Carl Granderson sentenced to 6 months (4 Viewers)

[StudioSaint]

I think we’re at a place where you are both correct given evidence at hand
But there’s not enough evidence to prove The other one wrong

One of the takeaways I wish people would arrive at is that ‘the way things were’ was probably not the best
What is most likely is that most of us engaged in sexual intimidation and maybe even sexual assault when we thought girls were ‘playing hard to get’
They were just socialized to go along instead of risking anger or the eventual social shaming

I agree and I know I engaged in it a few times. I've made my amends with the women I did it to. Their reactions ranged individually from "nothing to forgive" to "I'll never forgive you." All of their reactions and how they felt were valid.

It was one of the hardest and most frightening things I've ever done. It's not easy for a caring and considerate person to admit and own up to the times that they were uncaring and inconsiderate toward another person in the pursuit of satisfying their own desires, especially if they are afraid they might be sued or go to jail for it.

 

[lapaz]

Then why plead guilty and accept the deal in the first place? Because he should have stopped what he was doing earlier in the encounter and hopefully knows it now. It is not contested that he committed sexual battery and unlawful contact. He did that. It is a crime. The judge didn't upgrade him back to felony charges that will be on his record forever, but apparently felt that some jail time was warranted. I'm not pretending to know her reasons.

And I'm sorry for what happened to you. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. We all have a right to say who gets to touch our bodies. That wasn't afforded you and that sucks.

He may have pled because he’s black and may not trust the legal system. He may not have been given good legal council. There may be more to the story than what is stated in the police report, but based on the limited information, the punishment far outweighs the offense.

 

[StudioSaint]

...the punishment far outweighs the offense.

This belief is not supported by the actual facts of the plea agreement, the laws of Wyoming, and their sentencing guidelines.

 

[lapaz]

This belief is not supported by the actual facts of the plea agreement, the laws of Wyoming, and their sentencing guidelines.

That’s where jurisprudence comes in. The facts as stated would require many defending the judgement to also now be identified as sexual predators. That fact alone makes it apparent that this punishment is outrageous, because I doubt most of y’all that committed similar offenses are actually predators.

 

[StudioSaint]

That’s where jurisprudence comes in. The facts as stated would require many defending the judgement to also now be identified as sexual predators. That fact alone makes it apparent that this punishment is outrageous, because I doubt most of y’all that committed similar offenses are actually predators.

Previously quoted facts of the case and the judge's ruling:

But Kricken rejected them and ordered Granderson to begin immediately serving six months in the Albany County Detention Center on the count of unlawful contact. Kricken also gave Granderson a one-year jail sentence on the sexual battery charge, but that will be suspended with one year of supervised probation once he has completed his six months of incarceration.

Kricken addressed Granderson one last time before issuing the sentence, telling him that “making bad choices doesn’t make you a bad person.” But Kricken added that Granderson had shown little remorse for his actions and that punishment should be doled out that’s severe enough to deter him from repeating them in the future.

Now let's be sure we are all on the same page with the legal usage of the term of sexual predator:

Definition of Sexual Predator

A state may or may not provide a definition for "sexual predator" in its statutes. Generally, a sex offender or sexual predator is a person who commits a sexual offense like rape. A sexually violent predator is a person who commits a sexual offense and also has a diagnosed mental health disorder.

legalbeagle.com

While the term "sexual predator" is sometimes used to describe anybody who obtains sexual contact via less-than-honest means, the term has a clear legal connotation, as well. Used to refer to both potential sex criminals and those who have a history of committing sexual crimes, the term is sometimes confusing to those outside law enforcement.

Nothing about this case has anything to do with Granderson being accused of being a sexual predator or identified as being a sexual predator, nor does his conviction and sentencing identify him as a sexual predator.

The judge made it clear she doesn't think Granderson is a bad person, so I think it's safe to belief she doesn't think he's a sexual predator. Other posters who believe the judges ruling is appropriate have all made it clear they don't think he's a bad person, so again I think it's safe to believe they don't think he's a sexual predator. Speaking for myself, I don't think he's a sexual predator.

How do you see the science or philosophy of law requiring that those of us who have been defending the judgement have to identify ourselves as sexual predators?

 

[lapaz]

Previously quoted facts of the case and the judge's ruling:

​

​

Now let's be sure we are all on the same page with the legal usage of the term of sexual predator:

Definition of Sexual Predator

A state may or may not provide a definition for "sexual predator" in its statutes. Generally, a sex offender or sexual predator is a person who commits a sexual offense like rape. A sexually violent predator is a person who commits a sexual offense and also has a diagnosed mental health disorder.

legalbeagle.com

​

Nothing about this case has anything to do with Granderson being accused of being a sexual predator or identified as being a sexual predator, nor does his conviction and sentencing identify him as a sexual predator.

The judge made it clear she doesn't think Granderson is a bad person, so I think it's safe to belief she doesn't think he's a sexual predator. Other posters who believe the judges ruling is appropriate have all made it clear they don't think he's a bad person, so again I think it's safe to believe they don't think he's a sexual predator. Speaking for myself, I don't think he's a sexual predator.

How do you see the science or philosophy of law requiring that those of us who have been defending the judgement have to identify ourselves as sexual predators?

Will he have to register as a sexual offender? If so, then whether I say he's now considered a sexual predator or the judge and you just say he's a person who made a bad choice is irrelevant. If so, his life is now forever negatively impacted for touching a woman in his bed a second time.

 

[StudioSaint]

Will he have to register as a sexual offender?

No, he won't. I've posted the judge's sentence twice. Did you not read it?

Any talk of anyone being labeled as a sexual predator is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[tomwaits]

No, he won't. I've posted the judge's sentence twice. Did you not read it?

Any talk of anyone being labeled as a sexual predator is irrelevant to this discussion.

Well, except in the court of public opinion where it will be mentioned heavily... so not really irrelevant at all.

 

[GeauxWhoDats]

 

[lapaz]

No, he won't. I've posted the judge's sentence twice. Did you not read it?

Any talk of anyone being labeled as a sexual predator is irrelevant to this discussion.

I’ve read most but not everything you’ve posted. Point me to what doesn’t require Sanderson to register as a sexual offender.

With that said, I know he was convicted of sexual battery, and many states require such crimes to register. Requiring these type of relatively innocuous transgressions to register waters down the value of those registers which should be used to identify people that are truly dangerous.

I believe Henderson, his on and off girlfriend, is right that these women are being malicious. A misdemeanor and a fine for being uncouth is enough punishment. He crossed the line, but it is a very minor transgression. The complaints from the women about how they were subsequently treated has nothing to do with the transgression, but the women cited that as a basis for why he should be punished. That’s wrong, because Granderson didn’t commit any crime after the original transgression.

 

[crosswatt]

I’ve read most but not everything you’ve posted. Point me to what doesn’t require Sanderson to register as a sexual offender.

With that said, I know he was convicted of sexual battery, and many states require such crimes to register. Requiring these type of relatively innocuous transgressions to register waters down the value of those registers which should be used to identify people that are truly dangerous.

But Kricken rejected them and ordered Granderson to begin immediately serving six months in the Albany County Detention Center on the count of unlawful contact.
His jail sentence is for the misdemeanor unlawful contact. It shouldn't follow him past this in terms of legal standing.

 

[tomwaits]

I don't understand how they went back to sleep in the bed after being assaulted. If someone assaults me in my sleep, I am not going to wake up and stop it and then go back to sleep.
Not saying this should have had any legal bearing on the case, but it is definitely odd.

 

[lapaz]

But Kricken rejected them and ordered Granderson to begin immediately serving six months in the Albany County Detention Center on the count of unlawful contact.
His jail sentence is for the misdemeanor unlawful contact. It shouldn't follow him past this in terms of legal standing.

You only quoted the first part of the paragraph from the Tribune. Here is the entire paragraph:
“But Kricken rejected them and ordered Granderson to begin immediately serving six months in the Albany County Detention Center on the count of unlawful contact. Kricken also gave Granderson a one-year jail sentence on the sexual battery charge, but that will be suspended with one year of supervised probation once he has completed his six months of incarceration.”

Based on this, he was convicted of sexual battery.

 

[Fanincowboyland]

I personally think if Granderson would have done what he did to one of the women and not the other, we probably wouldn't even be talking about this today. He didn't cross the line once, but he did it twice. I think justice was served in this case. I don't know what people mean when they say these women were malicious. They apparently were hounded by people to drop the charges. Most victims want revenge before they decide to forgive. I don't think there is anything unusual about the victims attitude. Just because most women once let these things go, because no one would listen to them, doesn't mean that was right. Times have changed and he just became a big object lesson for a lot of people. Like others have said, I don't think this shoud in any way derail his life beyond the sentence that he serves, but I know it often does because we paint all ex-cons as bad people, but that is a totally seperate problem with our society.

 

[crosswatt]

You only quoted the first part of the paragraph from the Tribune. Here is the entire paragraph:
“But Kricken rejected them and ordered Granderson to begin immediately serving six months in the Albany County Detention Center on the count of unlawful contact. Kricken also gave Granderson a one-year jail sentence on the sexual battery charge, but that will be suspended with one year of supervised probation once he has completed his six months of incarceration.”

Based on this, he was convicted of sexual battery.

He plead no contest to that charge. It was part of the plea deal. She didn't do anything.