and then add in age. How in any logical discussion could that be appropriate/should be legal?
Ed: I do not need to watch it; as a society we have decided 14 year olds are not capable of informed consent. That is backed up by numerous brain-developmental studies of which I am professionally aware. I did not watch your video, but if you want to point at one person, exceptional or not, and claim they are representative of millions of others, then you are as immature in your thinking as a 14 year old.
Is a five year old capable of informed sexual consent? Does thinking they are not make somebody an “ageist?” There is a threshold; in my opinion even 16 is too early, myelinization of the frontal cortex is not complete at 16 (or in some people not even begun) and as a result their impulsive emotional considerations overpower their rational thinking.
If it were up to me, on a biological basis I would not let anybody under 20 join the military, and the age of sexual consent would be 18 across the nation. That is not “ageism” it is developmental biology, of which you are clearly ignorant.
Ed….I appreciate you view point…. However…. Not all are immoral or amoral…. It’s those that can’t help themselves that the laws are designated to enhance the sentence on…. I’m sure, you’d agree that if a person in a position of authority had sex with your child say of 8 or 14 years of age…. You might handle it differently than I would…. I’d do one of two things…. One, do like the grandmother in Australia did…. Track em down and shoot there testicles off…. Or if the police go to them fort let the system take care of em…. But, that’s just me…..
@ Tony C.
You and those who think like you are ageists. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C9tTUuWSfU and then tell me about the ability of a 14 year old to make decisions.
Tony C. said what I was going to say, only better.
“You and those who think like you are ageists.”
Ed,
A 50 year old teacher having sex with a 14 year old student is an abuse of power and quite frankly perverted. Any male over the age of 21 who would see a 14 year old as a sexual object has very deep emotional and psychological issues because he is probably incapable of having a mature sexual relationship. I say that as someone who believes teenage sexuality is normal……among teenagers.
Ed: The word ” statutory” should not be in front of the word “rape”. Either it’s rape or it isn’t.
That isn’t true. It is called statutory because it violates a statute, namely that the girl is not old enough to provide consent at 14, by statute we have set that limit at the age of 16.
Even if she was willing, even if he thinks he got her “consent,” that was impossible; she was a child and according to our law not mature enough to make such a decision on her own.
Statutory rape is called that to distinguish it from other forms of rape in which the participants ARE old enough to provide consent, but did not.
Refusing to acknowledge that such distinctions can be made is illogical; it is like claiming there is no difference between stealing a candy bar and defrauding thousands of retireees out of hundreds of millions of dollars; because they are both “stealing.” It is like claiming there is no difference between shoving somebody and killing them, they are both “assault.”
We make a distinction of “statutory” rape because when a participant is under age, providing any proof of their consent, or their testimony under oath of their consent, does not absolve the adult of the crime, as it would with another adult. At least, it is not supposed to do that.
Ed,
I hear what you said, however, this is what’s called a status crime…. Not because sex is illegal, but because of the age difference usually…. But most importantly the Status of the Defendant and Victim…. Teacher, Student…. It’s presumed by law that the student cannot consent because of the, in most cases the significance of the teacher….
Other types of status crimes I disagree with are minor in possession of alcohol, tobacco and minors having sex…..
You have to be 21 to legally drink… Well you only have to be 18 in the military… But then again… You take the chance of getting shot at….
The other one are tobacco…. Under 19 in some states and its a crime…
It’s called zero tolerance…
Then again, kids are going to have sex at different ages… Why should a 17 year old be guilty of rape if they are 2 years older than another…. Some of the laws are stupid…. Some are necessary….
But what can I say…. Government taking away the authority of the parents…. Kids are going to drink, smoke and have sex….
“Some of the laws are stupid…. Some are necessary….”
Any so called “law” that is not universally preferable is bogus.
The word ” statutory” should not be in front of the word “rape”. Either it’s rape or it isn’t. I wasn’t there, but this situation looks like most others in which you have a couple of ignorant people having a relationship. Doing a better job of informing your children will go a long way in preventing these unfortunate situations.
i’ve always heard “15 will get you 20”. for some reason i’d assumed it meant years not days.
Saying that a 14-year old was “as much in control” and “older than her chronological age” is classic Blame the Victim. And on what basis did the judge think he had the expertise to assess the victim’s “control” and “chronological age” — is he a licensed mental health professional as well as a judge?
I have to agree that it is irrelevent if the 14 year old is claimed to have encouraged the sex act. Statutory rape is statutory rape.
Washington has codified a law that would address teachers who have sex with minor students. (for those who are above consent age but below 18 and above a certain age for the suspect)
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.093
Sexual misconduct with a minor in the first degree.
(1) A person is guilty of sexual misconduct with a minor in the first degree when: (a) The person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual intercourse with another person who is at least sixteen years old but less than eighteen years old and not married to the perpetrator, if the perpetrator is at least sixty months older than the victim, is in a significant relationship to the victim, and abuses a supervisory position within that relationship in order to engage in or cause another person under the age of eighteen to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim; (b) the person is a school employee who has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual intercourse with an enrolled student of the school who is at least sixteen years old and not more than twenty-one years old and not married to the employee, if the employee is at least sixty months older than the student; or (c) the person is a foster parent who has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual intercourse with his or her foster child who is at least sixteen.
(2) Sexual misconduct with a minor in the first degree is a class C felony.
The judge needs to go, he has an attitude problem.