posted on December 1, 2004 09:55:16 PM new
Dec 1, 6:07 PM EST
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) -- A Roman Catholic priest was sentenced Wednesday to 4 1/2 to 5 years in prison for repeatedly raping an altar boy in the 1980s.
The Rev. Robert Gale pleaded guilty Tuesday to four counts of raping a child just as jury selection was set to begin for his trial.
Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of 10 to 12 years, but the judge settled on the shorter prison term, to be [/b]followed by 25 years of probation.[/b]
The sexual assaults took place at St. Jude's parish in Waltham between 1980 and 1985 when the victim, now 34, was between 10 and 15 years old. Prosecutors said the boy was sexually abused by Gale about twice a month.
"The scars of the abuse will continue to haunt me," the victim said in court. "My life has been permanently scarred."
Looking directly at Gale as his three grown sons wiped away tears, the victim's father added: "We put them in your care, we believed in you. You let us down."
Gale apologized and asked for forgiveness: "Saying sorry is very easy, but I am truly sorry."
Before he was sentenced, Gale told the judge he turned his life around after he was sent to a psychiatric hospital in 1987.
His attorney, Robert Lewin, said Gale had years of psychotherapy, quit drinking, attended college classes and worked as a substance abuse counselor. Since his indictment, Gale has been working as personnel director for a machine company, Lewin said.
Gale's attorney had tried to get the charges dismissed, arguing that by the time the charges were filed in August 2002, the 15-year statute of limitations for rape had expired.
But prosecutors said Gale had moved to New Hampshire, stopping the clock on the statute of limitations. Gale claimed he was just visiting his sister in New Hampshire and was actually living in Boston.
A judge refused to dismiss the case, clearing the way for a trial.
Gale, now 63, was one of dozens of priests accused of molestation in thousands of pages of church documents made public last year. Gale, who is still a priest, has been on administrative leave.
posted on December 2, 2004 09:05:12 AM new
He should have been given a life sentence, he certainly earned it. But in our liberal judicial system, even though it's been proven he'll most likely offend when he's released, they will say 'he's served his time, paid society back'. bunk!! All child molesters should be locked up and have the key thrown away, imo.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on December 2, 2004 09:23:16 AM new
"""""He should have been given a life sentence, he certainly earned it. But in our liberal judicial system, even though it's been proven he'll most likely offend when he's released, they """"""
And, in the conservative world of the Catholic Church child moleters were protected, hidden, their crimes covered up and they were given more victims on a platter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted on December 2, 2004 03:11:52 PM new
And, in the conservative world of the Catholic Church child moleters were protected, hidden, their crimes covered up and they were given more victims on a platter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Isn't that the ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF THE CATHLICK CHURCH!!!!!!
replay says,
"But then I also thought you said this guy got jail time. Doesn't sound like he got away with it."
If somebody raped your son/daughter several times, would you think 4.5 - 5 years would be a just sentence? I think that you probably wouldn't.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on December 2, 2004 06:27:52 PM new
I have no idea what the standard sentence for rape is, but I bet 4-5 years is probably on the high side. Especially if he's a first offender (I know this is hard to prove, but if he were being accused by a dozen people the article would say so).
"after he was sent to a psychiatric hospital in 1987."
Which also indicates there must have been something further wrong with this guy. Maybe we don't have all the information on his treatment.
And don't push me too hard to defend the Catholic Church. I'm not a big supporter of Catholics. Those people are WEIRD sometimes
posted on December 4, 2004 10:39:45 AM new
No one needs to defend anyone. Just because a FEW in any church aren't what we hoped they'd be, that is no different than those whose offend who don't have a religious affiliation. We wouldn't defend their actions either. And a FEW perverts don't speak nor act for the majority of good people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
"No one needs to defend anyone. Just because a FEW in any church aren't what we hoped they'd be, that is no different than those whose offend who don't have a religious affiliation. We wouldn't defend their actions either. And a FEW perverts don't speak nor act for the majority of good people."
It's how the Catholic Church handles the situation that matters, linda. As Crowfarm said above, "And, in the conservative world of the Catholic Church child moleters were protected, hidden, their crimes covered up and they were given more victims on a platter"
posted on December 4, 2004 11:12:28 AM new
A few months ago I watched an investigative report on the Jehovahs Witnesses and sexual abuse cover-ups within the congregation when some of the Elders abused young boys and how they protect the men.
Here is part of another recent report and the rest can be found at the link below.
November 22. 2004 8:15AM
When Sara Poission suspected her husband was abusing their daughters 20 years ago, she took her fears to the leaders of her Jehovah's Witness congregation in Wilton. Poisson regrets deeply that she followed the advice she says she received: Pray more, be a better wife and keep quiet.
"I was a puppet," said Poisson, now of Claremont. "It was 'God says you are a screw-up, so fix yourself and it will stop.'"
The church never reported Poisson's former husband, Paul Berry, to state officials. A school teacher did, after noticing one child's injuries, and Berry is serving 56 to 112 years in state prison for physical and sexual abuse. The church publicly supported Berry during his trial. Poission said she was kicked out of the church for cooperating with investigators.
Her daughters, now in their 20s, are suing the church in a case that is pending before the state Supreme Court.
The Jehovah's Witness policy requires two eyewitnesses to abuse - or a molester's confession -before the church sanctions a molester. A young child cannot be his own witness. When someone is found guilty by the elders, the rest of the congregation cannot be told because doing so would be a sin, according to the church's interpretation of the Bible. A molester may be allowed to remain an active member, if he repents. In some cases, molesters have been appointed as church leaders again.
"These people make the Catholics look like saints," said Bill Bowen of Kentucky, a former Jehovah's Witness leader who started a Web site in 2001 to monitor child abuse inside the church after he says he caught the church in a cover-up.
posted on December 4, 2004 11:51:05 AM new
gee, helen, I sure didn't see anyone DEFENDING it.
The same coverup happens in families where people try to hide this inappropriate behavior. In the Catholic church their families are other priests...in families the father, step-parent, uncle etc. is the one some will try to protect/enable. No difference at all.
Perverts are in all group....we even have some here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on December 4, 2004 02:39:56 PM new
linduh says, """But in our liberal judicial system, even though it's been proven he'll most likely offend when he's released, they """"
Then she says, """" Just because a FEW in any church aren't what we hoped they'd be, that is no different than those whose offend who don't have a religious affiliation. We wouldn't defend their actions either. And a FEW perverts don't speak nor act for the majority of good people.""""
Describing child molesters as """aren't what we hoped they'd be,""" is plain stupid but then she, again, twists it around so that the "liberal judicial system"""" is bad but the CONSERVATIVE church which hid, supported and aided the criminals is OK because there's only a "few" of them.
This is NOT a religious issue so quit trying to make it one because you lost the argument.
This is a Liberal/Conservative issue and once again I stuck a pin in your narrow minded balloon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
posted on December 4, 2004 05:04:43 PM new
replay says,
"I have no idea what the standard sentence for rape is, but I bet 4-5 years is probably on the high side."
The article says,
"4 1/2 to 5 years in prison for REPEATEDLY RAPING an altar boy in the 1980s."
"victim, now 34, was between 10 and 15 years old. Prosecutors said the boy was sexually abused by Gale about TWICE A MONTH."
Now replay I have to ask you. Do you really think that he should be so lightly sentenced for repeatedly raping a child over a period of years? If somebody raped your son (if any) even ONCE, would you be satisfied for such a light sentence? I really don't think you would if this ever hit close to home. However, in your conservative pro-church mindset, this is just fine when a priest does it. Right?
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on December 5, 2004 09:35:05 AM new
Too bad he didn't sell the altar boy some grass. Then the courts would have given him a much lengthier sentence 'to protect society'.
__________
The Democrats were rejected by a majority of Americans
posted on December 5, 2004 12:13:03 PM new
"4 1/2 to 5 years in prison for REPEATEDLY RAPING an altar boy in the 1980s."
"victim, now 34, was between 10 and 15 years old. Prosecutors said the boy was sexually abused by Gale about TWICE A MONTH."
I am obviously not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that violence has a big impact on sentencing. If the boy kept going back for more every other week, I doubt violence was used to force the boy into it.
It's certainly an abuse of the Priest's position, but this does not sound like a VIOLENT CRIME.
This article is also ambiguous about what exactly took place. The words "rape", "molestation", and "abuse" all occur in the article. There actually is a big difference between these three terms at least in my point of view.
"sexual abuse" or "molestation" can easily be applied to groping or fondling. But groping and fondling certainly aren't considered "rape".
"...THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE..."
Is ignored by the liberal courts just like every other sentencing guidline. The real test is what sentence do "normal" rapists and sexual offenders get.
--------------------------------------
Brian S. - "God's own emissary to the Vendio heathens"
posted on December 5, 2004 01:57:57 PM new
replay says,
"If the boy kept going back for more every other week, I doubt violence was used to force the boy into it."
I can't believe you made that statement. Don't you think that a 10 year old boy is very impressionable in the eyes of an authority figure that he has been taught (or in some cases) brainwashed to respect. There is a chance that the priest has threatened violence towards the boy too. The rapist might have convinced him this was OK to do.
It seems to me that someone LIKE YOU made this comment in the thread titled Another Brave Teenager.
replaymedia posted on December 1, 2004 08:38:46 AM
7th grade=12 years old. Explain to me how a twelve year old "knew she was gay."Talk about parents not instilling values!!!!
Then in the same thread when fenix asked you this.
"So tell us replay... at what age did you start becoming attracted to others? Did your parents suddenly give you clearance on a specific birthday to fell sexual attraction? What do parents have to do with a persons sexual attractions?"
And replay you replied.....
replaymedia posted on December 1, 2004 09:45:20 AM
As far as I can remember, I would guess it hit me at about age twelve, the same age as the girl in question.
I certainly can't say I understood everything about it at the time. If all my friends had been attracted to the opposite sex and I was not, I would be confused. It would take TIME to sort these things out.
So replay,
Did you have sexual feeling toward adult men at the age of twelve? If you say that you couldn't understand everything your sexuality at the time, then why would you expect a 10 year old boy to understand any act of sex. If it would take you TIME to sort these things out at twelve, then why wouldn't it take TIME for a 10 year old boy? Are you condoning this practice of this priest.
Also, I noticed that you didn't answer my question about the molestation of your son. What if someone just pulled his pants down and fondled him? Would that be OK with you? Would that upset you? Is that a non violent crime?
The fact is that it may be physically non violent, but it is emotionally violent toward the victim.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on December 5, 2004 02:34:57 PM new
I never said he understood it, I simply stated that violence was probably not used. Threats MAY have been involved. But if the priest was VIOLENTLY raping this child, why would the child keep going back? No one noticed any marks or bruises?
Now the most likely scenario is that the perverted priest convinced the child that what they were doing was a good thing. It MAY or MAY NOT have felt wrong to the child at the time. Certainly when the child became old enough to understand things better, he realized what had been done to him.
My one and olny simple point in my previous post was that this was not a VIOLENT crime and therefore the courts decided on a light sentence.
"The fact is that it may be physically non violent, but it is emotionally violent toward the victim."
Did this crime involve emotional violence? Of course it did. But it's not in the same league as the VIOLENT raping of a woman in a back alley somewhere. Is a white-collar embezzlement of money the same as robbing a convenience store with a gun? They're both theft, but it's just not the same level of crime.
Unless you post statistics that show this priests sentence was shorter than a typical Michigan rapist would get, I'm considering this point won.
"Also, I noticed that you didn't answer my question about the molestation of your son. What if someone just pulled his pants down and fondled him? Would that be OK with you?"
Would that upset you? Is that a non violent crime? "
Yes, that is a non-violent crime. It doesn't mean it is NOT a crime, because it obviously is. Would it upset me? Certainly. I would press charges, testify and do whatever it took to get the sicko put behind bars. It would be a crime that deserves punishment.
If my child were the victim of an actual violent rape, I would probably be angry enough to kill the rapist and actually follow through on that threat.
So obviously the two crimes are NOT the same in my eyes, and if you say they are, you're just trolling for more argument.
--------------------------------------
Brian S. - "God's own emissary to the Vendio heathens"
posted on December 5, 2004 03:57:35 PM new
Yes I do agree that there is a difference between violent and non violent crimes. But the fact is there are still a victim in the crime of sexual misconduct. That misconduct includes any degree of rape.
You asked for infomation on Michigan's rape laws. Here is a page that I found for you concerning that. It's from State Senator Jay Costa Jr. of Pennsylvania.
Costa, who serves as Democratic Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida already have laws that authorize life sentences for raping young children.
Prevent Bigotry through Education.