No prison time for Indiana man convicted of drugging, raping

He's not walking anywhere. He will be registering as a sex offender for the rest of his life wherever he lives. For the next 20 years he will lose every right to privacy he has. His home, his person, can be searched at any time for any reason or no reason at all. He will not be allowed to vote, he will not be allowed to own a firearm. For the rest of his life he will be considered garbage by most everyone around him.

Now, do I think all of that is sufficient penalty for what he did? Of course not, but let's dispense with the nonsense that he's not being punished at all, OK?

ScienceChic wrote: ...What message does this sentencing send? A:

My guess is that the best defence is to bribe a judge.

ScienceChic wrote: PS, did I say anywhere that he wasn't being punished at all? No, I said he walks because he doesn't have to serve a single day in jail for his conviction of multiple felony crimes. Do you honestly think it's okay that a man convicted of 6 felony accounts, of rape, serve only 24 days in jail total and all that before the trial? Each of the counts he was convicted upon carry a 6-20 year sentencing range, yet he only has to serve 8 years "detention" - that's what makes me mad - this judge was cavalier and did not serve justice. Hell, I know of someone who once spent 5 months in jail for a DUI, and he didn't even wreck his car or kill or maim anyone.

You inferred it with the terms that both you and the link you provided used. It is accurate to say that he will serve no prison time, and highly inaccurate to say that he "walked". Most inaccurate of all is this quote from Boardman from that link:

"To have my rapist, my attacker, convicted on all six counts, only to be let go – only for him to walk out that door the same time I could -- was just unfathomable," Boardman told the Los Angeles Times in a phone interview on Monday. "I never thought that he would be at home, being able to have the same rights and privileges as I do.”

He wasn't "let go", he won't have the "same rights and privileges" as she does and any such suggestions are ridiculous on their face. He walked out of that courtroom a convicted felon that was sentenced to 20 years. 8 of those years will be served in home detention and 12 years were suspended. Tell me SC, what happens if he violates the terms of his house arrest? The reality with the house arrest is that he has to support himself instead of being supported by the taxpayers in prison. He will be wearing a GPS monitor 24/7/365 for the next 8 years of his life. The police can show up at his door, at any time, on any day, and search his residence and his person without a warrant. If he gets so much as a speeding ticket he risks losing that house arrest and being sent to the penitentiary for the rest of his sentence, including the 12 years that were originally suspended. He will be monitored for the next 20 years of his life. He will be collecting Social Security before he gets his privacy back. That's not "walking" and it certainly isn't enjoying the same rights and privileges as his ex-wife.

ScienceChic wrote: And this guy has even filed an appeal, as if what he got wasn't fair! Ooh, he's lost his privacy, right to own a firearm, and vote. Big whoop. He doesn't even have to do any counseling or seek treatment - he expressed no remorse at his actions, which screams repeat offender. With malice and premeditation he committed a crime repeatedly over 3 years against another person, worse because she should've been able to trust him, her spouse. No, I do not consider "home detention" punishment. If he gets a job, which inmates don't get that option, he can even leave his home. That's not punishment, that's probation.

Not just a firearm SC, any weapons at all. A hunting knife in his home could send him to the penitentiary for the remainder of his sentence. It's not probation, or parole, it's house arrest. He will have to be at that house whenever he is not at work and they will have the ability to tell if he complies or not. This man won't be able to even have a beer or a glass of wine for at least the next 8 years because he's going to be piddling into a cup and having it examined at least once a week, a cost he will have to bear, for the entire time he is subject to house arrest. He doesn't get to walk out of his door and go get a cup of joe at the Starbucks whenever he wants, or to eat out some evening because he doesn't feel like cooking. He's under house arrest as punishment for the crime he was convicted of committing.

ScienceChic wrote: I keep hearing that punishment is supposed to be a deterrent so that's why capital punishment happens. What message does this sentencing send? As the wife said in the article, "Women, don’t get snippy out there; you might get drugged and raped." And according to this judge, it's okay, you should just forgive him and understand that he doesn't have serve any time for his crime.

And every time someone says that a punishment acts as a deterrent I tell them they are living in a fantasy world. The purpose of punishment is not to deter anyone, it's to punish the person for violating the law. Fines don't stop speeders, even the threat of the death penalty doesn't deter murderers. It is retribution - nothing more, nothing less.

And from my POV, the house arrest is much more of a punishment than a penitentiary would be. The cost of monitoring will be born by him, not the rest of us. The cost of housing, feeding, clothing him will be born by him, not the rest of us. The cost of his testing will be born by him. His house, his person and his effects can be searched at any time for no reason at all other than he is under house arrest. He has to sit in his house and watch the world go by - so close to being part of it and yet prevented from actually being a member of the society because he is under house arrest. Can't go see a concert in the park, or to the zoo, or on vacation. If allowed access to a computer, by no means a given, it will have a key stroke program on it that logs every word written, every site visited, every file sent, viewed or downloaded. One misstep is all that separates him from house arrest and a penitentiary for the next 20 years. I don't care who you are, that right there would be a hellish way to exist, don't you think?

If you think the purpose of the penal system is rehabilitation, then this is precisely the type of sentence you would be supportive of. It gives him just enough rope with which to hang himself if he is so inclined, but also gives him the opportunity, over an extended period of time, to demonstrate that he can be a productive member of the society. Locking someone away in the penitentiary for extended periods of time is, according to studies, part of the reason why there is such a high recidivism rate. By removing them entirely from society for long periods of time they become separated from it, lose the ability to be a part of it. Sometimes they end up committing another crime simply to be returned to the only life they are comfortable with, life in the penitentiary.

Some are simply not interested in being rehabilitated. Much like an addiction, the desire to change has to come from within the person before any change occurs. Why should we feed, clothe and house such people for the rest of their natural lives? Why not simply recognize that they have no interest in being anything other than a criminal, no interest in respecting the rights of others and execute them instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars caring for them for the rest of their lives after they have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to respect the rights of others? Execution is about retribution, not deterrence, not rehabilitation, for the harm to the rights of others in the society. That is its only purpose for existence and as long as there are humans that purpose will exist.

ScienceChic wrote: I don't think a person like that should ever be allowed to own a gun or hunting knife again .

Too just focus on just 2 points I think the idea that house arrest is worse than prison can only be held by someone who has never been to prison or spent over 100 days at sea on a warship.

To SC's point quoted above, that is an issue that has profoundly bothered me for decades. Seems like I was imprinted with this somewhere about 8'th grade that when when a person had "paid his debt to society" they regained ALL the rights of every other citizen. I must admit that when I think of this it is normally in the context of voting rights not weapons.