Mom gets 110 years for raping kids

[Guest Arnold_OldSchool]

Mom gets 110 years in rape of kids

She says her husband forced her to let him attack them, but the judge says it was her duty to leave him.

By Howard Pankratz

Denver Post Staff Writer

 

 

A woman who said she was forced to aid her husband in his rapes of two of their children was sentenced Monday to 110 years to life for her role in the crimes.

 

The victims of the rapes were her son, now 18, and one of the couple's daughters, now 10. The Denver Post is withholding the parents' names to protect the children's identities.

 

The two children night after night were led by the woman into the couple's bedroom, where they were raped by her now 60-year-old husband, according to trial testimony.

 

The assaults started on the boy when he was 5 and on the girl when she was 7.

 

The husband was sentenced in August to 200 years to life for the crimes.

 

The woman dressed her son as a schoolgirl with makeup before the assaults.

 

The daughter testified that her mother would lead her into her parents' bedroom, cover her eyes with a washcloth, lie beside her and lift her gown as she was raped by her father.

 

The woman, 40, said her husband repeatedly told her that if she and the children left, he'd kill all three of them.

 

But Denver District Judge Herbert Stern told her Monday that she had a duty to leave.

 

"I think you are the victim of horrific domestic violence, but I don't think it absolves your responsibility to protect your children and yourself," Stern said.

 

"I know you feel you protected the children," he said. "But I feel you contributed to the victimization of the children, and I believe that outweighs the horror of your own situation.

 

"Adults have to protect their children."

 

The woman is disabled and walks with a cane. She never had sexual contact with the children.

 

Denver Deputy District Attorney Kerri Lombardi said the children wanted their mother sentenced to the maximum - life in prison.

 

Her minimum sentence is 110 years, although a parole board could let her out in 60, Lombardi said.

 

During the trial, both victims showed little sympathy for their mother.

 

"She never didn't want me to do it," the girl testified.

 

 

"She was the one helping my dad."

The woman told Stern she loved her children and "tried to the best of my ability" to protect them. "I tried so hard," the woman sobbed.

 

The woman said that for nearly two decades her husband terrorized her - striking her with a closed fist, and slapping, kicking, violently grabbing and choking her, and hitting her with a TV remote control and shoes.

 

She was also shot with a "high-pressured BB gun" and made to eat soap, hot peppers and hot sauce, according to testimony.

 

During the trial, Jan Mickish, former executive director of the Colorado Domestic Violence Coalition, testified that male perpetrators of domestic violence are "goal-oriented" and use battering to terrorize and achieve control.

 

Some women think that escape isn't an option, believing that wherever they go, their abuser will find them, Mickish said.

 

On Monday, Trish Thibodo, executive director of the coalition, appeared in the courtroom to support the defendant.

 

"We feel the domestic violence has been overlooked in this case," Thibodo said. "She successfully kept the kids alive. She took the beatings to deflect (the father) from the kids."

 

The judge said he was recommending the woman be evaluated by the state hospital and Department of Corrections. He said he will then re-evaluate the sentence but warned that he doubted it would be shortened.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Why we bother incarcerating these monsters, instead of just taking them out back and shooting them, is beyond me. I'd be more than willing to pull the trigger on both parents, without a second of hesitation.

 

The only thing that might be preferable to a quick kill would be to punish them via the "eye for an eye" mentality, and just make them suffer beyond belief.

 

I can see why the wife would be scared of the husband, but what stopped her from calling the police when he wasn't around and having him arrested? He can't kill her & the kids from behind bars.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

This is kinda hot...

[CanadianChris 0]

I can see why the wife would be scared of the husband, but what stopped her from calling the police when he wasn't around and having him arrested?  He can't kill her & the kids from behind bars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When he gets out on bail, they're all dead. At least that was probably her point of view.

[Golgo 13 0]

Those are some ungrateful brats.

[Carnival 0]

Quick Question:

 

In the current justice system, is murder the only crime to warrant a Death Penalty?

 

If it is, they should include a certain degree of molestation to the list of punishible by death crimes.

[Guest Fook]

Denver Deputy District Attorney Kerri Lombardi said the children wanted their mother sentenced to the maximum - life in prison.

 

Her minimum sentence is 110 years, although a parole board could let her out in 60, Lombardi said.

 

As if there's much of a difference. She's 40 and disabled. She's not going to live another 60 years, never mind 110.

[2GOLD 0]

110 years? Why bother?

Just say "til you die"

 

God, unless someone thinks she is going to make it to 150, what was the point even giving her a number? Til you die saves time.

[Black Lushus 0]

Quick Question:

 

In the current justice system, is murder the only crime to warrant a Death Penalty?

 

If it is, they should include a certain degree of molestation to the list of punishible by death crimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i thought treason against the United States was still punishable by death? depends on the case, perhaps?

[nl5xsk1 0]

I can see why the wife would be scared of the husband, but what stopped her from calling the police when he wasn't around and having him arrested?  He can't kill her & the kids from behind bars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When he gets out on bail, they're all dead. At least that was probably her point of view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All she has to do is prove that he's a threat to her & the kids, or a threat to run, and he'd be denied bail. If nothing else she'd have plenty of time to take the kids and get out of dodge, and go somewhere safe to hide out.

 

It wouldn't be that hard to drop a dime on him and still be safe from him.

[Ted the Poster 0]

Quick Question:

 

In the current justice system, is murder the only crime to warrant a Death Penalty?

 

If it is, they should include a certain degree of molestation to the list of punishible by death crimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i thought treason against the United States was still punishable by death? depends on the case, perhaps?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some states also include certain degrees of rape as punishable by death. NC has it available for anyone who rapes a child under twelve.

[Carnival 0]

Some states also include certain degrees of rape as punishable by death. NC has it available for anyone who rapes a child under twelve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now thats a good law.

[cbacon 0]

Quick Question:

 

In the current justice system, is murder the only crime to warrant a Death Penalty?

 

If it is, they should include a certain degree of molestation to the list of punishible by death crimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh yeah, i'm sure that will work to hinder future crimes such as this.

[Black Lushus 0]

I think we should bring back Crucifixions and Iron Maidens...

 

 

 

Iron Maiden? EXCELLENT!

[Boon 0]

Fry the assholes.

[iggymcfly 0]

I really don't see the need for the death penalty here. Everyone knows that child molesters get raped more than any other prison inmates.

 

I think that kind of eye for an eye justice is more than appropriate.

[Guest cosbywasmurdered]

I can see why the wife would be scared of the husband, but what stopped her from calling the police when he wasn't around and having him arrested?  He can't kill her & the kids from behind bars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When he gets out on bail, they're all dead. At least that was probably her point of view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All she has to do is prove that he's a threat to her & the kids, or a threat to run, and he'd be denied bail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That's a very naive belief.

[Ravenbomb 0]

I really don't see the need for the death penalty here. Everyone knows that child molesters get raped more than any other prison inmates.

 

I think that kind of eye for an eye justice is more than appropriate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

werd

[nl5xsk1 0]

I can see why the wife would be scared of the husband, but what stopped her from calling the police when he wasn't around and having him arrested?  He can't kill her & the kids from behind bars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When he gets out on bail, they're all dead. At least that was probably her point of view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All she has to do is prove that he's a threat to her & the kids, or a threat to run, and he'd be denied bail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That's a very naive belief.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which part is the naive part? The threat to the family, or the threat to run? Because I know I've heard of people being denied bail for the latter; the former was just a presumption. If nothing else, the guy would be kept in jail while awaiting the bail hearing, which would give the enabler ... oops, I mean female victim ... the chance to take the kids and run.

[CanadianChick 0]

Exactly. Move to another country. God this is disgusting. I don't blame the kids for having no sympathy.

[Boon 0]

I really don't see the need for the death penalty here. Everyone knows that child molesters get raped more than any other prison inmates.

 

I think that kind of eye for an eye justice is more than appropriate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Give 'em a year of ass-raping, then fry 'em.

 

Not worth the tax dollars to keep them around, crowding the jails.

[cbacon 0]

Because frying them would cost nothing

 

Yee-haw

[2GOLD 0]

They definately aren't a candiate for rehabilation.

Been raping their own kids for 13 years (went from the boy).

 

Also

The husband was sentenced in August to 200 years to life for the crimes.

 

Come the fuck on. If the sentence goes over 125 years, it's time to just call in the death penalty for someone. He's not living to 260. It's a stupid number.

[Boon 0]

Because frying them would cost nothing 

 

Yee-haw

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

#1 Fuck the south.

 

#2 It costs a whole hell of a lot less to kill the pricks then it does to keep them in prison for life.

 

Why am I not surprised that you're the one who thinks they should be left alive?

[Sideburnious 0]

I'm pretty sure another inmate will kill them in prison before the year is out anyway. That way everyone wins.

[cbacon 0]

I highly doubt i'm the only one here that thinks they shouldn't be put to death. The death penalty is barbaric, blatantly hypocritical, morally abhorrent, proven to be ineffective and not an appropriate way for a rational enlightented society to carry out justice.

 

Also, it costs roughly more to excute people than hold them in prison when you factor in the costs of courts, appeals, etc.

[Darthtiki 0]

i thought treason against the United States was still punishable by death?  depends on the case, perhaps?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but they hardly ever enforce it. See Jane Fonda with the NVA in Vietnam

[Boon 0]

I highly doubt i'm the only one here that thinks they shouldn't be put to death. The death penalty is barbaric, [quite a peaceful death, actually] blatantly hypocritical,[we punish those who murder innocent people, we don't punish innocent people] morally abhorrent,[obviously a matter of opinion- when the crime justifies the punishment...] proven to be ineffective [death seems pretty effective to me- certainly more effective then letting convicted rapists and murderers get parole] and not an appropriate way for a rational enlightented society to carry out justice.[justice is also a matter of opinion- ask the kids who are now fucked up for the rest of their lives about that]

 

Also, it costs roughly more to excute people than hold them in prison when you factor in  the costs of courts, appeals, etc.  [not when there is nobody who wants them around]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[CanadianChick 0]

It's hypocritical in the way that the law says don't kill, yet the law kills.

 

It isn't effective because places that have the death penalty do not have lower homicide rates than those who do not.

 

I personally think that the death penality is too merciful...let them rot in jail as far as I'm concerned. Life without parole is better punishment than dying a pretty peaceful death. Fuck 'em. They don't deserve that much.

[cbacon 0]

How does punishment in this case work? We should be focusing on prevention of crimes and protection of the populace, and in all cases we should be acting in the least invasive manner possible.

 

Killing someone can't even be seen as punishment. There's no lesson to be learned by anyone. Especially since the mother and father didn't even a commit a murder so the whole 'eye for an eye' motto dosen't fly. We're perputuating more hate and we should not have a justice system bent on revenge. Rehabilitation of the offender and protection of the public should be the goals of the system. A society that rebukes revenge, punishment, and barbarity is going to, on the whole, be a better society