Here is an article about a female teacher who falsely accused a colleague of rape. What makes it especially interesting is that the prosecutor asked the judge to require the teacher to take out an ad saying who she was and what she did. The judge said no. Quick, for bonus points, before you read the article, what is the sex (or shall I use the more politically correct "gender") of the judge? Link: http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=33e...5-e0333924c870
Official Wants Teacher To Take Out Ad For Falsely Reporting RapeBy Associated Press Published on 7/23/2007 in TheDay.com (out of Connecticut)Manchester (AP) — A Superior Court judge has rejected an unusual request by a state prosecutor to have a former East Hartford teacher place a newspaper ad saying she falsely accused a colleague of rape.But the issue lives on as lawyers and legal experts debate whether such punishment would be appropriate.Angela Schmidt, 55, of Simsbury, a former teacher at East Hartford Middle School, received a special form of probation earlier this month for falsely reporting that a fellow teacher raped her in the school. If she successfully completes the probation, the charges will be erased. She has damaged a man's reputation, no doubt causing him sleepless nights and horror-filled nightmares of ACTUALLY being raped in prison, and she gets probation. Like if she shoplifted a blouse or something. Talk about a double standard, talk about devaluing men!My God, if he had been convicted of rape, his life would be in utter ruins! People who knowingly make false accusations - about anything - should have to serve the same sentence the accused would have had to serve if they had really committed the crime.
At the sentencing in Manchester Superior Court, prosecutor Adam Scott asked Judge Leslie Olear to require Schmidt to take out the ad as part of the conditions of her probation.“Anybody who wrongly accuses someone of a crime should be on notice to the public,” Scott said. “Any other potential victims need to be aware of this woman.” Amen, brother. Cross this psycho-bitch and she'll try to ruin your life.
Olear, however, rejected the proposal, which is drawing mixed opinions in the legal community.“It reminded me of the pilgrims and stockade in front of town square,” said Schmidt's lawyer, Richard Brown. “Why would you ask a defendant, not found guilty, to be put through such humiliation? It's a punitive sanction and is inconsistent with punishment we should give to people.”Forcing Schmidt to place an ad would violate her rights, Brown said. The special probation she received, called accelerated rehabilitation, is for first-time offenders who are not considered a risk to commit any more crimes.“A person is not required to provide an admission of wrongdoing,” Brown said. “This would have essentially forced her to do that. If tested, it would be declared unconstitutional.”I have two things to say about this. Number one, I think a little public shaming is appropriate in some cases. It serves to keep people honest. Number two, why is she going through "accelerated rehabilitation" if she didn't do it? You're throwing semantics into a logical argument, Mr. Brown. I guess it's to be expected.
Some experts agreed with Brown.“When a person receives accelerated rehabilitation they still retain the right against self-incrimination,” said Timothy Everett, a clinical law professor at the University of Connecticut Law School. “The defendant was not convicted of anything. Admitting in public print is self-incrimination and could be used against her.” I'm far from being overly informed about legalities, but if she's already been tried and not convicted, how would it be self-incrimination to say that she did it? Don't we have a law against trying a person for the same crime twice? Again, the logic doesn't compute. Could someone advise me if I'm wrong?
Everett said judges in the past have ordered people to write letters of apology, but he has never heard of a defendant being forced to advertise their crimes.
But others said it could be an appropriate punishment.“I've never seen it requested before, but it's a very innovative idea,” said Hartford defense attorney Michael Georgetti. “There are people in this world who falsely accuse someone of sexual assault. Shouldn't the public be entitled to know about it? There has to be checks and balances preventing false claims.”Again, brother, Amen.
Legal experts say there have been cases in which judges have used shame as punishment, ordering defendants to hold signs and apologize in public.This is different, how?
Scott said he understood that the judge rejected his request because Schmidt was not found guilty.“I just wanted to make sure that we have this woman somewhere in the public record in case she tries to do it again,” he said.Well, at least it got this far, I guess. I wish I could find a mugshot of Ms. Schmidt. I'd post it everywhere, with a caption saying, "Beware this woman if you value your freedom. She has a history of making false rape accusations".For the answer to the trivia question, I actually don't know. A name like Leslie could go either way. I did find something interesting while googling the question, though. Seems Judge Olear required a former karate teacher to register as a sex offender for ten years, in addition to his 4 year prison sentence. Here's a quote from the article (http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc...tory?track=rss):
Tuesday's hearing was required because Lenarz was not convicted of a crime that automatically triggers sex-offender registry. He was specifically convicted of child endangerment or impairing the morals of a child under the risk of injury statute. He is maintaining his innocence and appealing, by the way. It doesn't look good for him, actually, as he has a record. The point is the incredible double-standard in the sentencing. It makes a person wonder if things would have gone differently had the genders of the accused/convicted been reversed.I think it's safe to say Judge Olear is a Ms. and not a Mr.