Sentencing Law and Policy has an interesting article discussing a case where an Oregon adult female counsel was convicted of unlawful heavy petting of her underage ward. The woman was sentenced to six-plus years in prison, which her attorney argues constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. From Oregon Live:
An attorney for a former employee of the Hillsboro Boy's and Girl's Club told the Oregon Supreme Court Tuesday that six-plus years in prison for touching her clothed breasts to the back of a 12-year-old boy's head amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
A Washington County jury found Veronica Rodriguez, now 28, guilty of sex abuse in the first degree after Hillsboro investigators saw her breasts touch the boy's head while she ran her fingers through his hair at the club in 2005.
At sentencing, now-retired Judge Nancy Campbell said the circumstances only merited one year and four months in prison instead of the prescribed sentence of six years and three months required by 1994's voter-approved Measure 11.
Rodriguez and attorney Peter Garlan concede that Measure 11 is constitutional, but claim its application against Rodriguez violates Article 1, Section 16 — the proportionality clause of the Oregon Constitution.
Rodriguez's case is combined with another appeal from Linn County, where 36-year-old Darryl Buck was convicted of first-degree sex abuse for touching a 13-year-old girl's clothed buttocks several times during a fishing trip. Garlan said the girl overreacted to Buck's using his hands to help her remain upright, and her "histrionics" had an effect on the jury.The judge agreed, and handed down a 17-month sentence, appropriate for the action, Garlan said.
The state's Court of Appeals rejected both judge's decisions, and said both defendants should serve another five years....
Department of Justice spokesperson Jake Weigler said Wednesday voters passed the measure to eliminate judges' discretion in a range of crimes. Clearly, Rodriguez and Buck fell within that range, he said. If Measure 11 is to be changed, it should be by the will of the voters or the legislature, he said....
Justice Robert D. Durham asked both attorneys if it was the role of the court to make an evaluation of offenders, when the law only mentions "the offense." Should the court treat each offense as if it were a videotape of the act that turns on when the abuse begins and turns off when it ends? "Does that imply there should be no investigation into the actor?" Durham asked. And did that also imply there should be no consideration of whether a defendant lied on the stand, or lied to the police?
This punishment is excessive, yes. Here is another woman whose life is ruined over no great http://www.indianolarecordherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081111/INDIANOLA01/81110056/1137/INDIANOLAharm>>>>
Posted by: LJR | November 11, 2008 at 09:00 AM
To me, the crazy thing is that this should never have been a crime to begin with. When you read the details of her actions, there is nothing sexual about them. Professional football players do this stuff all the time, and none of them are in jail.
Posted by: Daniel | November 11, 2008 at 08:53 PM