# Montana Man Gets 225 Years in Prison for Indecent Exposure



## Big Don (Dec 14, 2007)

*Montana Man Gets 225 Years in Prison for Indecent Exposure*

 	  		Wednesday, December  12, 2007






/FoxNews
Excerpt:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C316551%2C00.html


*HAMILTON, Mont. &#8212;  A Missoula man who was on parole after serving nine years in prison for rape was sentenced Tuesday to 225 years in prison for three felony counts of indecent exposure.*
 		  		      			 District Judge James Haynes sentenced Robert Stearns to 75 years in prison on each of the counts. The sentences will run consecutively.
 	 			    			 "I've never seen such a harsh punishment recommended for a nonviolent crime," said James Clapp, Stearns' attorney. "To have Mr. Stearns sent away to prison and throw away the key is not a fair result."


----------



## Big Don (Dec 14, 2007)

Attorney Clapp is clearly a mofo (Moron of the first order). A convicted rapist waving his gentials around is every bit as threatening as a convicted killer waving a knife or gun around.
Sharia law has the correct penalty for rapists, public castration using a red hot sword...
That'll teach 'em.


----------



## BrandiJo (Dec 14, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Attorney Clapp is clearly a mofo (Moron of the first order). A convicted rapist waving his gentials around is every bit as threatening as a convicted killer waving a knife or gun around.



yes if his "member" is his weapon of choice running around exposing it is just as harmful as a knife or gun in the hands of a murder. But i also think exposing ones self should carry a stiffer ( no pun intended)  penalty anyways.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 14, 2007)

> Sexual Intercourse Without Consent - Section 45-5-503
> (Effective July 1, 1997) (1) A person who knowingly has sexual intercourse without consent with another person commits the offense of sexual intercourse without consent


So, rape, in nine syllables instead of one, stupid lawyers.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 14, 2007)

Yay for Montana!  Let's hear it for STRICT punishments and no early parole for depraved lunatics!!!

Somestimes I love the fact that our legal system is so subjective!!


----------



## MJS (Dec 14, 2007)

Clearly, after already serving 9 yrs. for rape, he didn't learn his lesson.  That being said, I say good!  I'm glad he got shipped away for that amount of time.  9 yrs. is a long time.  Long enough for someone, who really wanted help, to get it in prison, and turn his life around.  But he chose to go back to the same lifestyle that got him there in the first place.  One less scumbag off the street.

As for his attny.  he's a fool as well.  I'd be interested to hear what he suggests instead of prison.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 14, 2007)

I'm not certain the punishment fits the crime. Hardly seems like justice.


----------



## crushing (Dec 14, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I'm not certain the punishment fits the crime. Hardly seems like justice.


 
Neither time did the punishment fit the crimes.  I guess the punishment for the second set of crimes made up for the lack of punishment for the rape.  It's not supposed to work that way.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 14, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I'm not certain the punishment fits the crime. Hardly seems like justice.


No women in your family, eh Slick?
Unless, that is, you meant it was too light a punishment... Only nine years for ruining a woman's life, you're right Michael Edward, that is not nearly long enough.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 14, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I'm not certain the punishment fits the crime. Hardly seems like justice.



Yes, it's not so much a question of whether or not this guy should be off the streets--he's a clear danger, it seems--but how someone would feel to see this guy get _225_ years for dropping his pants when a murderer might get 15 years. Is that truly proportional?



crushing said:


> Neither time did the punishment fit the crimes. I guess the punishment for the second set of crimes made up for the lack of punishment for the rape.



It does seem like a short sentence the first time around--a longer sentence there could have solved all the problems at once.



Big Don said:


> No women in your family, eh Slick?



This is juvenile.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 14, 2007)

arnisador said:


> This is juvenile.


Tell that to anyone with a woman in his life whose life was shattered by a rapist.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 14, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Tell that to anyone with a woman in his life whose life was shattered by a rapist.



Tell them what? That you endorse life imprisonment for all crimes, in all circumstances? Is that the argument you're making? Because what you came out against was proportionality--the punishment fitting the crime. 

We went through this with Michael Dukakis in 1988 (?). It's a terribly offensive straw man argument to claim that anyone who doesn't favor punishments as extreme as you is somehow insensitive to crime.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 14, 2007)

I don't think "Big Don" gets it.

The time he did for rape was not proportionate to the crime but neither is his sentence for indecent exposure.

Big Don, are you endorsing the disproportionate sentence as a means of getting the moron off the street?


----------



## Dave Leverich (Dec 14, 2007)

You know, seriously, just kick offenders in the tea bag for exposing themselves. REALLY hard. I think it'd be a decent deterrent. But yeah 225 years for exposure, is nuts (no puns intended). Then the next mofo (see description above) uses that set precedence on some kid who flips it out at a party while drunk, that kids gets 225 years for being a dumb kid, while his buddy who murdered someone gets 15 years.. (insert confused wtf blink here).

Seriously, I'm all in favor of harsh penalties for crimes, assuming they fit the crime. Castrate the guys for rape, that'd slow things down a bit.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2007)

Indecent exposure can be somewhat subjective too...  Is mooning someone indecent?  Flashing **** at Mardi Gras?  This guy was pretty clearly in the "indecent exposure" category, and deserved appropriate punishment, but 75 years a pop is a dangerous precident to set.  Sounds more like a mental institution would be a better fit in this case.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 14, 2007)

I wonder how much of this sentence was also cause he was on probation at the time for the rape.  Based upon what I read and see on TV (which I know is not fact) it seems like if you are on probation for a crime and commit another crime in the same category, your punishment is harsher than if you were not on probation and commited the same crime....


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 14, 2007)

Still, 2 counts of indecent exposure + 1 of rape = 9 years + probation
3 counts of indecent exposure = 225 years.

Probabtion or not, those numbers don't make sense.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 14, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> I don't think "Big Don" gets it.



Careful there, he might decide you're "idiotic."

As for the sentence, it was clearly an easy way for the judge to put someone away forever without going through the tougher tests involved in civil confinement or involuntary commitment.  I feel sorry for the next poor bastard with a record that gets caught pissing in an alley.

As for the lawyer, no lawyer is a "mofo" or an "idiot" for advocating for their client.  It's their ****ing job, a basic pillar of the justice system. You'd best hope your lawyer does the same thing if you ever get unlucky.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2007)

Here's a sentence I have no problem with at all:

*Baseline Killer Suspect Gets 438 Years*



> A man accused of being the Phoenix Baseline Killer was sentenced to 438 years in prison Friday for a brutal attack in which he raped a woman while pointing a pistol at her pregnant sister's belly.
> [...]
> The 43-year-old former construction worker was convicted in September of 19 counts, including sexual assault and kidnapping, for assaulting the sisters in 2005 as they walked home from a park.



The proportionality and exactness of 438 in particular may not seem entirely logical, but life in prison for this individual--that works out just fine for me.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 15, 2007)

Whilst I'm rather more right-wing in my views on the criminal justice system than those who've got to know me here might normally think, it's a signal that there's something very askew in that particular State that such disproportionate sentences were handed out.

It's also true that most decent thinking and behaving men have become highly sensitised to 'rape' as a word and it produces very strong reactions in us because of it - it's as if we're trying to make up for some assumed guilt for the sick apples with whom we happen to share gender.  So we have to be careful how we react, especially in a forum like this where we have the luxury of thinking for a while before we put fingers to keyboard.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I'm not certain the punishment fits the crime. Hardly seems like justice.



Man... if I were to get 75 years every time I waved my thingy around, I'd be serving millions by now! :lol: Obviously this is a joke.

On a serious note, I have to agree with ME on this one. It just doesn't seem proportional.

That said, I don't know that we know the whole circumstance regarding this individual. We haven't seen his mental health records. He could be someone who really has mental health problems, and the courts solution apparently would be to throw away the key. And sure, perhaps there are multiple rapes and murders that he has committed but hasn't been convicted of, and he would be deserving of such a sentence.

Regardless, I am just not so sure how waving your ding-a-ling around in public earns you 225 years, in any case.


----------

