This is really upsetting, but it shows how the law is really messed up when applied to minors.

That makes me so sick! Poor little girl...

Very Sad. She's going to have some intensive therapy to go through when she gets older.

Wow, this is sick.

It again shows that rape cases are not taken seriously.

totally disgusting. they can guarantee he registers as a sex offender, but what kind of guarantee do they have that he's not going to rape again?

mamasitamali I agree. I think what they need to do is choose people who have been molested or raped to judge this man. Only they can know the lifelong burden that comes along with this. They're treating this like a misdemeanor.

Is it right that someone convicted of this awful crime should spend only one year in jail? Of course not ! This is a serious crime that deserves serious punishment.

That said, NONE OF US know all of the facts of this case. I'm a prosecutor, and I know it baffles people when someone with a long record gets "off easy" but they don't know all of the circumstances. Sometimes - often - you have a tough case, and you make the decision that it's better to get A CONVICTION with a light sentence than NO conviction. It's a gamble to go to trial - even with the best facts - and often times a prosecutor will make the decision to offer what he or she thinks is a good deal to ensure a conviction.

I can assure you, Rock, that most prosecutors take rape VERY seriously.

I also don't think you can qualify a four year old as a witness. It's difficult enough getting somone 4-5 years older to testify. I really don't think a four year old is legally competent to testify.

Without DNA or other eyewitnesses, child rape is difficult to prove, and I don't think it's fair for a bunch of lay people to judge a situation they don't fully understand.

And I hope this guy is treated like most child rapists in prison ... getting a taste of his own medicine.

Holy F*cking Sh*t.

I hope he has a very frightening year in the clink.

runningesq - I think a bunch of "lay" people as you call us can judge between right and wrong and wow, you must know so much because you are a prosecutor. And being fair....I don't think it's FAIR that I was raped by 2 men when I was 17 years old.

Of course this isn't fair. It isn't right and it isn't just for this horrible, sick, awful man to only service ONE YEAR. Unfortunantly, it's how it works sometimes. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt someone's guilt, and sometimes that isn't possible.

I didn't mean to imply that lay people can't have an opinion --- I just don't think it's fair for people to judge (no pun intended) the judge and prosectuor when none of us know the facts.

People who rape deserve to die, and I wish we could impose the death penalty for such defendants.

And hottpink, I am really sorry to hear that you are raped. That is awful and something NO ONE should have to go through

running, i agree with you. I usually am on the side of the defense, as I will be a public interest defense lawyer once i pass the bar in July. This guy obviously did a horrible thing, but most people don't understand that the law is complicated and there to not only protect the victims, but also the accused. This guy will always be known as a rapist and committed a felony, hence his time in jail. He will get what he is deserved.

Ok, what is it with lawyers and thinking they know so much more and can talk down to "regular" people. I am a paralegal and have been for 4 years so I know how the legal system works. And yes, I also know that the accused deserve to be protected as well. 1 year is not what this man deserves so how can you sit there and say that "he will get what he deserves"? Just another example of how rape cases are pushed aside and not taken seriously.

how the F**K does someone get more time in jail for a non-violent drug offense than some monster who rapes a 4 year old baby. i don't care what anyone's rationale was. out of that 20 year sentence he could've have gotten less than 19 years suspended. it sickens me, and again makes me feel as though sex offences are not taken seriously by the judicial system in comparison to other crimes.

Okay, and if this case goes to trial, what evidence does the State put on?

as i said they could've negotiated a plea deal for more time than 1 year, and what kind of monitoring is he going to be under once he leaves jail? is he going to be on probation, will he have a house arrest monitor, or will he get the same type of supervision that allows many sex offenders to leave their state without a trace and rape again?

Very disturbing

runningesq, I agree with you! If the prosecution's case is that weak, it's better to have him in jail for a year PLUS being a registered sex offender for the rest of his life than risk a not guilty verdict and he walks totally free. And I don't think that this case demonstrates that our justice system doesn't take rape seriously. The most sensational cases and situations are the ones that make the news.

So admission to the violent rape crime is not enough? Honestly, I feel like this is the reason why violence and rape towards children is far more common in the U.S. than many of its 1st world counterparts. Our judicial system is basically giving sex offenders a little slap on the wrist.

This is desturbing on so many levels, poor little girl. Once a rapist always a rapist, so therefore this monster will do it again.

What this guy needs is castration via a pair of very rusty scissors held by someone with a very shaky hand.

And how long did Michael Vick go to jail....

And what was his crime.......

Sigh.

Part of the State's offer is based on the strength of the case. If you have a great case, lots of evidence, witnesses willing to testify, etc. - then you can offer a lot of jail (or not make an offer at all and just try it).

I don't know the facts of this case, but my guess is that the prosecutor DID take the crime very seriously, and this is what he or she thought was a good offer considering the trial risk.

IMO, it's better to get the conviction, get the probation, get the sex offender label then go to trial and get a big fat NOT GUILTY.

... and it bugs me when people say "well look what X got for such and such crime." Each crime is different, facts are different, records are different, judges are different, juries are different.

sexual predators are treated very cruelly in prison. that will be the longest, most horrible year of his life.

I hope he suffers a million times more than what he put this little girl through. what a disgusting excuse for a human being.

@runningesq- i don't know, you seem to be operating under the belief that prosecutors are above reproach and critique, which i don't ever believe is true. if i feel something is wrong i'm going to question it, and i feel this is wrong. so i will reiterate, even if the prosecution did not feel that they had the strongest case, they could have negotiated for more time in jail. and i brought up non-violent drug crime sentences in comparison to sexual offense and sentences because drug offenders are consistently given harsher sentences than sex offenders. if you don't think this points to a pattern of apathy in the justice system towards crimes against women and children then i don't know what to say. the least that we can hope for is that they advocated for a highly supervised probation, although i don't think that would stop a bastard like this.

hes goin 2 be murdered in there (hopefully)

so how many years will he get when his next victim is raped and murdered? how many lives do you have to destroy before you get sent to prison? so while this little girl and her family will have to go through life with these scars the monster who did it will live a completely normal life without remorse or punishment.how can we change this? is there anyone we can write to? congressmen? the DA? why are people serving more time for marajauna then raping a child?

Rape and sexual assaults cases are among the most under-tried cases in the U.S. and it is disgusting. Here in Austin, TX there was a major issue with the fact that 100s of rape kits were never processed. How can a rape case be tried without evidence? I know every case is different but I read about drug dealers or thieves receiving 10-20 years and a rapist receiving 5 and getting out after 1. This is a pattern and one that has to change. The legal system needs to be taken to task for how it handles rape and sexual assault. The law is messed up for minors. Just look at the "sexting" case that when before a judge. A law meant to protect children is being used to prosecute them?! Also, the fact that they went for a year in jail so he would register as a sex offender is ridiculous. Registration doesn't prevent a crime from occurring and most law enforcement agencies are so underfunded that there are sex offenders missing. In 2005 Jessica Lunsford was raped and murdered by a convicted sexual predator. Crimes like these aren't mistakes and when the victim is so young the likelihood it will happen again is increased. This is just gross.

This is a result of the war of drugs. So much time and emphasis is spent on getting drug dealers and users off the streets that police and prosecutors are left with barely worth while evidence to get a conviction with. Confessions mean next to nothing in a court of law because it has been shown time and time again that people can confess to crimes they never committed while under duress.

With that being said, I agree with Sloane on the fact they should have tried to push for at 18 months. I take little comfort in the fact that he will be imprisoned again because the recidivism rate for male sexual offenders is so high; because some little girl will get her life drastically hurt and changed in the process

Symphonee -- you are absolutely right... hours and hours of interrogation can cause someone to confess to a crime that they didn't commit. However, in order for a confession to be admissible, there must be SOME (not a lot) of corroborating evidence -- to prevent the false confession alone from convicting the defendant.

I read the USA Today article, and these two things jumped out at me:

1. "What's gone unnoticed is that the forensics were very weak," Mills said. "There was some trauma in the physical exam, but it would have been completely speculative for that examiner to testify that David Earls caused any of it."

2. District Attorney Jim Bob Miller ... determined after two days of working with Earls' accuser that the girl — who is now 5 years old — was not able to testify. "She was not mature enough or able to sit still long enough," Miller said. "We had a real risk of losing at trial and him walking out scot-free."

So:
1. little to no forensic evidence, and
2. an incompetent witness.

It sounds like the State had a real trial risk - remember that the standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (not 'more likely than not') and it's very very possible that the jury wouldn't convict. They offered what they thought would get them a conviction, and the defendant took it.

The defendant apparently has cancer and 'three years to live' so lets hope that's true. I hope he rots in hell.

Well, my last comment was flagged - I have no idea why! - but what I said was this:

little to no forensic evidence + incompetent witness (before you jump all over me, incompetent in this case means unable to testify) = very good chance of a big fat NOT GUILTY.;

and Symphonee, you are absolutely right. It is amazing what people will 'confess' to after hours of police interrogation. That's why confessions alone are not admissible -- they must be corroborated by some evidence.

This makes perfect sense.

Lookit. The bottom line here is that the only evidence they are likely to have is a story that the four year old is telling. If they had any decent physical or medical evidence, then the DA would likely be going forward with the case. Your average jury is just not going to send some guy to prison for life just on the word of a little kid. I wouldn't do that, and I would expect that nobody else who is reasonable would do it either.

So, the proposition is, cut a deal that requires that the defendant have to register as a sex offender or lose the guy altogether when the case blows up in the DA's face. Were I the DA in a case like that, I'd have done the same.

With that sentence, the judge raped the four year old all over again.