Maurice Clarett (Former OSU RB) gets 7.5 yr sentence (LaFave gets off?)

[Divine Discontent]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2593068


I don't get it. What he did was wrong, if you know the full story, you know he was acting odd and carrying weapons, but never used them on anyone, and resisted arrested and fled basically.

How does he get a mandatory 3.5 yrs (up to 7.5 if he's bad) but LaFave (and I know what the mom of the boy said but...) gets house arrest?

She actually molested a 14 yr old in her school room for goodness sake. And even if he wanted it, and was sexually attractive to her, blah blah blah, she was his adult authority, and yet, she serves no time, but Clarett who held up someone outside a bar for their cell phone gets more than 3 years minimum? Odd. Sorry, I find that odd.

[Beaverhausen]

1. I'm guessing Clarett isn't a hot blonde babe

Seems everyone has lost their sanity when it comes to that LaFave person.

[niyad]

2. let me see if I understand you--this man held people up at GUNPOINT,

committed ARMED robbery, fled the scene, resisted arrest, and was found to be in possession of a number of weapons, and you don't think he should have gotten jail time? why, because he carries a ball around?

what would you have said if the genders were reversed, and it was a female who committed the robbery, and a male teacher who had sex with a 14 year old student? just wondering.

[Divine Discontent]

6. just wondering

where did I say clarett shouldn't have got jail time in this?

"She actually molested a 14 yr old in her school room for goodness sake. And even if he wanted it, and was sexually attractive to her, blah blah blah, she was his adult authority, and yet, she serves no time, but Clarett who held up someone outside a bar for their cell phone gets more than 3 years minimum?"


I am stating the fact that some "gorgeous" woman got no jail time but a guy who held up people for a cell phone, at gunpoint, yes, got a 7 and a half year sentence. I find that disturbing, sorry you disagree.

And your 'what if", is bizarre. I don't get the what if he was a she, and the she was a he? What point does that serve? Every crime deserves time. Again, I never said he should have got zero time, I said, rather clearly - she screwed a student multiple times, raping him for her pleasure and serves ZERO time, and a guy that fired no shots gets a 7.5 year sentence. That's odd, that's all I'm saying. Thanks for adding a sentence into my comment.

[ShortnFiery]

8. And you know, Justice would deem that "gorgeous" would

negate all sins and emotional harm imposed on a 14 year old boy.

IMO, both should be locked up. ;)

[Divine Discontent]

12. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!

my point.

[ShortnFiery]

17. Yeah, really sucks, but such is life :-) n/t

[niyad]

15. WHY are you apparently so outraged about this violent man, who

committed MULTIPLE crimes (assault, robbery, resisting arrest, fleeing the scene, multiple weapons, etc) got the mandatory--but is apparently only going to serve half that time? I repeat, WHY are you posting as though this series of crimes was no big deal? what would have happened to him if he were not some person who has the ability to carry around a piece of pigskin?

the situation with the woman and the student is completely different and you know it. so what, exactly, is going on here?

[High Plains]

3. Oranges and apples

I am curious, though: Do you think Clarett got too much time or LaFave got too little?

[michreject]

4. He's lucky he only got 3.5 yrs

He could have ended up shot. He has the time to get his shit together. He was headed down the path to destruction.

[Divine Discontent]

11. true. what a mess he turned into!

if I was on freeper board they woulda said, "surprised to see a queer not arguing the other side of this and saying there was nothing wrong with the rape of a 14 yr old boy!"... so I won't argue with the people saying they thought I wanted Clarett to get off the hook, I guess. Even though I never said that. I just don't agree with how the justice system works is all.

[warrens]

5. Did you read the crap he was charged with?

A car full of loaded guns, wearing body armor? He wasn't going down to the Y for a swim, I don't think. Comparing this to that bimbo is kinda silly; no one was likely to die because of her molestation. The courts have always treated violent rape and statutory rape very, very differently. It's very rare to go to jail for statutory rape unless the rapee's dad is the local sheriff (I saw this happen; the kid got a year for having sex with his girlfriend. They were both 16.)

[Divine Discontent]

9. sigh

she raped a 14 year old boy who is an adolescent, who cares if he was horny and it's not violent rape - and also, clarett could easily have been thinking someone was trying to kill him because he rounded up so much debt. again, nice to see "comparing this to that bimbo is kinda silly" is so easy for you to say, the boy, as many people I know who were raped as children because I help kids and served as a counselor, grow up to be horribly traumatized, HORRIBLY, by the rape that they were seduced into. You make it sound like he definitely was off to go kill a bunch of people. No proof in that, but there's proof she f'd a 14 yr old in her classroom. nice... but hey, she's just a hot bimbo, no biggie.

[Marie26]

7. Poor Maurice

He had such a promising future before he decided to hit the self-destruct button. (I don't see what this has to do w/LaFave at all?)

[Divine Discontent]

10. you people are reading way too much into things

I simply find it horrific she gets no time for a rape, and he gets a little more than I would've given him for an armed robbery of a cell phone. he wasn't stable, it's obvious. And I mention them because they're stories that both appear in the news a lot.

[Marie26]

13. Ooookay.

I'm sure Clarett's status as a football star had nothing to do w/your outrage. And did you hear that Duke Cunningham was sentenced to 8 years in jail while Debra LaFave only got probation? So unfair!

[1776Forever]

19. I love how DU'ers

are reading what they want into the OP's comments when I see nothing that implies the OP approved of Clarett's ways, or that he shouldn't have received prison time. What is going on with DU'ers adding their own info into what they think others are saying. It is clear that the she/he implied they thought both were worthy of prison time but she/he is outraged that Lafave got off.

Too many posts are implying that what she did to him was minimal damage (Lafave to her 14 year old rape victim). How sickening. If I were to do what some of these posts were doing I'd imply some of these people are encouraging teen boys get raped by their teachers, see the slippery slope. I sure do.

[Marie26]

20. I'm implying one's got absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Clarett got the sentence he deserved, IMO. LaFave did not, perhaps. But it's absurd to string two crimes together as if the fact that LaFave got off means that Clarett's sentence was unfair. That's my comment about Duke Cunningham, corrupt Republican, who was convicted of numerous federal bribery charges & sentenced to 8 years in jail. Is that sentence unfair because LaFave didn't get jail time? No, of course not. It wouldn't even occur to us to put the two together. His case should be judged on it's own merits. The OP did put together LaFave & Claret, though, for reasons that are a bit obscure. The OP comes right out & says that Claret's sentence wasn't justified - though he recieved even less than the mandatory minimum. What makes it unfair? How does LaFave make Claret's sentence unfair? There's a lot of people who are always willing to jump to the defense of a sports star & talk about how it's unfair for them to be held accountable. Maybe that's the motive, maybe not. Personally, I think both should be in jail. But I don't see why it's necessary to imply that Claret's sentence is unfair because of LaFave's treatment. They're totally different crimes, totally different penalties, totally unrelated.

[Divine Discontent]

25. I strongly disagree Marie

Clarett is a nobody anymore. I'm not a fan of his at ALL. He was a one year player at a college and that's it.

I find it sad, and it's obvious why I put the posts together, that a hot blonde woman rapes a 14 yr old in his very classroom where she was entrusted with his PROTECTION, and you say, "Clarett got the sentence he deserved, IMO. LaFave did not, perhaps." That's sickening. No reason to discuss further because I'm certain this country treats kids under 16 getting preyed upon by authority figures as no big deal if the little confused growing adolescent is "willing".

[Marie26]

36. Honestly

I have no idea what we're arguing about & feel like this is at cross-purposes. I know a lot about the Clarett case cause he is a local hero in my hometown & a big star for OSU. There's many people who thought he shouldn't have to go to jail at all because he was a football star. So I know what his crimes were, & that the sentence was justified. But your post doesn't seem to really be about Clarett at all - I don't know what it's about. I'm not sure why you think my post is sickening - I'm agreeing that LaFave should've probably had jail time. But there is a big difference in the law between statutory rape & armed robbery, and it's not really fair to compare the sentences from these two totally different crimes.

[Divine Discontent]

42. We are in agreement in general

just a little rough around the edges. I'm just amazed the different sentences I see all the time that don't seem to fit the crime, in both directions.

peace

[ShortnFiery]

14. I can fully empathizes but understand why she is going to get "a pass"

Except when it comes to Murder Trials, repeated social psychological studies of Jury Findings reveal an ugly truism: Highly attractive defendants tend to be more prone to be found "not guilty" when compared to other defendants charged with like crimes but of "plain" or "unattractive features."

It's the ole' bias that is sadly true: beautiful people often can get away with more "bad behavior" than us average folk - yes, precisely because they are "gorgeous."

I hate it, but even studies in various venues - strongly suggests that "the beautiful" can, many times, get away with most ANYTHING short of murder. :(

In this case, though, the JOKE is on "all of us" and the tragedy is with the emotional fallout the 14 y.o. may later have to deal with. This LaFaye Gal is playing the public and the media like a Stradivarius violin. There's the recent MSNBC interview with Matt Lauer. I know the men who are exceedingly "visual" understandably felt the interview went by too fast. ;) :blush:

Only time will tell, but IMO "this broad" (no I don't take a shine to her) will become Ultra-Famous and pose in Playboy +++. She knows what she's got and how to use it!

It's just sad that seducing a 14 y.o. boy was her claim to fame. And yes, she'll get off scott free because she's admittedly, drop dead gorgeous.

Yea :thumbsdown:

[Ganja Ninja]

16. Clarett had a loaded assault weapon and two hand guns in ...

his car and was reportedly on his way to try and intimidate a witness in his other trial for a robbery. On top of that he resisted arrest and had to be subdued with pepper spray.

I just don't see how that equates to the LeFave case at all. While LeFave is a sick individual the harm she caused to the boy was minimal. Clarett's crime had the potential for violence and loss of life plus he could have gotten a lot harsher sentence too.

[ShortnFiery]

18. You don't know that the harm she caused was minimal

No, I don't agree with comparing the two cases, so let's don't go there? On that fact I agree there's no comparison.

However, what I was trying to convey in another thread, that we don't know how much emotional damage she caused. And LEGALLY Manic Depression is not a defense. She still was in reality, not delusional - and - therefore, was LEGALLY capable of choosing NOT to break the law by seducing a minor.

Think about this: Their entire community was harmed by her criminal act. The school administrators are ashamed and MORALLY SOUND young women teachers who happen to be attractive (hot!) and would not ever breech the law or violate the trust of their students are going to be hyper-focused on.

The other case not withstanding, this little teen predator has caused a lot of heartache within this boy's immediate family, the school system and the entire local community. Any person who is concerned "with others" instead of "her standing" would be ashamed and NOT have appeared on TV. She's a nasty piece of work and she's far from legally crazy. She's now USING the Media and using up our time HERE ... but to the men who love her looks, it's not time wasted. :eyes:

If you think that she did "minimal damage" to this 14 year old boy, take some time to talk with those who counsel teen sex abuse victims. They will tell you that, we don't know for sure, however, the odds are that he would be wise to go through counseling now to stave of any underlying trauma that may surface later.

[mtnester]

21. AND, with all those assault weapons, he was also wearing BODY ARMOR

The assault weapons and resisting arrest and fleeing were his SECOND set of offenses...the armed robbery happened last year in the short north.

The weapons, fleeing and resisting was a high speed chase through MY town, and was a different set of charges....plus he was originally lit up by the cops in the wee hours while VERY near the house of a witness that was going to testify on his first charges of armed robbery....with a truck full of guns (a BORROWED vehicle at that) and armored out...on the EAST side of town...not a place he usually hangs out.

This is his plea bargain...it is what it is...all I wonder is if Art Schlichter is still in prison...another waste of a life from THE Ohio State University.

[MrSlayer]

22. Hmm, a habitual violent criminal vs a non-violent sex offender.

Clarett is a dangerous psychopath who would have eventually hurt or killed someone and is quite lucky not to be dead himself. He deserves to be put away for the greater good of society. I don't see where LaFave hurt anyone except her husband (which is none of our business) or where she is dangerous to society. I don't have a problem with either sentence.

[Beaverhausen]

23. You don't think LaFave will strike again?

How do you know she won't continue to prey on young children? She did it and obviously has no remorse over it. Why shouldn't someone like her be put away?

The double standard here is amazing to me.

[MrSlayer]

24. I realize this is hard to accept.

But I really don't think what she did was all that big of a deal. That's every boy's dream right there. I would have loved to be him when I was 14. All he's suffering from is lack of banging the hot teacher. And I freely admit that if the sexes were reversed in this case my opinion would be quite different because boys and girls are very different emotionally and physically at that age. A girl is far more emotional and susceptible to being mentally crushed and having problems later on because she thinks she's doing these things out of "love" when she's simply being used. A boy doesn't really care if he's being used as long as he's getting off. That's all a teenage boy wants. Of course that's not true in every case but in general I believe it's so. I can only go by my own experiences and those of my peers on this subject. No one I know complained about any sex they got be it from a corner girl or the "cool lady" down the street and it certainly didn't damage any of us.

Comparing what she did with what Clarett did is apples and oranges. He threatened people's lives, was in possession of multiple firearms and body armor ready for a Wild West style shootout. This isn't his first violent offense, he's clearly dangerous. She provided a good time to a very willing participant and is a threat to no one.

Quite frankly I'd rather have my son hang with her than with him, he'd be too busy to get into trouble.

Ugly truth is still truth.

[Divine Discontent]

26. Typical perverted comments I see too much on the net, from males

"I don't see where LaFave hurt anyone except her husband (which is none of our business) or where she is dangerous to society."

"But I really don't think what she did was all that big of a deal. That's every boy's dream right there. I would have loved to be him when I was 14. All he's suffering from is lack of banging the hot teacher. And I freely admit that if the sexes were reversed in this case my opinion would be quite different because boys and girls are very different emotionally and physically at that age. A girl is far more emotional and susceptible to being mentally crushed and having problems later on because she thinks she's doing these things out of "love" when she's simply being used. A boy doesn't really care if he's being used as long as he's getting off. That's all a teenage boy wants."




Goodness, your comments are a tad too much. You don't think she seduced and raped a hormonally confused 14 yr old? To differentiate that a young boy getting "banged" as you say, by any authority figure that is entrusted to protect him and not abuse his body for their pleasure is beyond the pale of proper, especially when you say it's not okay if a girl has "willing" intercourse with a male teacher who's supposed to just teach the course and nothing more. I'm ashamed for you. Look, I'm not saying teens are not sexual, or want it, but it's up to responsible adults who are put in authority positions to not molest the KIDS under them. You call it a - "dream" - all you want! I understand people should be able to do it with whomever they want at any time, but authority figures should not be sleeping with 17 and under kids, because they wield power over that kid in a setting the child has to put trust in the adult, DUH! I think 18 is too old for non authority positions, it should be 16 with parental consent that they're dating an 18-99 year old, but never should a 14 year old have to be intimidated by a teacher and seduced into having sex with them, regardless of how much their brain enjoys it - it's improper and it's WHY WE HAVE LAWS!

[MrSlayer]

32. I said it was an ugly truth.

You can call it perverted or whatever but it just is what it is. That is the common perspective and sometimes the common perspective is correct. I really don't believe this kid was intimidated or forced into it at all. It's always wrong to coarse someone into sex regardless of their gender, I just don't think that occurred here.

[Divine Discontent]

33. you ask our, apparent, mutual hero

Wes Clark, who I want for President, what he thinks about a 14 yr old having statutory raped assaulted on him (yes, it's not violent rape, but she abused her position grossly, and that word is perfect for what she did). I think he'll tell you we have a responsibility to make sure our teachers aren't confronting kids with offers for intercourse as she did. Look, I told you, I'm no prude in my thinking, and it may be "common perspective" that boys would love to be approached for sex by a teacher they're attracted to, but again, it's an authority figure, and she crossed the line.

Take care! :)

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[madmusic]

28. continue to prey on young children?

You are comparing what she MIGHT do to what this guy did? Seriously, is that the way American justice works nowadays? Is this some kind of Minority Report?

[MUSTANG_2004]

51. She wasn't preying on young children

Some points:

1) She didn't prey on "young children." There are degrees of predators. A young child is different than a 14 year old adolescent.
2) Most importantly, LaFave got house arrest instead of prison because the DA and the victim's family thought a trial would cause severe trauma to the victim. The lighter punishment was not because the DA was swayed by LaFave's looks.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Now, watch Willie Nelson get 5-10 years for non-violent drug possession.

Our legal system is fuuuuuuucked up.

[madmusic]

29. That's the problem with mandatory sentences. nt

[Divine Discontent]

31. is there any hope of going back? or is the consensus people want it? n/t

[madmusic]

34. Californians just had a chance to amend 3-strikes

And refused to. Clarett would have got some real serious time here.

[Divine Discontent]

30. I agree with that sentiment also, that's too much for that, too!

such f'd up system. I love WILLIE! :) so many good songs.
I didn't state Clarett doesn't deserve prison time, for the 3rd time (this isn't directed to you, this is for the people who need about 3-1000 times of hearing something before they accept it as fact, I'm just pissed someone who twisted a boy into sticking his jail-bait body parts into her numerous times isn't considered a criminal by TONS of men)

again, thanks for bringing up Willie Nelson, I'm gonna listen to him now.

[madmusic]

35. Get out my 14-year-old fantasy.

You're not invited. LaFave and I want to be alone.

[Divine Discontent]

41. okay okay... that was wrong of me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol.... fantasize.. uh oh, I just did a reach around on you in that fantasy - it just became a nightmare! haha... anyhow, back to your fantasy. thanks for the laugh.

[madmusic]

44. Yes, a nightmare.

Like my dad just walked in on us. Or worse, my mom.

But now that you're gone....

[Warren DeMontague]

38. I read in the paper about a "youth minister" (go figure, huh?) exposing

himself to a seven year old girl and demanding oral sex. He got a year, which I think is what Tommy Chong got for selling bongs over the internet.

The fact is, we are letting sick, violent and dangerous people out on the streets to make room for people whose only "crime" is putting substances into their consenting adult bodies that the government doesn't want them to. Not endangering others, not driving under the influence, not robbing anyone- just using the government's property, i.e. their body, central nervous system and bloodstream- in a way that the government doesn't like. And this boondoggle costs us $40 Billion a year, not including the costs of incarceration.

It's time to listen to those left-wing hippies at The National Review and end the drug war. What consenting adults want to do with their own bodies, insofar as they don't hurt anyone else, isn't the government's business. Leave the jail cells for the dangerous, the violent, the folks who prey on children.

Period.

[Divine Discontent]

40. RIGHT ON!

like I told the guy who said there was nothing wrong with what she did, I'm no prude, and I would make it okay for 16 yr olds to date adults with parental consent, but how can ANYONE say a 14 yr old getting offered sex by his teacher is anything but 100% inappropriate? I'm lenient to a point on the drug thing too, I still have a hangup of people using them then going right out and going to work in their car, driving to get a burger because they're hungry, and I've been with some peeps who have been on stuff, and they shouldn't be driving. That's gotta be a big chunk of the pushback society has on the drug issue. People can't be responsible as a whole, where as, so of the gonja users I know are super proper with it and deserve to do what they want on a trail, in their home to alleviate pain, etc.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. I agree. Driving under the influence is something else.

Although if that were really the prime motivator with society, we'd have brought alcohol prohibition back, due to the carnage that drinking causes on the highways. I should know, I had a friend killed by a drunk driver. And I've been clean & sober for years- but I never found pot to be anywhere near as dangerous as booze. It's absurd that it's still illegal.

[madmusic]

45. Relax.

There are plenty of prison cells for everyone, and shiny new ones every day.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Cool. So we can lock up the child molesters AND the bong makers!

And the toking cancer grannies, too.

Right on. What a relief. :patriot:

[madmusic]

48. You think a cell cares who's in it?

Sure doesn't, and neither do the laws. You think tokers can stay out of jail by pointing fingers at and denying the Bill of Rights to the most despicable?

That ain't the way government power works, and the Founders knew it. The last effort to amend California's Three Strikes law included a provision mandating 25-to-life for any sex with a child 12 or under, or something like that.

Sounds damn good, right? No one could vote against that, right?

Wrong. Voters saw right through it and 3rd strikers for drug possession are still locked up. Big mistake.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. I'm not sure if you're trying to argue with me, or not

I think we're in fundamental agreement. Personally, I don't have a problem with separating anyone who harms a child (whether or not they happen to be an employee of the Vatican, even those folks seem to get to play by different rules than everyone else) from society for their natural life. That's just me. But the laws should reflect that.

The 3 Strikes law has been a disaster. That's the problem with these feel good "tough on crime" ideas (which is how we got the draconian anti-drug laws, too) you think you're going after the guy who killed Polly Klaas, and you end up putting the dude whose third strike was stealing a piece of pizza in jail for life.

[madmusic]

52. Exactly.

But that's my point. I could care less if Polly's killer fries, or if an inmate "hits" him, and could care less if a baby raper gets life. My point is that the "tough on crime" conservative crowd doesn't care either, and they don't care who gets thrown in that mix. Tough on crime is tough on crime, not just tough on a specific crimes. This is most obvious with California's 3-strikes law. Reynolds and his conservative buddies are the ones who really pushed that through, and they got close but not until Polly's murder did it actually pass. Reynolds may have been serious, but his daughter was not a minor and she was killed during a robbery. No one can blame Reynolds for his rage, but politicians used him and Polly's murder for political gain. They needed an "issue" for votes.

For them, crime is crime, from drug use to sensational murders. They constantly feed the moral panic machine to keep power and keep the political shift to the Right. Without this shift, BushCo wouldn't be getting away with anything. This actually started in the early 80s with the impeachment of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Bird. The real issue then was big business v. organized workers, but they used the death penalty controversy for voter support. She was voted out in a special election.

You wrote: "anyone who harms a child." Realistically, and if was really about the well being of children, there are many ways to abuse children that are as harmful as something like a pat on the butt, some much more harmful. Neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse all can be just as damaging. Why concentrate on sex offenses? Why not put more money into prevention of ALL kinds of child abuse? Because sex abuse feeds the moral panic and keep conservatives in power. Check out the book in my sig link for details.

[Algorem]

37. they go by yards per carry

he used to get 7.5 yards per carry,so...that's Ohio law.



http://www.centralohio.com/ohiostate/stories/20020918/football/108493.html

Wednesday, September 18, 2002

Clarett 'unlikely' to play Saturday after knee surgery

By Jon Spencer
Gannett News Service

COLUMBUS -- ...

He leads the Big Ten in rushing (157 yards per game), yards per carry (7.5) and scoring (42 points)...

[geomon666]

39. Terry Porter got off with time served and community service.

Officiating football games of course. :)

[Tenseiga]

46. Clarett gets 3-year deal with 7-year option

btw, wtf does debra lefeve have to do with any of this anyway?

This is absolutely ridiculous, especially in light of the gun-control mafia around this board. IIRC he had not one, not two, not three, but four guns, as well as a protective vest, not to mention he was driving reclessly and under the influence. Certainly you don't condone drinking and driving, and if you do, you are a moron.

I'll post my opinion on the whole lefeve thing in the appropriate thread, but for now I'll stay on topic and bitch about Clarett, thank you very much.

Actually, I'll bitch at you... what credibilty does Maurice Clarett have that he deserves a free pass? Because he's , *gasp* dark-skinned? Because he's a FORMER football player? You should be slamming him for passing on his free ride through college when so many people are denied the oppurtunity for an education. I'll contend that he used his alleged skills to get a free pass ona four-year education and pretty much gave the education part no credence. And for his troubles, he met the fate of 99% of high school football players who never made it to the NFL. Big deal. It doesn't entitle him to go on a drunken rampage in his fancy SUV (hey guess what, he's a major contributor to Global Warming (TM) to boot.)

7 years isn't enough for this tard. So he ran the ball for THE Ohio State University. pfft.

[Jed Dilligan]

50. If you can still edit, you might change "tard,"

which isn't very nice to actual disabled people. Especially when you imply his being a "tard" is the reason to lock him up. Sounds like... oh, never mind.