Arizona Criminal Law & Sex Crimes Post

As far as I am concerned, the only issue in the Jodi Arias trial is has the government proven premeditation. That of course, is important because if the government has not proven premeditation, they cannot convict her of murder in the first degree and thus the death penalty is off the table. And while the government has also alleged murder in the first degree by way of felony-murder, that allegation is so specious as not to even warrant a response.

The government has not proven premeditation, and in fact, could not do so under any circumstances. Without direct evidence, either a confession by Ms. Arias that she intended to kill Mr. Alexander, as in "I wanted to kill to him", or an overt act such as hiring a hit man or waiting in wait in ambush, the government cannot prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. Note that I am not saying she did not intend to kill him or that there is not very good reason to suspect that she intended to kill him, just that the government will not be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And that has been clear since day one. Someone asked me on twitter a question along the lines of "she lied so she doesn't get the death penalty?". My answer, yes, exactly right. To paraphrase Lt. Kaffee from a "Few Good Men", it doesn't matter what we know; it only matters what we can prove.

Instead of proving premeditation with direct evidence, the government is trying to do so with circumstantial evidence. So far the attempt has been, with the most charitable interpretation possible, pathetic. While the law does not recognize a distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, there is a jury instruction that says exactly that, the inference the government wishes the jury to draw from the circumstantial evidence is, dare I say, comically lacking.

If they could have proven the gun that Ms. Arias used to shoot Mr. Alexander was in fact stolen by Ms. Arias then that would be very good evidence of premeditation. But they have not done so; nor are is the government able to do so. On cross examination, the government has asked her number of questions regarding gas cans. This could be fruitful to the government's allegation of premeditation, but the prosecution has not closed the loop on this point.

In particular, my assumption is that there trying to prove Ms. Arias used gas cans to avoid being seen in Arizona at a gas station by either a witness or cameras. That, if true, would show planning of at least something. So why then didn't Mr. Prosecutor flat out ask Mr. Arias if that was her intent? Instead, he avoided asking her that question because of one thing: fear. Mr. Prosecutor is afraid she will have an answer for the question and the jury will believe her. So he is instead doing what trial lawyers have been trained to do, save the ultimate question for closing argument when the other side has no chance to contradict your argument.

Under all circumstances, such a approach is cowardly and craven. In the particular circumstance of this one in which a prosecutor's job is not to win per se but act as a "minister of justice", it is downright evil. When someone, anyone, as in Jodi Arias, is on trial for her life, she should be given every opportunity to directly answer all the government's accusations in her own voice directly to the prosecutor's face. It should then be up the jury to decide who to believe with all the facts before them. The jury should not be in the unfortunate position of deciding the fate of a person, as they are in now, without all the facts before them because the prosecutor was too afraid to ask the defendant the ultimate question.

But assume for the sake of argument she was asked that question and did not have a good answer for it. What was she planning? Was she planning on killing him since the moment she asked to borrow the gas cans in May, or since she left for her trip from California? If she was planning on killing him before she left on her trip, then why did she stay with him for 8 hours and have sex with him on the same day? Does that really sound like a plan on murdering Travis Alexander? I don't know, and even more more importantly, the government cannot answer these questions without speculation or guess work. The guesses may be reasonable and even probable, but that is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and certainly not proof enough to send Ms. Arias to death row.

As far as whether her testimony is believable, she was not untruthful in the sense she was deliberately testifying falsely. She believes what she is saying. While it may not be in fact what objectively happened, I have no doubt that she either always believed what she is saying since day one, or in the 5 years since Mr. Alexander's death has convinced herself of what she is saying is true (this is called the "narrative fallacy" made famous by Nasim Taleb in "The Black Swan"). By way of example, Sarah Palin says she doesn't believe in evolution and thinks the Earth is only 5000 years old. Those statements are nothing short of ridiculous, completely contracted by all scientific evidence, and obviously not true, but she is not a liar because she honestly thinks those are the facts.

As far as the numerous accusations she was being evasive or deliberately forgetful, in that regard her testimony is no worse than the typical police officer testifying on cross "I don't remember, I don't recall, or I don't know", something that I have personally experienced dozens of times.  

That being the case, it is obvious that the government overcharged her and should have accepted her offer to plead guilty to murder in the second degree some time ago. That way, the government could have avoided this silly fiasco that has hardly made Arizona look civilized and respectable, ie, "bull dog" or "mad dog" prosecution. Once the jury comes back with something less than a conviction for murder one, I hope media will aggressively question the Maricopa County Attorneys' Office why they wasted so much time and money on a wasted prosecution. I hope they will ask MCAO why did they refuse to accept Ms. Arias' plea to murder two with the hopes of garnering fame and attention? While nature may be "red in tooth and claw", do we want that to be the philosphy of our prosecutor's office?

Continue Reading

Jerry Sandusky, the assistant coach and friend to recently deceased Penn State coach Joe Paterno starts his criminal trial on June 11. The allegations are quite serious ("Jerry Sandusky trial: 4 of 9 jurors so far have ties to Penn State" by Michael Muskal): 

Sandusky, 68, is charged with 52 counts of abusing 10 boys over 15 years. He is accused of abusing boys from the Second Mile, the charity he founded for at-risk children. Prosecutors say some of the incidents took place at Penn State, where he would bring the boys on field trips.

The fact that an man has been accused of molesting a number of boys is what has made this a world wide attention gathering story. Of course, the main draw is Joe Paterno: what did he know, when did he know it, and what did he do about it?: 

McQueary, then a graduate assistant, said he told his boss [about the molestation McQueary claims he saw], head football coach Joe Paterno, who took the report to the university president, Graham Spanier. Both Paterno and Spanier were fired last year by the board of trustees for not acting forcefully enough in dealing with the report. Paterno has died of cancer.

My own feeling is that the media and public have far too hard on Joe Paterno and his legacy ("Should Joe Paterno Have Done More? What Did He Know and When?"): 

I have heard far too many people say the most complimentary things about Mr. Paterno. Many Penn State football players, from all walks of life, have stated how much Mr. Paterno has changed their lives for the better. Isn't that enough to give him the benefit of the doubt?

I am also very surprised and disappointed that Mrs. Sandusky, Jerry Sandusky's wife, has gotten a free pass on this whole affair when she is the one who was in the best position to stop Mr. Sandusky ("How to Stop the Next Jerry Sandusky: A "Person" Under Arizona's Duty to Report Law Should Mean Everyone"): 

In the Penn State child molestation case, there's a lot of reason to believe Mr. Sandusky's wife knew exactly what he was doing. In the 1998 bowl game Penn State went to, a child (victim #1) stayed in the same hotel room as Mr. Sandusky. And in another instance, victim #4 went to Mr. Sandusky's home and stayed for the night in the basement. If it is in fact true that Mr. Sandusky has been a child molester for his entire adult life, I am next to certain his wife was aware of the fact.

Art Vitasek has been sentenced to 559 years in prison for sexually molesting and abusing 8 boys. As Terry Wood of KPHO reports ("Convicted child predator sentenced to 559 1/2 years"). 

Arthur Vitasek was caught in Texas in September after being on the run from Arizona since 2005, accused of molesting his girlfriend's young son.

Police found evidence he's been molesting boys since 1990, making him one of the most prolific child molester's in Arizona's history. Authorities believe there are more victims out there, and they're hoping they will come forward.

According to Amanda Lee Myers of the Associate Press, Mr. Vitasek will never get out of prison ("Ariz. Man Who Molested 8 Boys Gets Life in Prison"): 

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Reinstein sentenced Vitasek to 11 life sentences on 11 of the charges, and since the terms will be served consecutively, Vitasek will never be eligible for parole. Vitasek was sentenced to an additional 200 years in prison on the other counts.

Among the general public, probaby because of TV, there is a belief that if someone is sentenced to prison time, they will not serve the entire term and could get out early for "good behavior." In Arizona, that is not the case as most non-dangerous terms are at least 85% and all other crimes, for example, violent, dangerous and sex crimes are "flat time".  

See "Sentencing for Sex Crimes in Arizona", "Arizona Dangerous Crimes Against Children", and "Dangerous Offenses". 

It goes without saying, the Joe Paterno and Penn State child molestation scandal has made a lot of news lately. And quite a few people have been willing to point the finger at Joe Paterno and the Penn State staff for not having stopped Sandusky earlier. As I wrote in my previous post, I believe much of the ire directed at Mr. Paterno is unfair. I do not believe, as so many have said and written, that Mr. Paterno's compass was pointing in the wrong direction. Having said that though, it may be time to consider the new law, or at least expansion of an old one, that would help child victims. What I have in mind is a law similar to the law that forces or permits doctors, therapists, and parents to report child molestation and child abuse (see Arizona Revised Statute 13-3620 Duty to report abuse).

However, this law would not be directed at doctors or professionals; it would be directed at all adults. Most importantly, it would be directed at the wives of child molesters. That is because the wives of child molesters almost always know about what their husbands are up to. In the Penn State child molestation case, there's a lot of reason to believe Mr. Sandusky's wife knew exactly what he was doing. In the 1998 bowl game Penn State went to, a child (victim #1) stayed in the same hotel room as Mr. Sandusky. And in another instance, victim #4 went to Mr. Sandusky's home and stayed for the night in the basement.  If it is in fact true that Mr. Sandusky has been a child molester for his entire adult life, I am next to certain his wife was aware of the fact.

My version of the law would be the following: "if you have good reason to believe that another adult is sexually abusing a minor, you must report it to the police within 24 hours or you will be prosecuted for failing to report that abuse". Basically, it would expand the definition of "person" ARS 13-3620 to include any adult and not just professionals and parents.  

While there is a long held tradition in American law that we should not force someone to defend another absent a particular duty- for example, police officers or parents of a child- and we do not want citizens spying on each other, the situation of child abuse is completely different. This is not about creating a police state to enforce ideological control. Child abuse is, almost by definition, secretive and next to impossible to discover. We simply have no other choice, and this law would be the least onerous way to protect abused children. 

Too many times wives and other family members who know what is happening do nothing because of the so-called "bystander effect". Other times, adults do not act because they have an interest in protecting the child molester. The best way to combat these hindrances to the reporting of child abuse is to force the reporting. And there is no better way to force somebody to act a certain way than to have the criminal law punish them if they do not.

This law would just be a simple recognition of the fact that many times people fail to do the right thing not because they are evil, but because they are acting under uncertainty. They do not have the playbook, or compass, to open up and figure out what to do next. They simply panic and, under these circumstances, they fall back to the behavior of least consequence: they do nothing. With this law, just as the "leaving the scene" law  (A.R.S. 28-663) instructs people what to do when they are under the much less stressful, but still stressful enough circumstance of a fender bender, people would know exactly what they need to do if they suspect child abuse. They call the police.  

Even though I am Phoenix criminal attorney, I am a citizen of this city and not an anarchist. I am concerned that Phoenix citizens receive the best law enforcement possible from its police department. Unfortunately, there are good reasons for thinking that is not the case.

As Kathleen Clark of KPHO reports, too many sex cases are open and not being investigated by the Phoenix Police Department ("City releases final report on Phoenix police cases"): 

It started with a Phoenix detective's memo from 2007 saying hundreds of child sex crime cases and young victims weren't getting justice. The memo detailed an excessive number of open cases -- by now retired detective, Alan MacIver. Now, this new report backs up that original memo saying that overall 81 percent of that former detective's cases reviewed did not follow policy or procedures.

The failure of the Phoenix Police Department to investigate these cases is part of the reason, the Sean Drenth investigation being another, why I think the Phoenix Police Department should adopt a civilian police commission.  

If someone has downloaded pornographic images of children, should they automatically go to prison? For how long? Is mere possession of child pornography sufficient reason to send someone to prison for decades, even if the suspect never touched a child? Recently, a Payson man received 90 years in prison for merely possessing child pornography, for which the sentencing judge called the sentence "clearly excessive", but had no choice because of mandatory sentencing laws (see "Robert Thomas Flibotte Gets 90 years in Prison for Possessing Child Porn"). Another man, Gulf War veteran Joseph Lauricella, just received a five year sentence from Judge Derek Carlisle in Mohave County (see "LHC Veteran Apologizes During Child Porn Sentencing" by Dave Hawkins). 

I know that some people who read this post will have the visceral reaction that of course, if you someone has child pornography, put them in prison and throw away the key. Or even better, put them on a desert island and and forget about them. To those people, this blog is not for you, and if you feel the overwhelming desire to vent your self-righteous frustration, find another forum.  This blog is for people who can actual consider actions and consequence, and who do not seek every chance to validate their own self-congratulatory moral superiority. 

In some states, merely possessing child pornography is a misdemeanor, but in Arizona it is a felony with a minimum sentence of 10 years for each count. Arizona's statutory scheme is even more severe than the notoriously harsh and rigid federal sentencing guidelines.  The mandatory minimum in federal court is five years, or half what Arizona requires.  But is either right?  

According to the no so liberal Wall Street Journal, some federal judges do not believe mere possessors of child pornography are an actual threat and that the Congressional mandatory minimums are excessive. In fact, they are nothing more than puritanism in the guise of public safety ("Making Punishments Fit the Most Offensive Crimes" by Amir Efrati). 

These acts alone are disgusting to most people. But not everyone buys into the idea that they warrant two decades or more in prison. Federal judges around the country are speaking out against what they view as harsh mandatory and recommended sentences, spurred by Congress in recent years.

The sentencing guidelines for child pornography crimes "do not appear to be based on any sort of [science] and the Court has been unable to locate any particular rationale for them beyond the general revulsion that is associated with child exploitation-related offenses," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Robert W. Pratt.

The important point here is these are cases in which there is absolutely no reason to think the suspects actually ever touched a child, only that they possessed images.  

In possession cases where there is no evidence that defendants sought to abuse minors, several judges are giving much lower sentences than the guidelines intend, which they are allowed to do if they believe the recommended punishment doesn't fit the crime...

William Griesback, a federal judge in Green Bay, Wis., wrote: "The fact that a person was stimulated by digital depictions of child pornography does not mean that he has or will in the future seek to assault a child."

Certainly, the point of these judges is not that possessing child pornography is tasteful or laudable, just that automatically handing out decades in prison for mere possession is vindictive.  And such vindictiveness has no place in a democractic and thoughtful America. 

Also see this article in the New Times Magazine called "The price of a stolen childhood" NYTs ICP and Restitution 1-24-13.pdf" By Emily Bazelon

New York County prosecutors, the same district attorneys' office depicted in the TV show Law and Order, have dropped the criminal sex charges against former head of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The reason for the dismissal is that prosecutors simply did not believe the accuser and her story, and none of the available forensic evidence supported her story. ("NY courts let DA drop sex case, Strauss-Kahn free" by Jennifer Peltz and Tom Hays")

"Our inability to believe the complainant beyond a reasonable doubt means, in good faith, that we could not ask a jury to do that," assistant district attorney Joan Illuzzi-Orbon said in formally recommending the case be dismissed.

As I originally wrote ("NY Post AIDS Cheap Shot Against Strauss-Kahn Accuser"), Ms. Nafissatou Diallo accused Mr. Strauss-Kahn of forcing her to have sex with him after she entered his hotel room to clean. Ms. Diallo's attorney now wants a special prosecutor appointed to prosecute Mr. Strauss-Kahn because they do not believe the New York district attorney is acting properly in dismissing the case.  

This is a difficult case to understand, and I am not sure what to make of it.  On the one hand, I am certainly glad that the district attorneys' office decided not to prosecute Mr. Strauss-Kahn because they were not themselves convinced he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  I do not know how many prosecutors would take their oath as "ministers of justice" that seriously and give up an opportunity of making a name for themselves.  

Having said that though, would the result have been the same if the suspect was not "one of the most powerful men in the world"?  If the suspect was just an average, everyday person and the facts were exactly the same, would the case have ended up being dismissed? Or would the pressure of facing a life in prison, and no expensive attorney by his side, have forced even an innocent person to give up and just plead guilty?

According to the news story in the video, the district attorneys' office recorded and translated Ms. Diallo's conversation- from her native African-  with her drug dealing boyfriend in custody in an Arizona jail. In that conversation, she apparently was planning on how to set up Mr. Strauss-Kahn and get a lot of money from him.  That conversation was key in convincing prosecutors she was not telling the truth.  

That bit of investigative work is extraordinary and highly unusual. Would any prosecutors office have gone through the same effort and expense of obtaining and translating the conversation if the accused was less prominent? That recording would have been essentially impossible for any defense attorney to obtain for the simple reason the defense attorney would not have known about it.  Realistically, its existence is something only the prosecutor's office could uncover.

Particularly in sexual assault and rape cases where the credibility of the victim and suspect are so important, this kind of investigative work makes a big difference.  But shouldn't all Americans get the same level of due diligence from prosecutors, and not just the wealthy and famous ones? 

Those questions are why I think all criminal defense lawyers should be civil servants, either public defenders or on government contract.  That would make sure that all people, regardless of ability to pay, get the same result from the same set of facts. 

In a recent news story by KPHO Channel 5 Phoenix, Reporter Peter Busch reports that a detective with the Professional Standards claims Phoenix Police has failed to properly investigate hundreds of viable sex crimes cases.  

Dana Lindsey, a detective with the Professional Standards Bureau... said the department has failed for years to address an "excessive number of open cases" within the Child Crimes Squad.

According to detective Lindsey, there are about 587 open cases that Phoenix Police has failed to properly investigate.  One detective in particular has gained Det. Lindsey's ire, "Lindsey points out that one detective, Alan MacIver, had 116 cases that had been open for more than 30 days".  This story comes on the heels of other major embarrassments by Arizona law enforcement.  There was a recent story on how the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has failed to properly investigate numerous violent and sex crimes in El Mirage, and even more disturbing, how rogue Phoenix Police officers may have killed one of their own officers, Sgt. Sean Drenth, in an attempt to cover up Phoenix Police corruption.  

Of course, there is also the notorious Youtube video in which a uniformed Phoenix Police Officer tackles a 15 year old girl, as reported by Michelle Ye Hee Lee of the Arizona Republic:  

Patrick Larrison, a six-year member of the force, has been put on administrative leave pending criminal and internal investigations... An officer [Larrison] responding to the scene approaches her from behind as she is walking, shoves her into a wall and knocks her off her feet.

The worst part of the youtube attack video is that there was another office on the scene who did not report the attack, and it only came to the attention of the Phoenix Police because the video was posted anonymously on youtube three months later. Despite that point, Phoenix Police held a press conference where they had the insensitivity to claim they did not want to the public to think professional misconduct is only punished if exposed publicity.  

[Phoenix Police Spokesman] Sgt. Trent Crump: “What we do not want is for people to find it online and think that is the normal course of business for the Phoenix Police Department,”

Yet that is exactly what happened.  As I have stated before, it may be time for a civilian police commission to oversee the Phoenix Police department.   History points out that in a democracy, when our civil servants fail us, the best solution is democratic oversight.  And I can't imagine a better way to ensure that democratic oversight than to have the Phoenix Police department supervised by members of the community. 

It is very disturbing when we hear in the news that the police have charged someone with child molestation or possession of child pornography.  It is even worse when it is a person in position of authority like a priest, police officer, or possibly worst of all, a doctor.    According to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, however, that is exactly what happened in Anthem. 

An Anthem doctor faces additional counts of sexual exploitation of a minor after being arrested six months ago.  Dr. Lewis Underwood, a naturalistic doctor, was taken into custody in December by Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office deputies on child molestation charges and has been behind bars since then.

According to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, "MCSO Sex Crimes Unit discovered more than 88,000 photographs and 1,500 videos depicting child pornography", and he is now facing 11 charges of Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (Arizona Revised Statute 13-3553).   For more details on this story, see Alicia E. Barrón's story on AZFamily. 

Certainly, these allegations are serious and deserve attention from law enforcement, particularly if the images are more than mere pornography and are evidence of illegal activity.   Having said that though, it is surprising that the Maricopa County Sheriff's would devote these immense resources to what is now mere possession of child pornography, while at the same time there were plenty of actual violent and sexual crimes occurring in West Phoenix devoid of any attention from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.  

I can't help but wonder if Sheriff Joe Arpaio would rather devote resources to a case surely to generate publicity- catching a doctor with child pornography- rather than the old-fashioned, not so glamorous police investigation of serious allegations in El Mirage.   My point is not that Dr. Lewis Underwood did not deserve investigation, only that other older cases in El Mirage maybe should have come first. 

One would think that an immigrant chambermaid from West Africa would gain, if not outright sympathy, at least some privacy for her seemingly justified accusations against one of the most self-entitled men on Earth.  From what few facts we have before us, she was only doing her job. Unfortunately, that thought is a wasted one.  

Instead of decency, NY Post reporters Jennifer Bain and Bob Fredericks thought it appropriate to write a story in which they glibly claim "Dominique Strauss-Kahn may have more to worry about than a possible prison sentence."  

That callous comment is justified, according to these reporters, because apparently, Mr. Strauss-Kahn's accuser is an AIDS patient. 

The IMF chief's alleged sex-assault victim lives in a Bronx apartment rented exclusively for adults with HIV or AIDS, The Post has learned.  The hotel maid, a West African immigrant, has occupied the fourth-floor High Bridge pad with her 15-year-old daughter since January -- and before that, lived in another Bronx apartment set aside by Harlem Community AIDS United strictly for adults with the virus and their families.

Almost as bad as these cheap accusations against the accuser is the media's glorification of Mr. Strauss-Kahn as the "great seducer." While not explicit, the point of the story is that because she is a West African immigrant with AIDS, and because Mr. Strauss-Kahn is a very wealthy Casanova, she must be a whore-in-fact who is exploiting the innocent ubermensch.   It seems as if the media has reverted back to the Stone Age, where established men are entitled to have sex with benighted females.  And if the female dare resist, she will be vilified. 

Even though I am a criminal defense attorney and it is a honor and a privilege for me to represent people accused of crimes, I believe the entire process should be dignified for both the victim and accused.  I do not know if Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty or not, or if his accuser is telling the truth or not.  But at first blush, her version of events seem plausible.  That is enough, in my eyes, to let her live with some dignity while the case is pending. My job as a criminal defense lawyer does not require me to be an idiot or to be mean spirited.  

The only basis of the NY Post story is sexism, racism, and elitism.  That was not a single fact in the entire NY Post story disproving the evidence against him.   Having made that point, if I were representing Mr. Strauss-Kahn, I would beg the media to stop calling him the great seducer and stop accusing the accuser of promiscuity.  The NY Post piece and similar stories will only turn the jury pool against him. 

Fortunately, the law has progressed ahead of tabloid media.  In Arizona, which modeled its rules of evidence on the federal rules of evidence, the sexual history of the victim is generally not admissible.  

In a very bizarre case out of Rhode Island, police charged Arunothai Asawabowornan with the state felony charge of possessing pornographic images of her niece.  According to the article: 

[T]he state police charged Asawabowornan with manufacturing, possession and transmission of child pornography after investigators said they tracked images of a pre-pubescent girl to Asawabowornan’s computer in her home. 

Ms. Asawabowornan's criminal defense attorney says that the state should not have charged her because she have not the pictures out of any devious or sexual interest: 

J. Richard Ratcliffe, Asawabowornan’s lawyer, countered in court papers that his client posted the video of her niece on YouTube, a video-sharing website, because the files were too large to e-mail to her family in Thailand. He wrote that most of images showed the girl “sledding” and at “birthday parties.” Ratcliffe questioned whether any of the images, including those of the girl sleeping naked on a bed with the family dog, could be interpreted as pornographic. “It is not sexually explicit material,” he wrote.

This case is very important because, first, the suspect is female, and second, because she and her attorney say that this is a simple misunderstanding.  Of course, the prosecution and the judge who heard the probable cause motion disagreed.  

Ippolito [probable cause judge] viewed the video and concluded that a portion of it could be interpreted as “graphic or lascivious,” even though there was no evidence of sexual activity.

Continue Reading

As I previously mentioned in a blog comment, Ms. Brock received 13 years in her case from Judge Robert Olson.   In a deal with prosecutors, she plead guilty to attempted sexual conduct with an underage boy last month. She was facing anywhere from seven to 15 years for the crimes.  AZ Family Reporters Natalie Rivers and Stacey Delikat have a very good summary and video of the sentencing.  

And as so typical for prominent criminal stories, opinions of the sentence vary considerably.  KPHO Channel 5 had a very interesting article in which they compared Ms. Brock's sentence to other sex offenders, and they made the point "Susan Brock's sentence on Thursday of 13 years for having sex with a 14-year-old boy is tougher than many similar cases".   One important point about KPHO's story is that KPHO did not claim or argue Ms. Brock's sentence was excessive because women offenders should get shorter sentences than men. But in a very provocatively titled article "KPHO Pities Susan Brock and Her "Tough" Sentence With List of "Similar" Cases That Are Only "Similar" Because She's a Woman", Phoenix New Times James King writes:

The local TV station -- infamous for telling it like it isn't -- made a list of the sentences handed down to other women who've been convicted of sleeping with kids. They say the cases are "similar," which they're not -- they're just all women. In other words, if Brock were a man, we have a feeling KPHO wouldn't be pitying her over how "tough" her 13-year sentence is for repeatedly having sex with a child. 

Mr. King's criticism of KPHO is nothing more a cheap shot.  First, KPHO never explicitly claimed Mr. Brock's sentence was excessive just because she was a women.  And even if that was implied, it is a legitimate distinction.  I don't believe that the emotional trauma that a teenage boy suffers from sex with an adult female is anywhere near as bad as he would if the adult was male or if the victim was a female and the offender a male. That does not mean an adult female should not get a prison sentence.  It just means a female offender and a male offender should not be automatically treated the same because the victim's damages will not automatically be the same.   My reason for thinking teenage boys will not suffer emotionally as much as females is not based on any study. It is based on the fact I used to be a teenage boy and I am almost certain that this would not have bothered or scarred me too much. 

Continue Reading