Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 28 18:13:41 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Judge reverses rape conviction
murder
Member
Thu Jan 13 06:17:55
Illinois judge's reversal of rape conviction draws anger

A judge in western Illinois who found an 18-year-old man guilty of sexual assaulting a 16-year-old girl has come under fire after he threw out the conviction this month and said the months he spent in jail was punishment enough

QUINCY, Ill. -- A judge in western Illinois who found an 18-year-old man guilty of sexual assaulting a 16-year-old girl has come under fire after he later threw out the conviction, saying the 148 days the man spent in jail was punishment enough.

The prosecutor in the case said her “heart is bleeding for the victim," and an organization that helps victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse said Adams County Judge Robert Adrian's ruling sends a “chilling message to other rape victims that their behavior, not the rapists' will be judged,” the (Quincy) Herald-Whig reported.

On Wednesday, Adrian, apparently angered by the criticism, told another prosecutor appearing before him in an unrelated case to leave his courtroom because the prosecutor had “liked” a comment on Facebook that was critical of the judge.

“I can't be fair with you,” Adrian told the Adams County prosecutor, the Herald-Whig reported. “Get out.”

The uproar stems from a case that started with the arrest of Drew Clinton after a May 30 graduation party.

During the trial, the judge heard evidence that the girl had told police she’d attended the party, where she drank alcohol and swam in a pool in her underwear before she eventually passed out. She said she woke up to a pillow pushed on her face and Clinton sexually assaulting her.

According to the police report, the teen was able to push Clinton off of her and then told a friend what happened. She later told her father, who called the police.

In October, Adrian found Clinton guilty of felony sexual assault, but during a Jan. 3 sentencing hearing he said he would not impose the mandatory minimum sentence of four years in prison.

“Mr. Clinton has served almost five months in the county jail, 148 days,” Adrian said, according to the court transcript of the hearing posted online by local media. “For what happened in this case, that is plenty of punishment. That would be a just sentence.”

“There is no way,” the judge explained, “for what happened in this case that this teenager should go to the Department of Corrections. I will not do that.”

But the judge said if he were to rule that the sentencing statute he was bound to follow was unconstitutional, his decision would be overturned and Clinton would be ordered to prison. In order to avoid an appeal he believed would be successful, Adrian said what he could do was determine that prosecutors had failed to “prove their case” and dismiss the sexual assault charge.

The prosecutor in the case, Anita Rodriguez, said she had never in her 40-year career seen anything like Adrian's ruling, and worried how the ruling might affect the victim. The trial “did a lot for her healing process, but now she's back to where we were at.”

The Quincy Area Network Against Domestic Abuse said the ruling sends a dangerous message.

“The judgement reinforces the fact that standards for women have always been impossibly high while they are impossibly low for men," the group said in a statement.

But Clinton's attorney, Drew Schnack, said the ultimate verdict was the correct one because the prosecution did not prove its case and the evidence was not strong enough to warrant a conviction.

http://abc...onviction-draws-anger-82230297

murder
Member
Thu Jan 13 06:18:26

Someone go ahead and tell me that judge shouldn't be set on fire.

Rugian
Member
Thu Jan 13 07:09:25
"In a report made to Quincy police officers (and provided to Muddy River News by the accuser), a minor girl said she attended a post-graduation party on May 30. She admitted to swimming in a pool in her bra and underwear, then getting drunk and vomiting. She said friends took her to another residence, where she laid on a couch and went to sleep. She claims she woke up to someone on top of her, claiming a pillow was over her face and a person later identified as Drew Clinton was “inside of me.”"

What a responsible person who clearly didn't invite the circumstances that befell her.
murder
Member
Thu Jan 13 07:14:46

"What a responsible person who clearly didn't invite the circumstances that befell her."

Proving yet again that right wingers aren't just garbage some of the time.

He raped her. Period.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 13 07:30:32
"What a responsible person who clearly didn't invite the circumstances that befell her."

Yep. Little red riding hood didn't mind her steps and she paid the price by getting ravaged by the wolf, but we still have to take care of the wolf non-the-less.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 13 07:41:32
So much stuff here, under two clusters:

1. Abuse of process

2. Shitty judgement

Firstly, this is why mandatory minimum sentences etc. are a terrible idea - in cases where they seem perverse or unjust it can drive juries to fail to acquit, or judges - in this case - to give bad instructions and or rulings to try and shape the outcome by abusing the process.

Even if the judge feels the sentence served is a reasonable sentence, and a 4 year jail term extreme - he is bound by the law and must follow it - not throw the conviction out.

But I am far from convinced a 4 year jail term for an adult (I assume he was an adult at the time) raping a girl is absurdly high. Who the fuck is it who is brining up these people that don't understand this is a serious fucking crime?

That said, if there are extenuating circumstances, I do think judges ought to have discretion on sentencing - even if this judge is an example. Chose judges better - maybe not through blatantly partisan processes?

Rugian remains disgusting as ever. How she came to be unconscious is irrelevant. You absolutely ought to be able to swim in a pool in bra and underwear, get drunk and pass out on a couch without some fucker sticking their dick or fingers in you. Pretty sure if a 16 year old boy at a pool party swam in his boxers, got drunk, and crashed on a couch, Rugian would be happy to throw the book at a man raping him.

Rugian
Member
Thu Jan 13 08:26:47
Nimatzo
"Yep. Little red riding hood didn't mind her steps and she paid the price by getting ravaged by the wolf, but we still have to take care of the wolf non-the-less."

Indeed.

Seb
"How she came to be unconscious is irrelevant."

For assigning punishment? Sure.

For assigning blame? Hell no.

Rape is rape and there should be consequences for the perpetrator. But the victim played a major role in her violation as well, having displayed some of the most terrible judgement I've seen in a long time.

If you are partying around a bunch of super-horny teenage males, during which you get thoroughly wasted, strip almost naked, and pass out on some stranger's couch, you should expect a non-zero chance that you end up with some guy's finger in you.

God-awful decision-making, that one.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 13 08:26:53
"You absolutely ought to be able"

Yep. However just because things ought to be certain way, that does not mean that they are. I think that is the valuable lesson to pass on to children so they don't behave recklessly.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 13 08:37:35
Rugian
You do this all the time, willfully display an unbalanced position and then add "of course" on the other side of the scale. Unconvincingly I would add. The primary problem for society are not teenage girls who get drunk and pass out, that is an individual family problem. The problem for society are criminals, rapists in this case.
Nekran
Member
Thu Jan 13 08:48:10
"displayed some of the most terrible judgement I've seen in a long time"

A teenager getting too drunk at a party? Really?


And here I thought you followed politics...
Rugian
Member
Thu Jan 13 08:57:07
Nimatzo

*I'M* the one displaying an unbalanced position?

I was just providing the other side of the coin in a thread about how a judge deserved to be set on fire because he went light on someone who had besmirched the honor of a fair maiden.

I don't know what you find unconvincing about my position either, since nothing I've said contradicts either my historic positions in general or the current ones I've taken in this thread specifically.

Rape is rape, and I think the judge overlooked that aspect of the case by over-focusing on the debauchery that allowed it to happen.

That said, can anyone here credibly deny that the debauchery was not a significant contributory cause?
Nekran
Member
Thu Jan 13 09:46:18
"That said, can anyone here credibly deny that the debauchery was not a significant contributory cause?"

Of course. The cause is a person being despicable.

Her getting too drunk for her own good has no impact whatsoever on the utter assholery that is required to rape someone.

It just made it easier. That's not the cause though.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 13 09:49:37
Rugian:

Blame and culpability are the same thing.

You are allowed to go to a party, swim in your underwear, get drunk and have a perfectly reasonable expectation not to be raped.

If you genuinely think that boys can't be trusted *not* to do this to the extent that this is a reasonable expectation, we need curfews on boys and men until they are able to be so trusted. For their own protection clearly, as they may rape eachother.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 13 09:51:07
Opportunity Nekran. Her behavior provided opportunity. It's like leaving the keys in your car unlocked. A world class car thief will get in, regardless, but now everyone can.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 13 09:53:05
Rugian:

Blame and culpability are the same thing.

You are allowed to go to a party, swim in your underwear, get drunk and have a perfectly reasonable expectation not to be raped.

If you genuinely think that boys can't be trusted *not* to do this to the extent that this is a reasonable expectation, we need curfews on boys and men until they are able to be so trusted. For their own protection clearly, as they may rape eachother.

Seb
Member
Thu Jan 13 09:53:56
Nim:

Have you ever got drunk at a friend's house party to that point you dosed off?
Nekran
Member
Thu Jan 13 10:18:31
"Opportunity Nekran. Her behavior provided opportunity. It's like leaving the keys in your car unlocked. A world class car thief will get in, regardless, but now everyone can."

I don't see how you think posting this was relevant, considering that I had already acknowledged that.

Also stealing a car with the keys on it, is 100% equally as illegal as stealing it by other means. And 100% equally as morally wrong. The only difference is that it is indeed easier. That should not factor into the penalty or the judgement.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 13 10:24:04
Listen, when you have two people roughly the same age drinking in their underwear, they may have some next morning regrets, that's what I think happened to be honest and it isnt rape on either party. 148 days is a long time.

If it was reversed and the guy woke up drunk had a girl sucking his dick or riding him there would be no outrage.


The judge is was correct.


Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 13 10:31:31
Plus, the fucking elephant in the room....

Reasonable doubt.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 13 10:37:12
Nekran
This topic often swings between *either* you are victim blaming *or* you don't understand that behavior is a risk factor for being victimized.

There is no question about the illegality.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 13 10:42:37
Rape cases are notorious for not meeting reasonable doubt IMHO.

The nature of the crime often doesn't leave witnesses or documentation of consent or lack there of , if its a he said She said, that doesn't sound like a criminal charge to me.

Civil? Much more likely but that's just a preponderance of evidence.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jan 13 11:48:45
Criminal sentences not long enough fucking over left wing groups?

My my... if it isnt the consequences of your own actions. Good lesson to leftists: get tougher on crime.
Allahuakbar
Member
Thu Jan 13 11:51:50
Give him a hundred lashes.

Stone her.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 13 13:12:40
Habebe:

"that's what I think happened to be honest"

Why do you think that?

She says she went to sleep on a couch. She did not say she got black out drunk.

She says she woke up with a cushion on her head and he "inside her".

That does not sound like two people doing something drunk that they regret.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 13 13:13:34
Also the judge is explicit:

He is found guilty, but the only penalty he can legally he give, he judges to be disproportionate, so he is throwing the case out.

Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 13 15:25:56
Seb, Well, what does he say?
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 13 15:47:32
It's literally in the OP Habebe:


In October, Adrian found Clinton guilty of felony sexual assault, but during a Jan. 3 sentencing hearing he said he would not impose the mandatory minimum sentence of four years in prison.

“Mr. Clinton has served almost five months in the county jail, 148 days,” Adrian said, according to the court transcript of the hearing posted online by local media. “For what happened in this case, that is plenty of punishment. That would be a just sentence.”

“There is no way,” the judge explained, “for what happened in this case that this teenager should go to the Department of Corrections. I will not do that.”

But the judge said if he were to rule that the sentencing statute he was bound to follow was unconstitutional, his decision would be overturned and Clinton would be ordered to prison. In order to avoid an appeal he believed would be successful, Adrian said what he could do was determine that prosecutors had failed to “prove their case” and dismiss the sexual assault charge.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 13 15:48:42
The judge first found the guy guilty, decided that because he wanted to impose a sentence of "time served" but the law did not allow him, he would quash his earlier guilty finding.

kargen
Member
Thu Jan 13 17:17:07
"having displayed some of the most terrible judgement I've seen in a long time."

terrible judgement has never and should never be seen as an excuse to commit a crime against the person with bad judgement.

The rapist took advantage of what he saw as an opportunity. How that opportunity came to be has no matter. He decided to rape her. Nothing she did before the rape gave him that right nor any expectance of not being punished if caught. He is a predator that sought out a weak victim. Good chance she wasn't his first and also good chance with this release she won't be the last. Pretty decent odds if she were not so vulnerable the rapist would have found another victim that same night.

Murder I don't think he should be set on fire. I think his dick should be nailed to a chair with a 20 penny nail and the chair set on fire. Same should happen to the rapist except he should also lose his nuts.

Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 13 17:21:06
Seb, "But Clinton's attorney, Drew Schnack, said the ultimate verdict was the correct one because the prosecution did not prove its case and the evidence was not strong enough to warrant a conviction."
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 13 18:06:18
Habebe:

Clinton's attorney would say that though.

Here are the facts:

1. The judge found him guilty. Not would have found him guilty, actually found him guilty. Otherwise a sentencing hearing would not be happening. So he was satisfied that the prosecution made their case.

2. Then he found during sentencing, he decided that the sentencing options that the law required for the crime were, in his view, too harsh.

3. He is explicit about this, he even discusses other options such as giving a different sentence and ruling the mandatory sentence the law requires was unconstitutional - but such is his devotion to ensuring the convict does not get the tariff the law requires - he notes that such a ruling would likely be overturned resulting in the convict getting the mandatory minimum sentence.

4. He explicitly they says he is going to change his prior ruling, specifically to ensure that the individual is given a time served sentence.

From this it is clear that the Attorney is talking out his arse.

The prosecution did make their case, the judge agreed with it, proceeded to sentencing, and then contrived to quash his prior verdict - explicitly by his own admission to avoid the mandatory minimum sentence.

The fact that the attorney is now claiming his client is exonerated is PRECISELY why that even if it time served *was* a just sentence, judges should not abuse process in this way.

His client was not exonerated. The case was made against them. He was found guilty. The judge is pretending otherwise because he thinks the sentence for being found guilty is disproportionate.

kargen
Member
Thu Jan 13 18:27:11
"An Adams County Judge under fire for comments he made during a sexual assault case is no longer presiding over a criminal court docket.

An administrative order filed Thursday by Judge Frank McCartney, chief judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, assigned Judge Robert Adrian to small claims, legal matters and probate dockets, as well as other civil cases as assigned effective immediately."

Pretty much everybody but the defense attorney and maybe other rapists think this was a bad decision.

The judge in part of his statement said the parents that owned the house should be blamed. I agree they should have some blame put their way if they were aware alcohol was being consumed by minors. They should if that is the case face charges of their own.

Kind of sounds like the judge went soft because of the 'he has his whole life ahead of him' way of thinking. Why ruin his life for one mistake while he was/is young type of thing. The really fucked up part of that is he has to ignore the impact on the victim in order to have this attitude towards the rapist.

Oh and the rapist confessed and there was DNA evidence so no way the rape didn't happen.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 13 18:32:03
He would say that. But my point was the defendant didn't admit guilt.

The judges finding of guilt doesn't sway my opinion.

However my knowledge of the case means nothing to me.

But its basically a he said she said in which case I would give preference to the defendant.

If there are no witnesses or a recording etc. Date rape is almost impossible to actually prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IMHO.

Its different if he was somewhere suspicious where he shouldnt have been.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 13 18:35:30
As for the judges opinion, you probably think that US courts are prejudice against blacks.

Well using said logic the anti male bias is astronomical compared to males, much more prejudice against males.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 14 07:08:29
Habebe:

"But my point was the defendant didn't admit guilt."

He plead guilty! He confessed!

http://www...ape-judge-adrian-b1992511.html

"As for the judges opinion"

It was a bench trial - it wasn't the judges oppinion, it was his finding. He convicted Clinton.

What the fuck are you on about?
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 14 08:07:32
N.b. believing you had consent isn't the same thing as reasonably believing you had consent.

His defence is "I thought I had consent", he pleaded guilty likely because he knew the facts not in dispute:
*She was unconscious
*They had no prior relationship

Etc. meant that he had no reasonable basis for thinking that.

I'm sure the judge would like to be in a position to say "what you did was rape, but accept that you didn't set out to ignore consent, so I'll give you a lenient sentence".

Irrespective of whether you think that the judge acceptance of a "stupid mistake rather than serious intent" is right or wrong (in my view wrong, though we ought to take in shades of grey here in sentencing) - the point is the law does not give the judge discretion here. And acquitting him on the basis that the sentence is unjust when it is beyond doubt that he's guilty is very very wrong.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 14 08:09:36
Basically: fuck mandatory minimum sentencing. If you need it, you've screwed up judicial appointments. Otherwise it's legislative overreach. Judges should have discretion on sentencing to ensure justice, not merely play ring master for prosecutor and defence.
murder
Member
Fri Jan 14 08:43:52

"Judges should have discretion on sentencing ..."

Actually this case is exhibit A that they should not have discretion. Douchebag judges would just let more white teen boys whose lives they don't want to ruin off with a light sentence.

Judges should be screened for fitness.

murder
Member
Fri Jan 14 08:46:15

Hell men spend more time in prison for having consensual sex with underage girls.

Seb
Member
Fri Jan 14 12:21:38
Murder:

Both. Judges should have discretion, but you need to stop fucking around appointing/electing idiot political hacks.

Habebe
Member
Fri Jan 14 15:26:10
Seb, Many US locales have conviction rates over 95%. People plead guilty fore reduced sentencing.

I'm not sure what your on about.Obviously the judge didnt think what actually happenes was that* bad.It was 140 some days bad.

Yes mandatory minimums are terrible. So is zero tolerance.
Habebe
Member
Fri Jan 14 16:28:27
The last place I lived before Philly had montgomery County bias over 98% conviction rate....thats not a rare case.
habebe
Member
Mon Jan 17 01:43:51
Seb, I would also like to point out I have been very consistent in my moral and ethical beliefs to are on the side of caution.

My personal experiences with the legal system have strongly influenced my opinions over the years.But my taking the blackstone ratio in its essence far predates that.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 17 04:06:42
Habebe:

"Seb, Many US locales have conviction rates over 95%. People plead guilty fore reduced sentencing."

So? My point was there is no basis for this idea that it was "two drunk people making bad decisions that one regretted".

All the evidence suggests that the basic facts are not in contention.

She was unconscious, he, having no prior relationships, raped her.

habebe
Member
Mon Jan 17 04:19:20
"All the evidence suggests that the basic facts are not in contention."

Well that's just false. The defense attorney stated there wasnt enough evidence to convict.

You use his pleading guilty as him admitting guilt. The fact is people plead guilty regularly to crimes they didnt beleive they committed for a deal.

So of course he would plead guilty, he had a strong incentive to do so, Id bet he was offered a better deal.

Thats using your logic you used to claim the defense attorney wouldnof course say that...because he had a good reason to.

Even the judge didnt beleive what happened was that bad, I doubt he has a record of dismissing rape charges under normal circumstances.
habebe
Member
Mon Jan 17 04:23:55
"For what happened in this case, that is plenty of punishment. That would be a just sentence.”

The judges own words. Does he regularly dissmiss rape cases after 5 months? I doubt it.

Seems likely he thought two drunk teens at a party make bad decisions, both parties are guilty of that.

Its not a stretch to conclude as I did.
jergul
large member
Mon Jan 17 06:57:51
When is the civic trial?
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 17 07:38:06
habebe:

"Well that's just false. The defense attorney stated there wasnt enough evidence to convict."

He can state it till the cows come home. His client pled guilty, he did not dispute the facts, and the judge found him guilty.


The judge only reversed the position when he came to sentencing and is on the record as to why.


"You use his pleading guilty as him admitting guilt. "


Yes, because that is what it is.


"he fact is people plead guilty regularly to crimes they didnt beleive they committed for a deal."


Then don't please guilty.


"Seems likely he thought two drunk teens at a party make bad decisions, both parties are guilty of that."

Then he has the opportunity to find the guy not guilty in the first place.


Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Jan 17 08:11:20
Seb
"Then don't please guilty."

This is a bit simplistic as general advice given the frankly medieval legal practices that seem to be the norm in many American trials.

Interesting article on how the pandemic has compounded the pleading guilty epidemic of the USA.

http://the...rimes-they-didnt-commit-165056

These facts further increased the risks of going to trial: Defendants had to wait longer for their day in court, and each day they spent in jail increased their risk of being exposed to the coronavirus. The research on pleas has clearly indicated that when the cost of going to trial increases, guilty pleas increase too.
...
The results confirmed that both guilty and innocent participants were more likely to plead guilty when warned of the increased complications posed by COVID-19. Further, innocent participants ranked the pandemic as a more important factor in shaping their decision to plead than guilty participants.

As the pandemic wanes, courts and the legal system as a whole are resuming more normal operations. But the fundamental problems with the plea process – excessive trial penalties and pretrial detention – will remain.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 17 10:48:49
http://www...king-la-luxury-furniture-store


Feminists and sebs get all butthurt over a questionable rape ruling and then allow homeless africans to go around randomly killing women.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 17 10:49:59
http://www...subway-train-was-deloitte-exec

Another women randomly murdered by an african vagrant.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 17 10:52:23
http://ktl...les-bus-stop-dies-of-injuries/

And another.

Note sebs lack of any care whatsoever at these ladies brutal deaths.

Doesnt fit the narrative.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Jan 17 17:38:20
http://www...or-protecting-co-worker-report

And another.

Still no word from dems/femis.

Wonder why?
Habebe
Member
Mon Jan 17 18:04:24
Seb, The problem with your argument is ypu accept pleading guilty as "it is what it is" but dismissing charges isn't.

You can't have it both ways.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share