Triggering (Abuse): Man gets 1 year in prison for rape of 4 year old girl

[ATP787]

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com


An Oklahoma man will only serve 1 year in prison for the rape of a 4-year-old girl. David Earls was sentenced to 20 years in prison but Judge Thomas Bartheld suspended 19 years as part of a plea bargain agreement.


“Some people think I could have given a different sentence, and I couldn’t,” says Bartheld. “In any plea bargain, where there is a negotiated plea, the court can’t change it.”

Earls, 64, was arrested after the girl told her grandmother about being raped. Earls admitted to raping and sodomizing the girl over the course of 4 months. David Earls Gets 1 Year in Prison for Rape of 4 Yr Old

[OurLovesSublime]

Wow, one year is a bit extreme... oh the things the gov't will do just to get someone to admit they're guilty...

I just don't see how you can get that many years knocked off just for plea bargaining?? I mean, even if they did it just because there was maybe a small chance he wouldn't be found guilty, one year just isn't worth it..

[PhoenixAlive]

The thing that scares me about this, is that in all of the articles I've read about this case so far, it mentions nothing about probation or supervision, or even conditions on his release. This man (who has committed murder before: "his convictions for shooting a man in 1982, or stabbing a woman in nearby Weleetka nearly 13 years later... Earls had been in prison for six-plus years.") is free to go back into the public with no constraints put on him at all. He may very well commit crimes like this again, and the legal system seems to be doing nothing to prevent that.

Its not so much the matter of punishment for his crime that I am upset about. I just worry about the safety of his community.

[Grizabella]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

The thing that scares me about this, is that in all of the articles I've read about this case so far, it mentions nothing about probation or supervision, or even conditions on his release. This man (who has committed murder before: "his convictions for shooting a man in 1982, or stabbing a woman in nearby Weleetka nearly 13 years later... Earls had been in prison for six-plus years.") is free to go back into the public with no constraints put on him at all. He may very well commit crimes like this again, and the legal system seems to be doing nothing to prevent that.

He's a convicted sex offender. I haven't looked it up to verify, but aren't there laws in the states that wherever he goes he has to make it known to authorities, and has to inform people when he moves into a neighbourhood? That seems like a large constraint that will be good at protecting the public.

[WashoutThePain]

I really hope she doesn't remember this.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

He's a convicted sex offender. I haven't looked it up to verify, but aren't there laws in the states that wherever he goes he has to make it known to authorities, and has to inform people when he moves into a neighbourhood? That seems like a large constraint that will be good at protecting the public.

If you're right, that would probably be good enough. I hope.

[Grizabella]

As for only getting a year in prison, that definitely makes me question the efficacy of the justice system.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

He's a convicted sex offender. I haven't looked it up to verify, but aren't there laws in the states that wherever he goes he has to make it known to authorities, and has to inform people when he moves into a neighbourhood? That seems like a large constraint that will be good at protecting the public.

I just checked this out and I found that it depends on whether the legal forces determine that he has a high risk to re-offend.

Here's how it works:

Level I. Low risk to re-offend within the community at large. Information shall be shared with other law enforcement agencies and, upon request, the Sheriff may disclose relevant, necessary and accurate information to any victim or witness to the offense and to any individual community member who lives near the residence where the offender resides, expects to reside, or is regularly found. Level I offenders MAY NOT be the subject of general public Notification.
Level II. Moderate risk to re-offend within the community at large. Relevant, necessary and accurate information concerning risk Level II offenders may be disclosed to public and private schools, child day care centers, family day care providers, businesses and organizations that serve primarily children, women or vulnerable adults, and neighbors and community groups near the residence where the offender resides, expects to reside, or is regularly found. Level II offenders MAY NOT be the subject of general public Notification.
Level III. High risk to re-offend within the community at large. Relevant, accurate and necessary information concerning offenders classified as risk Level III may be disclosed to the public at large.

Community Protection Act

So we don't actually know what level he has been labeled as. I find this worrisome.

[Heretic]

One year? He'll be out raping and killing in only 365 days? I think that judge is mentally challenged. I personally think that raping a girl under five years old is worth a life sentence, if not death.

[DoesThisLookInfected?]

Originally Posted by Arbiter

One year? He'll be out raping and killing in only 365 days? I think that judge is mentally challenged. I personally think that raping a girl under five years old is worth a life sentence, if not death.

It's not the judge's fault. The DA's office is the one that offered the deal.

[Gidig]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

He's a convicted sex offender. I haven't looked it up to verify, but aren't there laws in the states that wherever he goes he has to make it known to authorities, and has to inform people when he moves into a neighbourhood? That seems like a large constraint that will be good at protecting the public.

Yes but so many people are 'sex offenders'. People who don't deserve that title, so it's taken a lot more lightly than it should be really.

[Fucking Done]

Let's just hope that someone murders him before the one year is up.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by Arbiter

One year? He'll be out raping and killing in only 365 days? I think that judge is mentally challenged. I personally think that raping a girl under five years old is worth a life sentence, if not death.

It's not the judge's fault, it's the fault of the DA. And why would you consider that crime to have the sentence of the death sentence?

Originally Posted by Grizabella

He's a convicted sex offender. I haven't looked it up to verify, but aren't there laws in the states that wherever he goes he has to make it known to authorities, and has to inform people when he moves into a neighbourhood? That seems like a large constraint that will be good at protecting the public.

The issue first is that the term "sex offender" is used for people who do not necessarily deserve it. For example, in 2009, a girl made a myspace page, deeply in love with her boyfriend. She thought that posting nude pics of herself on there would in some way would get his attention. She was getting charged for child porn. despite it being of herself and being in the database for registered sex offenders (Girl, 14, faces porn charge of MySpace pictures of herself | Herald Sun).

As for the ranking system that PhoenixAlive posted, he may or may not have to have his information on being a sex offender given to the public at large.

Originally Posted by KYLE

Let's just hope that someone murders him before the one year is up.

Yay, solve the issue of rapist via murderers, yay! I suppose that along this line of thinking, the murderer does not get convicted or would you still want them convincted anyways?

[LucyLouWho]

That's awful. Poor little girl... That guy deserves the 20 years that he was originally sentenced. Gah... That makes me so mad.

[InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU]

Originally Posted by ThereIsHope

That's awful. Poor little girl... That guy deserves the 20 years that he was originally sentenced. Gah... That makes me so mad.

Perhaps he does deserve the full sentence but if 19 years got knocked off, why bother with the last year?

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by YourNightmare

Perhaps he does deserve the full sentence but if 19 years got knocked off, why bother with the last year?

lol. Yeah, that's right. The sentence is truly a joke. Do you think this guy is going to be deterred from re-committing by one year, especially since he's already served a 6 year sentence? Why bother giving him jail-time at all? We should just give him a daycare to run and be done with it.

[Casey.]

The poor girl. This makes me mad.

As for him being a registered sex offender, well it really means nothing. Not in the States at least.

[Oiseau the Little Bird!]

I think it's important to add that the girl was to young to testify or something to that effect... So the only way to get him on ANYTHING was to bargain. Sucks.

[Fictional]

he deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life.

[CanadaCraig]

Hi Everyone!!

I hope you're OK.

"Earls admitted to raping and sodomizing the girl over the course of 4 months."

Think about that for a second. Just how many TIMES did that guy rape AND sodomize that poor little girl? It's an awful thing to even think about. And it begs the question - if he raped and sodomized several little girls - instead of just the one [As far as we know] would he have been able to plea bargain? If a man rapes the same person 10 times - is that less offensive [legally speaking] than if he raped 10 people one time?

That said.... I thinks interesting that a judge is bound by a plea bargain. As far as I know - a judge isn't even bound by a juries verdict - so why is he bound by a plea bargain? I'll admit - I'm confused.

GBH - Craig!!

[Kryptonite]

. “In any plea bargain, where there is a negotiated plea, the court can’t change it.”

I'm not sure how entirely accurate that is. Maybe it depends on state law? Regardless, 1 year doesn't seem like enough.

[Age of Ignorance]

"Sodomize,"

Haven't heard that word in a while.

[lvpeyton]

Originally Posted by lost-myself

I really hope she doesn't remember this.

that is exactly how i feel. i hope this does not scar her for the rest of her life.

as for a year, that has to be a joke. if that was my daughter (i don't have one- but i can imagine) i would be furious. how the hell do you give someone a year!! after they tortured a 4 year old girl for FOUR MONTHS?! what is wrong with people. that is disgusting. that sentence is ridiculous.