Police & Judicial Corruption

[Twilight Hue]

I'd posted this story in a recent thread, but it deserves a thread of its own.

In it, William Ollie Alexander is convicted of raping a woman in his patrol car.
The jury found him guilty, & sentenced him to 10 years in prison.
The judge gave him a suspended sentence.
No prison time at all.
The judge said Alexander should serve in the community.

Cop found guilty of raping woman avoids prison | Metro News

And to think judges regularly and boorishly admonish people in no uncertain terms about disrespect to the law and disrespect to society in general, and then do crap like this.

 

[ecco]

I'd posted this story in a recent thread, but it deserves a thread of its own.

In it, William Ollie Alexander is convicted of raping a woman in his patrol car.
The jury found him guilty, & sentenced him to 10 years in prison.
The judge gave him a suspended sentence.
No prison time at all.
The judge said Alexander should serve in the community.

Cop found guilty of raping woman avoids prison | Metro News

From your post...(my emphases)

The judge gave him a suspended sentence.
No prison time at all.​

From your article...(my emphases)

The jury of eight men and four women reportedly deliberated more than two hours before announcing their decision. Prosecutors had asked them to sentence Alexander to at least 15 years in prison. ‘(The jurors) recommended that sentence be suspended to 10 years of probation,’ Carmona said.​

Why do you say: "the jury...sentenced him to ten years in prison"? They didn't. Why do you point a finger at the judge when it was the jury's decision?

 

[Revoltingest]

From your post...(my emphases)

The judge gave him a suspended sentence.
No prison time at all.​

From your article...(my emphases)

The jury of eight men and four women reportedly deliberated more than two hours before announcing their decision. Prosecutors had asked them to sentence Alexander to at least 15 years in prison. ‘(The jurors) recommended that sentence be suspended to 10 years of probation,’ Carmona said.​

Why do you say: "the jury...sentenced him to ten years in prison"? They didn't. Why do you point a finger at the judge when it was the jury's decision?

The judge needn't follow the jury's sentencing recommendation.
I say the judge did a heinous thing in letting the rapist off scot free.
What do you think?

Please excuse my imprecision in the OP.
Let's not ignore the injustice of what happened in favor of finding errors in wording.

 

[sun rise]

However, the judge didn't have to go along with that recommendation.

I wonder....should no cop ever go to prison just because it would be dangerous?
But it's OK if prison is dangerous for civilians.

We could have a cop only prison run by ex-con prison guards.

 

[sun rise]

I'll put this here instead of a separate thread. It's not at the level of the OP, but it's an illustration of cops out of control with the blessing of the police chief.

Asheville protests: Mayor Manheimer wants explanation of police destruction of medical station

I heard oinking (as we used to say). The cops could have explained that the medical station was set up on private property and that water bottles had been chucked at them so they were confiscating most to be returned later.

Instead they shoved people out of the way and went on a destructive rampage.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'd posted this story in a recent thread, but it deserves a thread of its own.

In it, William Ollie Alexander is convicted of raping a woman in his patrol car.
The jury found him guilty, & sentenced him to 10 years in prison.
The judge gave him a suspended sentence.
No prison time at all.
The judge said Alexander should serve in the community.

Cop found guilty of raping woman avoids prison | Metro News

It may sound slight, but its probably typical for a suspended sentence to be handed out for a first time offender. I think you should give the judge the benefit of the doubt unless you know the particulars. Its not necessarily favoritism towards police.

Yes, its possible that the judge in making this determination could be favoring the police; but its not necessarily so. Judges know its easy to get convicted of rape when you have someone angry with you; and in such case a suspended sentence is not uncommon for a first offense. Nor is it a light sentence. You become a felon, may not vote, may not have weapons, can't live in certain areas and go on the sex offender list. Judges know things like this and have to weigh the punishment when they make the sentence. Just because the sentence is suspended doesn't mean your life won't be ruined. It will. Sometimes, too, the witnesses later recant, but the defendant has already broken probation in which case they probably will not have their case reviewed even though they were innocent of the sex crime. Therefore a suspended sentence is, nevertheless, a punishment. Depending upon the defendant it can be a very terrible and heavy sentence.

 

[Revoltingest]

It may sound slight, but its probably typical for a suspended sentence to be handed out for a first time offender. I think you should give the judge the benefit of the doubt unless you know the particulars. Its not necessarily favoritism towards police.

If it were standard practice to give suspended sentences to first offenders
of violent rape, then I fault every judge & jury member who does this..
Do you believe that violent rapists usually get such treatment?

Yes, its possible that the judge in making this determination could be favoring the police; but its not necessarily so. Judges know its easy to get convicted of rape when you have someone angry with you; and in such case a suspended sentence is not uncommon for a first offense. Nor is it a light sentence. You become a felon, may not vote, may not have weapons, can't live in certain areas and go on the sex offender list. Judges know things like this and have to weigh the punishment when they make the sentence. Just because the sentence is suspended doesn't mean your life won't be ruined. It will. Sometimes, too, the witnesses later recant, but the defendant has already broken probation in which case they probably will not have their case reviewed even though they were innocent of the sex crime. Therefore a suspended sentence is, nevertheless, a punishment. Depending upon the defendant it can be a very terrible and heavy sentence.

Would you advocate that every convicted rapist be given a suspended
sentence because of the possibility of the victim recanting?

But guilt appears to not be in question, given Alexander's
father's statement from the link....
‘I understand he made a moral mistake. My son is a law enforcement officer. I think you, I and all the men and women of the jury know what happens to law enforcement officers in prison,’ he said.

 

[Brickjectivity]

If it were standard practice to give suspended sentences to first offenders
of violent rape, then I fault every judge & jury member who does this..
Do you believe that violent rapists usually get such treatment?

Would you advocate that every convicted rapist be given a suspended
sentence because of the possibility of the victim recanting?

But guilt appears to not be in question, given Alexander's
father's statement from the link....
‘I understand he made a moral mistake. My son is a law enforcement officer. I think you, I and all the men and women of the jury know what happens to law enforcement officers in prison,’ he said.

The article says that the jury suggested that he be given a suspended sentence. If a harsher sentence was needed, then why didn't the jury think so?

The comment by his father is murky. Was this given after the conviction? During plea bargaining? Does the father actually believe his son is guilty? I can't tell from the article. Plus the article has a sensationalist headline, so why would I trust that it would give me a reasonable and clear vision of what is happening? Its not Walter Cronkite.

Would you advocate that every convicted rapist be given a suspended
sentence because of the possibility of the victim recanting?

I think that the judge has some leeway to decide what is appropriate, and they have leeway for a good reason. They may take the jury's recommendation into consideration, as in the case of the OP. Evidence is often not very good in rape cases, so the jury make take that into account. They will convict sometimes on scant evidence. Lots of people are convicted on witness testimony. You can say that shouldn't happen, but people are convicted this way. Juries and judges take into account the nature of evidence, who is convicted and what is an appropriate remedy.

Maybe what you should be wondering is why he was sentenced at all instead of being given this suspended sentence, but again the article is pretty sparse. If they're sure he's guilty and that he's a violent offender then, yeah, I can understand the question. Its like a half empty/half full kind of question. To me a suspended sentence for a rape crime is pretty awful by itself, unless you are sure about what happened. I think that often they aren't and convict, anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

The article says that the jury suggested that he be given a suspended sentence. If a harsher sentence was needed, then why didn't the jury think so?

I don't know.

The comment by his father is murky. Was this given after the conviction? During plea bargaining? Does the father actually believe his son is guilty? I can't tell from the article. Plus the article has a sensationalist headline, so why would I trust that it would give me a reasonable and clear vision of what is happening? Its not Walter Cronkite.

There was still a conviction of rape.
It's hard to imagine what circumstances would justify conviction without punishment.

Uh oh...must go.
Life calls.