[Vision2020] Sentence Appropriate?
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 21 13:23:37 PDT 2010
I apologize to everyone involved for trying to inject some rationality into this debate. You guys can go back to your witch hunt now. I'm through.
Paul
________________________________
From: Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
To: Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Mon, June 21, 2010 1:19:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sentence Appropriate?
Given the information in the news article and the Idaho Repository, Heustis did not cop a plea:
"During the sentencing, Michelle Evans,
senior deputy prosecuting attorney for Latah County, asked for 10 years
probation and a 90-day jail sentence.
"I think that it's appropriate to impress
upon Mr. Heustis ... the seriousness of what he did," she said."
Heustis pled guilty as charged, and the sentencing was
determined in a normal sentencing process and hearing, the same as if he was
found guilty in a judge or jury trial. See:
https://www.idcourts.us/repository/caseHistory.do?roaDetail=yes&schema=LATAH&county=Latah&partySeq=1684&displayName=Heustis%2C+Kendall+Wayne
Notice also the following actions:
Order for Evaluation
Presentence report
Addendum to Presentence Report
Paul writes:
"A couple of days later, he's in jail and scared for his
life. He's sees how many people out there assume he rapes
babies on a daily basis, and he desperately doesn't want to go to prison for 15
years labeled as a sex offender because he knows that could very well happen if
the prosecutor plays the "think of the children!" card and the jury is not very
sophisticated about this whole online thing. So he cops a plea and gets
off with a reduced sentence and carries the "sex offender" brand on his forehead
for the world to see and gets to read about how it's a crime that he was let out
so soon and that he should be made to suffer more on a local mailing
list."
Heustis was originally charged on 05/05/2009. His
guilty plea was entered on 04/09/2010. Hardly a couple of days
later. He agrees to plead guilty and go through the normal sentencing
process where an evaluation is made and both the prosecution and defense make
their recommendations to the court.
Paul's hypothetical case has vanished based on the
facts. In addition, if someone pleads guilty to something they did not do,
that would be perjury.
The problem now is that most of the case has been sealed
since Heustis was given a withheld judgment. The original complaint
and part of the Judgment of Conviction may be available. The part of the
Judgment of Conviction which deals with the meat of the matter has probably
been sealed. The public is now prevented from examining the facts of the
case in order to judge the actions of the prosecution (which also recommend a
weak sentence) and of the judge. Very convenient. A CYA move by the
judge and prosecution since a withheld judgment is hardly appropriate for
Heustis given his prior criminal convictions.
W.
----- Original Message -----
>From: Paul
> Rumelhart
>To: Garrett Clevenger
>Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 12:12
>PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sentence
> Appropriate?
>
>
>We know absolutely nothing about this particular case
> ("jack shit" is, I
>believe, the technical term). Yet we're willing
> to judge the leniency
>of his sentence and to call him a pedophile and a
> creep on a public
>mailing list.
>
>Here's a hypothetical
> situation:
>
>Maybe this guy went to an adult chatroom, where adults talk
> with other
>adults about sex. This guy strikes up a conversation with
> a person who
>later claims that they are 13. Since he's on an adult
> chatroom, he
>figure that this person is role-playing, so he goes along
> with it. The
>conversations continue, and he make some remark about
> how they should
>both get together and have sex, never intending to
> actually go through
>with it. He was just role-playing, not making an
> actual date. A couple
>of days later, he's in jail and scared for his
> life. He's sees how many
>people out there assume he rapes babies on
> a daily basis, and he
>desperately doesn't want to go to prison for 15
> years labeled as a sex
>offender because he knows that could very well
> happen if the prosecutor
>plays the "think of the children!" card and the
> jury is not very
>sophisticated about this whole online thing. So he
> cops a plea and gets
>off with a reduced sentence and carries the "sex
> offender" brand on his
>forehead for the world to see and gets to read
> about how it's a crime
>that he was let out so soon and that he should be
> made to suffer more on
>a local mailing list.
>
>I don't know that it
> went down that way, but I don't know that it didn't
>go down that
> way. I, personally, would rather have more facts before I
>condemn
> this guy and rage about his lenient sentence.
>
>Paul
>
>Garrett
> Clevenger wrote:
>> Paul writes:
>>
>> "this law as it stands
> sounds to me like thought crime."
>>
>>
>> It's one thing to
> have fantasies about whatever, quite another to try to sexually engage with
> someone you think is 13.
>>
>> This isn't a thought crime cause the
> guy actually went out of his mind and out into the real world (even if it's a
> virtual computer world)
>>
>> This guy's a pedophile and should be
> locked up.
>>
>> I'm not a big supporter of entrapment mostly
> because it's probably a waste of resources but at the same time this guy pled
> guilty to enticing a 13 year old.
>>
>> That's dangerous and
> unacceptable in our wired world.
>>
>> When I read this story in the
> paper I too thought the sentence was way to light for this
> creep.
>>
>>
>> I'll hesitatingly give you a Stegner story that
> may give you an idea of Stegner:
>>
>> 3 years ago, we brought our
> baby to a restaurant after he was born. He was sitting in his car seat in the
> restaurant when up walked a guy who asked if he could hold him. I said sure
> while my wife had a horrified look on her face. I guess I wasn't as
> cautious as I should have been letting a stranger pick up our
> baby.
>>
>> The guy walked outside with our baby. My wife ran after
> him and asked for her baby back.
>>
>> It turned out the guy was
> Stegner. His wife came up later to apologize for him and said he really
> likes kids.
>>
>> It was one thing to want to hold a baby, quite
> another to leave the restaurant with him. We were all taken back by this
> and wondered why a judge, someone who probably sees all kinds of creepy
> things, would be so thoughtless as to think leaving the restaurant with
> someone else's baby wouldn't freak the parents out.
>>
>> I don't
> know Stegner, but that incident left me wondering about his judging
> capabilities. Seeing his sentencing reaffirms that.
>>
>>
> Garrett Clevenger
>>
>>
> =======================================================
>> List
> services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>
>>
> http://www.fsr.net
>
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>
> =======================================================
>
>
>=======================================================
> List
> services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>
>
> http://www.fsr.net
>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100621/ba7ff59a/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list