Two men originally given 60 days in jail for the statutory rape of an intoxicated 13-year-old were sentenced to prison this morning.
Judge Paula Martin was ordered by the Kansas Court of Appeals to hand down new sentences to Brian K. Ussery, Tonganoxie, and William N. Haney, Lawrence.
She ordered Ussery to serve 65 months in prison and Haney to serve 82 months.
Martin sparked controversy last year by granting the men probation, community service and 60 days in jail for the June 2003 incident. It was a departure from state sentencing guidelines, which normally carry a penalty of nearly 13 years for rape, and earlier this year the appeals court found it was too lenient.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
smitty (anonymous) says…
But the election is over and we still have her as a judge.
The third man is the DD man left unattended regardless of the court ordered supervision by our mental health system and the assigned parole officer.
What a farce this whole situation is.
Keep an eye on what our judges do and who their supporters are. Martin's supporters are in the LJW archive. Martin is still in the court room.
akuna (anonymous) says…
Ah finally. A bit of sanity from the state. Put those rapists away.
jayhawks71 (anonymous) says…
Proven wrong? How so? You are probably the same person that complains about the Supreme Court "protecting" the right to privacy and tell the "courts" to get out of our lives. Yet here, you agree with a court of appeals because it fits with your pre-conceived notions?
I guess that some of you will complain that she didn't give each of them 13 years. (5.4 years and nearly 6.8 years). It appears that she was still right to diverge from state sentencing guidelines because that is exactly what she did here!
My original stance (look it up!) was that it was wholly appropriate for her to diverge from the state sentencing guidelines, and she has, appropriately, done that yet again. The cries from dissenters were that the sentence is 13 years so they should get 13 YEARS. Moving it upward to 50% of what YOU see as the sentence they should receive is evidence of Martin's error???? What world are you living in?
Sentencing guidelines were and remain just that, guidelines. Legislators cannot take into account every possible extenuating circumstance that would either serve to reduce or increase a sentence; we already have enough verbiage in the laws, the last thing we need is micromanaged sentences by legislators. The latter is exactly what judges are empowered to do.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
jayhawk - you miss the point completely. She erred in granting them leniency because she misjudged their character. They clearly did not deserve the break she gave them. They are not the "innocents" she judged them to be and they should have received a stiffer sentence from the beginning. I am pleased with the final results and I am sure that Judge Martin has learned something from the experience.
redfred (anonymous) says…
Jayhawks71
The victim being drunk and willing is extenuating circumstances??
candi044 (anonymous) says…
Its bull no matter which way u look at it.
Crispian (Crispian Paul) says…
The kid was 13....no matter how drunk she was, even willingly, no matter how much she "wanted it", no adult man in their right mind should have had sex with her. She was 13!!!!!!
jayhawks71 (anonymous) says…
No, you seem to be the revisionist that you claim me to be. There were indeed individuals that called for her head for not abiding by the state sentence and criticizing Martin for diverging from the state guidelines period. I agree there were also those that had issue with the degree of diversion; however, there were those who don't see a judge's job as interpreting law. They see it instead as rubber stamping the law. Sorry, but the judicial branch of government is charged with interpretation of law in situations. Legislatures create laws for ranges of situations.
In addition, critics complained the status of the girl as "active participant." As I recall, the appellate court did not reprimand Martin for that assessment. Is this vindication for Martin's assessment that the girl was an active participant? According to your criteria, it certainly is. In fact, according to you interpretation, the fact that they received less than half of the GUIDED sentence for the crimes suggests further that the appellate court upheld Martin's assessment regarding the active participant status.
technician (anonymous) says…
re; tougher laws for s. rape. ? why was a 13 teen year old around grown men? she not a angel .the men will now be hated by the world as rapest. & be mark for ever. the 13 teen & 15 teen year olds fast aaaaaaaaass. are just as guity as the men. they are out there & the men can't say no so they think with the brainless head & ruin their lives for ever. & the nasty fast aaaaaaaaaaaass who is out of control gets away with every thing. she laughing all the way home. nothing happens to her. & why is it ok for a 14 teen year old boy to engage in sex with a 13 teen year f & nothing happens to him. ?but it's not ok for a 17 teen or older man to engage in sex with a younger f & they are mark as rapest & go to prison for 20 years. they need to look more at how the young girls or behaving &they will see they are far from being angels .men are being ruin because of the - behaviour the f are doing away from home. the law is saying it's ok for a 13 teen year gril to have sex as long as it's not with a 17 teen or older man. it's ok for a 14 teen year boy to screw her & he won't go to jail but if you are 17 teen & older we will destroy your life untill you can't take it then you will kill your selves. megans law needs to be change to the age of 12 years old. 13 teen on up know what they are doing they are into sex drugs .& no one is forceing them to engage in this kind of act. it's like that 14 teen year old who was going with that 18 teen year old man & he murder her parents well she just as guity as he is. mangans law is a good thing &should be use in her name fairly if a man rapes & force her to engage in sex then he needs to be put away. because the grils who were not out doing things & playing grown being around all kind of men living right. i call this rape. but you take that 13 teen year old girl who was drinkink & i bet she was not force to drink just like she was not force to have sex .& i bet she was not a vergin. now the men will be mark as rapest &have to look over there back because of her. magans law was to protec . not made for lieing on a man just so you will look like oh my i'm a sweet angel i would never do things like that. in the mean time the law needs to look at her & look at her - acts & make her pay for her nasty behaviours. if that man has to go to prisons for 20 years she needs to also be put away for 5 years. be cause that man will pay for his life &never be able to hold a job &find a place to live be looke at as a rapest &have the magans law on his head untill he dies. it's not fair. !
seraphn (anonymous) says…
Are charges being going to be filed on this 13 year old and her parents. I realize these men were wrong but what was a 13 year old doing at an adult party in the middle of the night. I agree the men showed no common sense but being drunk and have a girl turning you on makes for a bad mix. I am so tired of girls willing to have sex claim to be raped and the men pay, I think it is about time for these girls to be held responsible for their actions, it is not all the mens fault, after all if a girl does something to cause the situation she should also be charged. As for her parents they should be charged with neglect for not knowing where their daugter was. Don't parents teach their girls that teasing a man may cause a situation she may or may not want especially when that man is drunk and not in control.
nekansan (anonymous) says…
As the appelate court said..."We conclude no reasonable person would have departed from the presumptive sentence to such an extent when considering only the valid departure factors stated within." Even the appeals court does not believe that Martin was even reasonable in this case. The appeals court also found Martin used "totally flawed" reasoning in finding that the victim's proximity in age to the suspects caused her to suffer less harm than the typical rape victim.
From the JW Article/Court decision when the case was remanded......
"A 13-year-old victim is no more capable of consenting legally, to sexual activity with an 18-year-old than with a person who is 25 or 40," the court wrote. "Furthermore, the trauma to the underage victim is potentially as great." The appeals court also rejected Martin's finding that the absence of physical force or trauma resulted in less harm to the victim. "There is nothing within the record ... to indicate the harm suffered by this particular victim was less significant than the harm normally associated with statutory rape," "The victim's experience or inexperience with alcohol is irrelevant ..." the court said. "The fact that there is no evidence of threats, force or weapons in the commission of the crime is relevant, but the relevance is obscured in light of the victim's totally intoxicated condition."
Clearly the court did not buy the argument that since this girl was a "willing participant" there was no harm. The entire statutory rape law is designed to protect individuals too young to make rational adult decisions from harm by others who are mature enough to know better. This is the fact that the appeals court clearly feels that Martin ignored, and exactly what her detractors have emphasized from the begining.
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
The fact that Judge Martin was re-elected after the circumstances of this case were widely discussed causes me to questioned the intelligence of the majority of Lawrence voters. Judge Martin and her supporters, who are largely committed to liberal feminists causes, argued that the sentence was reasonable because the 13 old girl was essentially "asking for it."
If a conservative male jurist had attempted to use this reasoning in sentencing a rapist of an adult, let alone a child, to 60 days in jail, that judge would have been savaged by the very same folks who so feveriously support Judge Martin. Those who actively supported Judge Martin are idealogical hypocrits willing to deny justice to a 13 year old rape victim for political expediancy. I can only hope that the next time Judge Martin abuses her discretion the Kansas Supreme Court doesn't look at the citizens of Lawrence and say "hey, you asked for it."
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
Still not enough time in prison for these idiots. Too bad we had to force Martin to get a clue.
Harry_Manback (anonymous) says…
I know far too many girls who were in similar situations when they were in their early teens, and now regret not reporting it. Who cares if she was drunk or her parents weren't watching her?
Stop blaming the victim, and realize that these guys are just pieces of sh*t who deserve to go to jail. A grown man, or even a 17 year old for that matter, should know better than to mess with a 13 year old girl. For every girl that makes up stuff like this, I'm willing to bet you there are 5 more who never tell anyone or do anything about it.
tbecs (anonymous) says…
Where are the men's parents? They should go to jail for raising such horrible people.
Look at your logic...
momof3 (anonymous) says…
teasing a man - you have got to be joking......
She was 13, and what those men did was wrong...
Did they not provide the alcohol to the girl?
There is no excuse for adults having sex with a 13 year old child.....
smitty (anonymous) says…
Rape of a 13 year old by two young men and an older developementally disabled male.
momof3, these two men(too young to buy booze) used the adult developmentally disabled man(over 21) to buy the alcohol. These guys manipulated a DD man for the booze and rewarded him by allowing him to participate in the rape. The girl was so drunk that these guys were on their way to the hospital with the 13 year old to address alcohol poisoning but changed their minds. It's still rape even if she was so drunk she passed out. Raped her by intention and law.
Sigmund has described Martin and her supporters well.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…
I agree with you, smitty, but the post above by technician made me very angry.
Joluko (anonymous) says…
Whether or not a 13yr can consent is less of an issue of the environmental factors and the alcohol involvement (IMHO). I agree with offtotheright, where were the parents? I think they should be charged. (moraloutrage.net)