News: How Likely is Jack Schaap to Get a Sentence Reduction?

News: How Likely is Jack Schaap to Get a Sentence Reduction? July 8, 2014
Schaap’s victim was a teenager, not a small child, but these words are as true for her as they are for the child pictured

Jack Schaap Molests Teenaged Girls, Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church covers up for sexual predator pastors, Jack Schaap victim blames sexual history

The response includes several excerpts from Schaap’s September 2012 plea hearing, at which U.S. District Court Judge Rudy Lozano quizzed him about whether he understood that the government was going to recommend a 10-year sentence but that the judge did not have to follow that recommendation. The judge also questioned Schaap as to whether anyone had made him promises about what his sentence would be.

“At no time during the change of plea hearing did (Schaap) express confusion regarding the minimum sentence he faced or suggest (as he conveniently does now) that he believed 10 years to be the maximum,” the government says in its filing.

Sounds like buyers remorse from here. Jack Schaap did what his attorneys recommended, it didn’t work out like they told him it likely would and now that the reality has settled in he’s whining and trying to claim all sorts of nasty inappropriate things. Like this:

Schaap also claims his sentence violates his constitutional rights because it is cruel and unusual punishment, and the sentence should be reduced because the girl was sexually experienced.

Federal trial rules prohibit evidence about a victim’s sexual past in such a case, and a defendant cannot use that as a defense in the case of a minor, according to the government’s response, which also notes that Schaap’s 12-year term is two years less than the 14 years that federal sentencing guidelines recommend for such an offense.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Jack Schaap violated the Mann Act by his own admission and that carries with it a penality of being incarcerated in federal prison. How is that either cruel or unusual? Did he think he was going to be allowed to go to white collar country club prison for a few years?

Plus, again, SHE WAS A MINOR he exploited for personal sexual advantage when he was supposed to be counseling her for past sexual abuse. Major violations there, buddy! The only legal bearing her past sexual history should properly have on this case is illustrating his gross abuse of his position.

Question of the day: Does Schaap stand any chance of getting his sentence reduced? Any lawyers out there?

Read the rest of the article at Chicago Sun-Times Post Tribune

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Trollface McGee

    I don’t think it has much merit.
    When you take a plea, you are explained your rights, you have to affirmatively waive your rights in order for a plea to go through on the record and your attorney has likely talked to you, in detail, that a plea means no trial and that the judge is the one who decides the penalty(unless there’s been a binding stipulation that the judge has agreed to). Most judges take that quite seriously and will not let a plea go forward unless it is clear that the defendant has full and informed consent.
    I had a case where there was an elderly dying gentleman who had some problems with cognition. Both the state and I and he wanted to do a plea deal because it was clear that he would not get jail time and it was a hardship for him to have to sit in court or to have to come back. It took us a full two hours until the state just gave up and dismissed the case since we were never going to establish sufficient informed consent. That’s how seriously most judges take things like that.
    As far as the “cruel and unusual punishment?” Hahahahahahaha, yeah, no. And rape shield laws would prohibit any reference to the victim’s sexual experience, minor or not.

  • Astrin Ymris

    Bringing up the victim’s past is a reflection of the patriarchal view of rape– the victim’s claim is based on the rapist having “stolen” the virginity needed to bargain for an honorable marriage, (or the fidelity needed to prove that her children were the actual heirs of her husband). Thus the Old Testament demand that rapists marry their victims. In their minds, that means that she’s been fully compensated for her “loss”.

    But if a non-virgin is raped… well, she hasn’t “lost” anything, or rather, the rapist ISN’T the one who took it from her, so she has no claim to compensation. Her terror, shame, agony, and violation has no standing in the patriarchal view of rape,

    And that’s the worldview Jack Schaap is trying to invoke in a 21st Century courtroom when he demands his sentence be reduced due to his victims “prior sexual experience”. We can only hope his appeals are heard by 21st century judges who aren’t swayed by that disgusting misogyny.

  • SAO

    What he’s basically saying is abuse victims are fair game. Frankly, I hope he gets another 10 years just for the thought.

  • Catherine

    Heaven help him if it goes before a jury.

  • Trollface McGee

    He took a deal, which in most cases, is done to avoid a trial so that phase is over. It looks like he’s asking for a judge to modify his sentence or overturn it.
    Which in some ways is good. I don’t see any legal merit to his claims and a judge has to look at the legal merits and not “oh look what a nice Christian man he is.”