[Vision2020] Sentence Appropriate?

Mon Jun 21 15:18:53 PDT 2010

I don't see an order sealing the file on the repository.

What's the code section making him ineligible for a withheld judgment?

Sunil

From: deco at moscow.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:19:41 -0700
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/de5cb603/attachment.html 