Question

[king]

Why do child molesters get less time than non-violent drug offenders?

[Englebert]

I would disagree with you on the term "non-violent" drug offenders. Many, many, many acts of violence occur directly and indirectly from drug use.

I don't have the data, but you are right, it sure seems like child molesters get less time than drug offenders. I would like to look at comparing first time offenders in each class and see how the sentences stack up. I think first time child molesters should get a lot longer sentence than first time drug offenders. It could be the case that the child molestation cases that we hear of are more first time offenses while the long sentences handed down to drug offenders are after multiple offenses. I have no idea, just one thing I would look at.

It's possible that we only hear about the extreme cases also. That is, a long sentence to a child molester might not get any media attention while short ones do.

TVC can probably better answer this question. But just going by accounts I hear from the media it sure seems that sex offenders get more lenient sentences.

[tvc184]

 

I do not believe that child molesters get a lesser sentence. That is a wild misconception that is said about a lot of crimes and is usually based on a single incident. 

 

First off, non-violent drug crimes generally get probation automatically on a first offense. That alone is not true for child molesters. Even more telling, many drug offenses are given pretrial diversion meaning that they do not even get probation. They are given a warning and kind of an unofficial probation like situation through the DA without ever going to court. If the person does not comply with the "diversion", the DA will then file a "real" criminal case and that will go to trial or a guilty plea. Probation from a guilty plea at the very least requires you to stand in front of a judge and proclaim your guilt in an open session of court. I have never seen that offered to a child molester.

 

That is just on the face of it. There are many other factors that come into play such as, how much evidence is there in a molesting case? Many times there is very limited evidence. It "may" be enough to convict a person or a jury might not agree with it and let the guy go as not guilty because they believed the evidence was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is worse, a guilty plea admitting to the crime and facing years of probation (and any slip up will result in a felony conviction and prison) or a person walking free that may have been guilty? Other times there are factors such as the victim and/or parent does not want the child to testify in court. In our system you have the right to face your accuser. While video can be shown of a child being interviewed, in some cases the child can be compelled to testify unless the rules of trial have changed since I was in detectives. Some people simply do not want their 14 year old having to be grilled on the witness stand and are willing to accept a plea. So much is done behind the scenes that if a person is no involved in a particular case (and I did child victim crimes in detectives), they really have no clue as to the evidence or the chances of a guilty verdict.

 

It is not like the DA is saying, "We will give this child rapist probation (like we are condoning it) but give this non-violent drug user several years in jail". 

 

For the level of offense, I find that drug abusers often get some of the most lenient sentences. I often see claims of these huge sentences for drug users and for the most part it is simply bogus. I have seen claims on local forums of simple marijuana possession cases jamming up our prison system. The truth is that unless you have a fairly significant amount of marijuana on you, it will always be a misdemeanor and a person cannot be sentenced to prison for a misdemeanor. You can be convicted 10 times for marijuana possession and still you will never be sentenced to these claimed "long sentences". The law simply does not allow that enhancement. Actually 3 misdemeanor thefts can be enhanced to a felony but 25 misdemeanor drug offenses are still a misdemeanor. I still here the claims like, "My friend was busted with a joint and got 10 years". That is pure nonsense. Maybe your friend was on probation for armed (aggravated) robbery and the joint got the probation revoked and the prison sentence imposed..... for the robbery. 

 

Drug sellers suffer a worse fate. If a person gets caught selling and gets probation and then violates probation and serves a short sentence and then gets convicted again (now for multiple felonies) and gets a longer sentence, people claim that is a single drug users that was non-violent. Even in that case the truth is that it was a seller that was convicted 3 or more times. 

 

 

[king]

Thanks, TVC

[Englebert]

Thanks TVC. I really thought that drug offenders got the lighter sentences, but I kept thinking about the media reports that I hear. It sure seems that you hear more about some child molesters getting awfully light sentences and some drug offenders getting tougher sentences. I was sure hoping it was a misnomer. Thanks King for posing the question.

[mat]

It may be truer to say that whatever sentence a child molester receives just isn't enough.

[Silsbee92]

41 minutes ago, mat said:

It may be truer to say that whatever sentence a child molester receives just isn't enough.

Lots of "Corrective Action / Counseling" takes place once in prison. 

Of course, Im a hard liner and a parent.  Only one sentence should be handed out.  A permanent one.