Teacher Admits To Sexual Relationship With 14-Year-Old Student But Is Sentenced To Only 30 Days In Jail

article-2402937-1B7BD6A3000005DC-73_306x423Stacey 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.

article-2402937-1B7BEF34000005DC-926_306x423article-2402937-1B7BEF1E000005DC-601_306x423Judge 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?

112 thoughts on “Teacher Admits To Sexual Relationship With 14-Year-Old Student But Is Sentenced To Only 30 Days In Jail”

  1. Ed says: How long do you think a clown like that would last. Without enough people to condone that mentality, would they even make it to adulthood

    I see, so your “universal” principle says it is okay to kill or imprison somebody you consider insane; or enough people consider insane. So you are no different, you will also point a gun at somebody.

    You live in a fantasy. No man can stand against a large enough gang, not you and not a sociopath. The only real protection against sociopaths is to overwhelm them with force, or if they believe they will be overwhelmed by force.

    1. You are reading in to it. Insanity can be recognized and corrected before adulthood.
      When no one will associate with you because you are a piece-of-shit, life can be very difficult. Sometimes you end up dying. So it would be best for parents to try to insure that they raise well adjusted children.
      I have no problem with self defense.
      How many do you think would be inclined to join a gang if they were raised in a world where they had peaceful well adjusted people that rejected the concept of having a ruler?

  2. Ed: Wrong, a potential dictator needs nothing but a willingness to kill to get what he wants. A stone or sharpened stick will do the trick. Sometimes deception alone will do it. Sociopaths come in the intelligent variety, and if guns exist you can be sure that in an anarchic situation, a smart and violent sociopath will have them fast and will be faster on the trigger than you are.

    Gangs form for a reason, in a lawless region they work and you can be sure somebody will lead them, so the gang profits at the expense of everybody they subjugate and enslave.

    1. Wow! I figured this stuff would be coming. Anarchists don’t want a ruler. How long do you think a clown like that would last. Without enough people to condone that mentality, would they even make it to adulthood before they were recognized as insane?
      I would take my chances on an insurance company wanting enough to stay in business to nip it in the bud.
      Wish you would read UPB.

  3. Ed says: “Laws” = pointing guns @ people.

    Not really, since “lawlessness” is also pointing guns @ people. If there are no laws, there is anarchy, which only lasts as long as it takes for men with guns to establish rule by force and coercion; which is “pointing guns @ people,” and a dictatorship. The only way to get rid of that is revolution which is also “pointing guns @ people”.

    There is no escaping enforcement, any peaceful agreement on behavior will fail when inequality appears and some people face deprivations while others do not. Very few people just lay down and die of starvation because the “rules” leave them no viable options. People fight for their life, for the lives of those they love, for the lives of their children, and if guns exist they will use the guns and say phuck the rules, we’ll go down fighting. Until your philosophy comes to terms with that reality, it is a pointless fantasy.

    1. Sorry dude, but a potential dictator needs money to buy guns & “soldiers”. In an anarchist world you’re not going to have much luck in convincing peaceful people to hand over their funds to someone who wants to use it to rule them.

  4. Ed re first comment, yes I want a “gun” as in laws and repercussions if someone, parent, teacher, guardian, relative, stranger, wants to have relations with someone under age. The reasons fro this have been repeatedly expressed so no point in my restating them.

    Interesting statistic, who defines “screwed up”, what is the criteria? Does it break down single family in terms of how the family became ‘single” does it break it down socio-economically? Grow up in a slum, and yep, probably (surmising here) you have a better chance of growing up “screwed up” because the role models or opportunities to escape or see the possibility f a better future are not usually as available as in “better communities.”
    That’s not true at all, that school kept me from opportunities to escape. School allowed me those opportunities to see that there were other possibilities, it gave me the ability to work in other venues while in school where I saw that the world was not as it was in my house.
    I did not tell. You don’t if you don’t want the threatened repercussions, which can be for many victims, up to and including death of self or others.. What happens in the home stays in the home. The mantra of the many and one reason why children don’t tell.

    1. Did it ever occur to you (and you Tony C.) that the reason that some relationships are not discussed is because of the “Law”/death threats? What if the girl and man in this particular situation were free to openly show it or speak about it? Do you think that maybe someone could have reasoned with at least one of them as to why it might be a bad idea?

      @ Tony C. I think you are mentally ill. Would it be okay with you if I pointed a gun @ your lover and demanded that they terminate your relationship? Or would you prefer that I just discuss it with your lover and hope he/she listens to reason?

    2. Sorry leejcaroll. Didn’t mean to dismiss some of your last post. I’m just busy.
      “Screwed up” should have been dysfunctional. Sorry you had no one you could trust to talk to. I hope school isn’t something that you settled for just because it was a little better.
      This guy http://www.freedomainradio.com/Videos.aspx has Sunday & Wednesday shows that you can call in to or just listen to. He talks a lot with people who came from dysfunctional homes. It’s good stuff.

      1. Ed, thanks for your note. No school was just grades 12 – 16 where I grew up. It was mostly the “bad kids”, (meaning for the most part those from a lower economic class, most were not the ‘hoods’ or ‘bad girls” -even the suburbs there were still the have and have not areas.) who went to votech or straight to work.
        Thanks for the link too.

        (As for you raised your daughter so no problem – I know a family where the parents were hard working, one a teacher, and both of the kids ended up on drugs, stealing, and worse. (Thankfully one seems to have gotten her life together. Sadly the other one, whom you wouldn’t have said was “insane” or psychologically ill, became schizophrenic.)
        You can be the best parent in the world, it does not assure your kid will turn out fine or not be susceptible to the bad people in the world.

  5. Ed asks: Do you want someone pointing a gun @ you and telling you that you cannot have a relationship with a certain someone?

    Yes, absolutely, I do. If I have lost control of my faculties and self-restraint to the point that the only thing that can keep me from harming a child is the imminent threat of violence, then please, point your gun at me, and if even that does not stop me, pull the trigger. In that circumstance I am a danger to society.

    I think the law applies to everybody, including me. I do not believe we (or Congress, or any public official) should pass a law that does not apply to themselves; I find that corrupt.

    But I endorse the protection of children from exploitation by adults, and if I am the one exploiting them I agree the law should be applied to me exactly as I would like it applied to others.

    And, I will note, “not pointing guns” @ people over their relationships is NOT a universally preferred behavior at all, I heartily endorse pointing guns at any adult, including myself, that is attempting to engage in sexual contact with a 14 year old of either gender.

  6. Ed, the welfare state is not the cause of sh***y parents”. It happens in any class: in this classless society. I know a number of single parents where father is not in the picture. Divorce is a major reason. Single women who get pregnant and do not have a man in the picture is not an automatic equation with “sh**y parenting.
    So let’s see – if a kid doesn’t have her “s**t” together she should be ostracized by those who do (and who determines what defines having S**T together vs who does not?) or they should be forced to stay only with their own kind?
    I was an abused child, white, suburbia, and upper middle class. Abuse has no economic 1 – 1. People thght my father was great, from the outside looking in. No one knew living in my house and what happened there was “sh***y.
    As for school, kids do not tend to “migrate to the lowest common denominator”. They tend to shun them and the “lowest” usually end up hanging with “their own kind”.
    Thank goodness for school where the teachers treated me the way my parents should have treated me. This is the case for more kids then I imagine you can imagine. Being home with my parents was Hell. That is the case for way too many kids, rich or poor.

    1. Something I should have added ( to keep the Tony C.’s from screaming).
      “Laws” are also death threats. The reasoning is that threats always have the potential of leading to death.
      Hope I covered enough. I’m kind of busy.

  7. Ed,
    I am with Tony C. and Mike S. on this. If you have an argument to make, make it. Posting a link and telling people to go read it to see the argument offers one of two possibilities: You either don’t understand it yourself, and therefore cannot make a coherent argument on those theories; or, you are too lazy to write it out and make your own arguments. Neither of those interpretations are very flattering

    Even though Bron and DavidM are often wrong but never uncertain, they do make their own arguments. They occasionally provide a source link, but both speak in their own voice. If you want to debate, please do so by all means; however, expect to have your ideas and opinions challenged with logic and fact.

    1. Do you want someone pointing a gun @ you and telling you that you cannot have a relationship with a certain someone? Do you want someone pointing a gun @ a certain someone and telling them that they cannot be in a relationship with you? For almost everyone, the answer is no. Therefore, not pointing a gun @ people over their relationships is UPB.
      “Laws” = pointing guns @ people.

      1. “Do you want someone pointing a gun @ you and telling you that you cannot have a relationship with a certain someone?”


        If it was my daughter and it was some 54 year old pervert teacher having that relationship I’d do a hell of a lot more than point a gun at him. Wouldn’t you?

  8. Ed: I do NOT sincerely want to know about UPB at all, it is obviously poorly reasoned garbage. I am a scientist interested in reality, when I feel like enjoying fiction, which is frequently, I turn to entertainment professionals that make no pretense that their work is anything but a fantasy. I do not turn to frauds trying to manipulate me into a counter-productive belief system with lies and misdirection.

    YOU are the one that brought it up, my only interest in UPB would be in decimating the arguments you find compelling with actual logic. But if you want to keep your fantasy to yourself, I don’t care that much. The world is full of delusional people, you are just one more.

  9. Ed says: I’m well aware of all of that. It’s a result of shitty parents.

    Not always. To believe that and your other assertions, you have to assume that under-age children are completely rational robots that will obey parental commands even when their parents aren’t there, that will never be overridden by emotion, that won’t rebel against iron-fisted control, that won’t take impulsive action that endangers them or somebody else.

    Children are not completely rational, it is the nature of our evolved biology that we become simultaneously sexually productive, sexually charged, and highly impulsive and emotional several years before we become rational adults.

    I think those states are obviously conducive to quick reproduction and survival of the offspring with young and healthy parents, which would be great if we were still hunter-gatherers with a 30 year life-expectancy, no medicine or technology to save us from simple infections, that had to survive regular fasts lasting days and engage in strong physical labors twelve hours a day to survive. In those circumstances, 15 year old parents that are the equivalent of decathlon athletes are a major survival asset to their offspring. Super-charged sexuality, late-onset rationality, rebellion against control, and impulsive mating in young teens are all psychological (and biological developmental) traits retained by evolution because for several hundred thousand years, those with those traits reproduced and their children survived at a greater rate than those that had them in lesser measure. A lack of interest in sex is not conducive to reproduction.

    But those days are past. The traits that led to survival and reproduction now lead to poverty, a lack of education, a shorter lifespan for under-age parents, and frequently desperation that produces crime and anti-social behavior in both the parents and their children. The modern lifespan has more than doubled. The percentage of children that survive to reproductive age has doubled (to near 100%), a flu or infected cut seldom kills them anymore. And being strong, fast or fit, although still attractive and admired, does not spell automatic success in the modern world. Killing a sparrow with a stone from 30 feet may have provided crucial calories a few hundred thousand years ago, so might running a deer to exhaustion and heat stroke in a marathon, but those physical skills are not that useful in the modern world.

    In the modern world we acknowledge this disparity, even those that do not believe in evolution still understand that kids are not adults, or robots, that they are emotional and impulsive and frequently irrationally fail to consider consequences (and falsely attribute this to “hormones”). To ignore the nature of post-pubescent teens and pretend they are just like adults is to ignore reality. The vast majority, for biological development reasons, do not have the self-control and mental equipment needed to make life-altering decisions in their own best self-interest for the world they now inhabit. My explanation is that evolution, in the last few hundred years, has not had time to adapt humans to survive in this sudden new technological environment.

    Those that do not wish to face the reality of evolution should at least face the reality that kids are the way they are and developmental biology will not be subordinate to parental demands, they cannot insist on rational actions from an irrational and emotionally impulsive minor.

    Those that face reality demand that other adults that should have greater self-control than children exercise it on behalf of not exploiting the children or ruining their lives when the children cannot help themselves. Adults that resent such demands are, IMO, sociopaths that only care about themselves, or developmentally lacking in rationality and incapable of being responsible adults, and if they act on their impulses and engage in sexual acts with minors their lack of self-control should be severely punished, and they should be imprisoned, because they have proven (like the jerk in this article) that they lack self-control and cannot be trusted with freedom.

  10. Ed: There is no moderator on this site, there is a buggy program called WordPress that is trying to filter out rants, abusive screamers and spam, and although it is making mistakes and being overly oppressive, the site would probably be unreadable without it. You see missing posts, you don’t see the hundred filtered spams.

    There are some volunteer guest bloggers for this site, with zero formal responsibility to the site, that can rescue some posts from the trash heap if they have the time to look for them.

    Now that you know that, you can try to fix your post and respond. WordPress won’t let you send more than 3 links. If the post is long, break it up into shorter segments. If you are using “adult language,” obfuscate it. If you are too lazy to do any of that, I will presume you do not really have anything worth saying.

    1. Project much? You sure are a manipulative twit.
      It doesn’t matter how much time I waste trying to explain UPB to you, because you’ll always come up with some sophist bullshit to reject it. If you sincerely wanted to know about UPB, you would.

      1. Ed,

        If UPB floats your boat great. I’ve lived too long to believe there are any universal answers to society’s ills and I’ve learned to distrust any person who does.

  11. @ Tony C. Evidently the moderator didn’t approve my response to you. Take it up with him/her.

  12. Ed:

    I know nothing about the child in this legal case and therefore cannot comment on her particular situation, but I can tell you that one of the signs of a history of repeated sexual child abuse of pre-adolescent girls can be approaching adult men in a sexual manner during adolescence, which can make a girl seem to be “knowledgeable” beyond her years. So the next time you hear of an underage teen girl having sex with an adult male, remember that she may have been “taught” as a child that her only worth to men is as a sexual object to be used. So yes, in my opinion, these children need to be protected from being re-victimized (or being victimized the first time, if that is the case).

    1. I’m well aware of all of that. It’s a result of shitty parents. So let’s try to prevent that by making sure there are a lot less shitty parents. One way is to stop the welfare state from making it possible for women to be able to afford being a single parent while sending the message to young men that being a responsible father is not necessary. That being said, I don’t think that young women with their shit together should be oppressed because other young women don’t have decent parents.
      By the way, sending kids to public schools encourages them to migrate to the lowest common denominator in order to relate to each other. Not to mention it’s damn close to being a prison, therefore an abusive environment. What say “we” stop abusing “our” kids and put them in an environment where they’re comfortable, have positive influence, and are being taught by people with their best interests in mind. You know, like maybe at home with a parent.

      1. Your worldview is very narrow. “Sh**y parents” is not just a poor person’s burden. Many poor folk, many single mothers do just fine raising their kids.
        Many middle class, upper middle class, and upper class (in this ‘classless society”) are also sh***y parents although from the outside looking in they seem fine. Abuse is not an economic issue.
        I went to public school. There was no migrating to the lowest common denominator, in fact they tended to be shunned by those outside of that group.
        As an abused child (growing up in white upper middle class suburbia, and with a father everyone thought was a fine person) I am grateful for my teachers and school, an oasis outside of the abuse and awfulness that was my home.

        1. I never said that all of the bad parenting comes from a certain a specific situation. However, the statistics say that more screwed up kids, especially boys, come from single parent families.
          Sorry about your home life. Still, you may have had more opportunities to escape it if you weren’t stuck in school for all of that time. That’s just one reason why children should not be denied the right to work.
          Did you ever tell your teachers about your home life? If not, why? If so, why didn’t they do something to help you escape?

  13. Pete,


    Tony C.,

    Think you got to him………


    Did you see the American pilot that was detained and arrested in Miami for child endangerment…. Apparently google or yahoo contacted the center for missing and exploited children and they waited for him to come back to the US at an international airport….. Homeland security got involved… To say the least…. Trial would not be good for it…..

    As in to regards of this instant case…… APPARENTLY THE VICTIM MADE HERSELF UNAVAILABLE….. there was no case left until the mofo pled…. I’m not sure I’d advised him to plea under these circumstances…. I’d have to know more…. But to say this creeps teaching career is over is an understatement ….

  14. From the age of 12, I endured unwanted attention from male friends of my parents. I was well-read, intelligent and preferred the company of adults. I’m sure I seemed older than my years. However, I was NOT interested in a relationship with any of these men, but experienced some thrill at my “power” to attract them. I was fortunate to have a very protective mother who kept me safe from predators..

    Ever hear the expression “old enough to know better, too young to care?” Age of consent laws exist for good reason.

  15. Ed: You’re not only clueless, you’ve been conned. Anytime somebody tells me I have to read their book, I know they do not really understand their book, because if they had assimilated the logic used within the book they would be able to make the arguments presented within the book, as needed, to debate any element of their topic.

    You apparently cannot do that. In my experience people that pound on a book without having internalized the logical arguments of it are just enamored of the conclusions. They don’t care if the logic makes sense, they just want the conclusions to be true.

    That is an emotional (and irrational) embrace. As I have already demonstrated, even the name of your philosophy is a lie; unless you can demonstrate this philosophy is based upon something other than wishful thinking and fraudulent argument, there seems little point in reading it. There is an infinite parade of people trying to make a buck off the gullible by telling them what they want to hear while claiming their hocum is based upon “science” and “logic” beyond the rube’s ken.

    For those of us that ARE scientists and logicians, you are just another sad victim, shelling out bucks for quantum-infused water, life-energy crystals, and magic beans in the form of yet another fraudulent philosophy that reasons backwards from the conclusions it wants to reach to the obscuring lies, misdirections and redefinitions its premises must contain in order to reach those conclusions with “logic.”

    If you believe there is an argument in there worth making, make it, and we will tell you what is wrong with it, if anything. But we will not begin with redefining the word “universal.”

  16. Ed:

    Society has decided that a 14 year old is not to be had sex with by adults who are not married to them. The state legislatures in every state in the US considers doing so is rape by definition. Tony and Mike et al have provided neurological and cognative reasons as to also why this is damaging to the child. Federal Laws also deal with this issue. Not only does this prohibition apply to sex, it also applies to sexual contact, depictions of minors engaging in sex, exploitation of minors in printable media, and prostitution. Someone mentioned the drinking and smoking ages, the same could be said for voting. The most savant 14 year old in the country is never going to legally register to vote for the same reason the 14 year old cannot legally give consent to sex with an adult.

    it is damaging to children, it is only a matter of degree, did not not read the child committed suicide?

    In fact, some states have gone a step further to rip those who facilitate child rapists a new one when they help them fly off to some foreign country to sexually exploit children in countries where child prostitution is common.


    RCW 9.68A.102
    Promoting travel for commercial sexual abuse of a minor — Penalty.

    (1) A person commits the offense of promoting travel for commercial sexual abuse of a minor if he or she knowingly sells or offers to sell travel services that include or facilitate travel for the purpose of engaging in what would be commercial sexual abuse of a minor or promoting commercial sexual abuse of a minor, if occurring in this state.

    (2) Promoting travel for commercial sexual abuse of a minor is a class C felony.

    (3) For purposes of this section, “travel services” has the same meaning as defined in RCW 19.138.021.

  17. I can see what nekelund said about fear of losing the case due to the suicide of the child victim and the problem with evidence. I remember there are certain cases where evidence might be admitted due to the death of the witness where it might not be admitted if the witness did not make themselves otherwise available, such as avoiding trial. The lawyers here will know this answer better than I do.

    But there is another dynamic here. If I had suspected the judge would only hand out a 30 day penalty upon a guilty plea I wouldn’t as a prosecutor see any downside to going to the hilt on prosecuting this teacher to the max.

  18. AY

    there are two types of people in the world, ed and everyone else. we exist only to jab straws into ed and suck out his life blood via “taxes”.

    drink deep and twist the straw from time to time, he secretly enjoys it. it gives his life meaning.

Comments are closed.