Wow, have we just witnessed the beginning of the end of the pussy pass, that card that women use to escape accountability and receive a much lighter sentence than even children receive ?
Can we now expect the population of female teachers to finally take notice and be made aware of the fact that shagging any underage student under your care is going to land you in the slammer for a minimum of 25 years. Think they will change their mindset and behaviour, or what ?
Court documents..
ALLANAH TUMURA BENTON, LC No. 09-024636-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SERVITTO, P.J., and MARKEY and K. F. KELLY, JJ.
MARKEY, J.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct (CSC), MCL 750.520b(a)(1), for which she was sentenced to concurrent prisonterms of 25 to 38 years. She appeals by right. We affirm.
Defendant, a former elementary school teacher, was convicted of engaging in sexualintercourse with a 12-year-old former student from her sixth grade class. The victim hadacademic and behavioral problems and was suspended from school for fighting with anotherstudent at the beginning of the 2007-2008 school year. Defendant intervened on the victim’sbehalf and persuaded the school principal not to expel the victim from school. After the victimreturned to school, defendant invited him to religious activities at her Masjid (mosque) and to herhome, purportedly to offer him guidance and help him with his anger and academic problems. The victim was subsequently expelled from school after a second fighting incident. After hisexpulsion, he spent more time with defendant at her home, with his mother’s permission. According to the victim, he and defendant progressed from hugging, to hand-holding, andto kissing, before eventually engaging in sexual intercourse. The victim testified that he anddefendant had sexual intercourse on two different evenings in October 2007. After the secondincident, the victim called defendant from his home and inadvertently recorded the call. Duringthe recorded call, the victim referred to defendant as his girlfriend, and stated that he was proudto be involved with a grown woman. The victim’s mother heard the recording and reported it tothe school. The school board later terminated defendant from her teaching position and thatdecision was upheld by the tenure commission.And further information..
Twenty-five year minimum sentence for statutory rape is not cruel or unusual punishment
In People v. Benton, No. 296721, the Court of Appeals considered whether a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct constituted cruel or unusual punishment. The defendant, an elementary school teacher convicted of engaging in sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old student, argued that the mandatory minimum sentence for a statutory rape conviction prevented the court from considering mitigating factors and other particular circumstances of the offense. Most notably, the defendant wanted the court to be able to take into account her assertion that she never used force, violence, or coercion and her assertion that she did not physically or psychologically injure her victim. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument and concluded that Michigan’s public policy goal was to prevent adults from engaging in sexual activities with pre-teens. Moreover, the Court of Appeals determined that the defendant’s assertion that she was less culpable than most other sex offenders was unpersuasive, noting that the defendant used her position of power and authority to insinuate herself into her victim’s life, isolate him in her home, and then engage in sexual activities with him. The court also noted that other states had similar minimum sentences for an adult offender’s first offense against a pre-teen victim, regardless of any purported mitigating factors.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that the trial court violated the defendant’s constitutional rights by refusing to admit under the Rape Shield Act her victim’s prior sexual experiences. The defendant claimed at trial that her victim’s testimony about his inexperience with condoms created the untrue impression that her victim was sexually inexperienced. The defendant alleged that the trial court’s refusal to admit evidence about the victim’s past sexual experiences to contradict this impression violated her constitutional right of confrontation. The Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument, noting that while in limited situations a rape victim’s past sexual history is admissible to preserve a defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, the victim in this case had never actually stated that he was sexually inexperienced.
