Woman Rented Daughter to Pedophile Seeks Appeal

[voivod]

ST. LOUIS, Mo. — A federal appeals court tossed out the 10-year prison sentence of a St. Louis, Mo., woman who rented her 9-year-old daughter out to a pedophile more than 200 times at $20 a session.

The court said the woman's punishment was too lenient. But until a court decides otherwise, the woman still faces a 10-year prison term.

The woman, whose name is being withheld to protect her daughter's identity, often held the girl down in their home while Joe J. Champion of Granite City, Ill., molested her, according to court documents. The daughter testified the molestation occurred about twice a week, either in the bathroom or her mother's bedroom.

The woman was typically paid $20 by Champion each time she allowed her daughter to be abused by him.

The abuse began when the daughter was nine and continued for two years, both the daughter and Champion testified, according to court documents.

The mother also often threatened to send her daughter to foster care if she didn't cooperate, reported by the St. Louis-Post Dispatch.

"The factors of this case are no less than horrifying," Judge William Jay Riley wrote in the unanimous opinion released Monday by a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals.

Champion pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

The woman, convicted by a jury in 2003 of aggravated sexual abuse and conspiring with Champion to help him molest the girl, was sentenced to 17 1/2 years in prison — the minimum provided under federal sentencing guidelines.

She appealed. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in United States v. Booker that federal sentencing guidelines were not mandatory.

So, an 8th Circuit Appeals Court judges sent her case back to U.S. District Judge Charles A. Shaw, saying he might have given her a lighter sentence if he had known he wasn't bound by the federal guidelines. The court did not, however, recommend any particular sentence or a more lenient term.

But then Shaw in December sentenced the woman to 10 years, saying mental problems and drug addiction had influenced her behavior. The judge also noted that she had taken parenting classes, had vocational training and gotten her GED while in prison.

The judge said he did not believe the woman posed a danger to the public and was unlikely to repeat the actions, according to court documents.

Prosecutors appealed that sentence, claiming it was too light and the judge's reasoning was flawed.

The 8th Circuit appeals judges agreed Monday, saying the basis of her sentence is "unreasonable" and that the district court failed to "sufficiently consider the seriousness of the offense."

This "is a mother who, for $20, repeatedly (1) sold her minor daughter to a pedophile for sexual exploitation, and (2) physically participated and restrained her daughter so the pedophile could sexually abuse her.

"It would take a very compelling justification to reduce the sentence of a mother who submits her child to such abuse," the court said.

They said Shaw had failed to consider the seriousness of a case that was "no less than horrifying" and that Shaw had inappropriately reduced the woman's sentence. The opinion's author, Riley, also wrote that there was no evidence to support Shaw's conclusion that she would not again offer her daughter up for abuse.

The woman's "belated rehabilitative efforts are not extraordinary and do not support a sentence reduction," the court said.

The woman argued that her age, criminal history, and the fact that she never sexually molested her daughter indicate a very slim chance of recidivism. But, the court said Monday, "these arguments do not exculpate or lessen the horrendous treatment to which she subjected her minor daughter for money, nor do they indicate she would not commit this type of crime again in the name of money.

"Nothing in the record supports the district court's conclusion [the woman] probably will not repeat this type of crime," the court opinion read.

Riley also said that the woman's sentence was out of proportion with Champion's.

Kevin Schriener, the woman's attorney, said Tuesday he would ask for a rehearing of the appeal.

Schriener told FOXNews.com that the broader sentencing issues raised by the case likely would ultimately be decided at the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Claiborne v. United States. That case asks the court to decide whether a sentence that is below the guidelines is reasonable and whether a sentence that varies greatly from the guidelines must be justified by extraordinary circumstances.

Movement on that case likely won't happen until February.

"I think we've got a ways to go before we get there," Schriener said.

[OLO]

That is sooooo fucked up!!

[LLFHS]

10 years is too lenient....

20 years is too lenient....

100 years is too lenient....

This woman should be fucking beheaded, along with the trash that was paying her.

[Thai Boxer 9901]

That is sooooo fucked up!!

FUBAR times 1000!

[ZeoBandit]

That is sooooo fucked up!!

You got that right!

[Dan Halen]

Burn the bitch alive.

[loveevhsince79]

She may be trying to redeem herself, as she should, but it doesn't change the crime she committed. Is that child going to be all better just because her mom got a GED? Does it erase the horrors that she endured?

[Ace Ventura]

That kid is going to be so fucked-up.... Good Lord.....

The woman should be killed. Fuck her! Waste of a life.....

[jrk5150]

Interesting issue.

What are jails for? Are they to segregate members of society who are no longer welcome? Or do they keep those that are a danger to society away from the rest of us? Are they a vehicle of punishment, or a vehicle of rehabilitation? All of the above? If they are all or some of the above, what's the right mix?

At what point should someone who truly changes stop being punished and start becoming a productive member of society again? What true purpose does continuing someone's punishment serve if they have become truly "rehabilitated"? I mean, to you or me, what's the difference between someone in for 10 years, or someone in for 15 years? Would someone sick enough to commit a crime this severe even realize jail can happen, and if so, would how long they'd go in really make an impact on their decision to commit the act? Like, if she knew she'd go to jail for 25 years she wouldn't do it, 10 years she would? As long as this woman won't do anything like it again, then it doesn't affect you or me how long she's in. So keeping her locked up would seem to be purely punitive. Is that right? What purpose does it serve, other than vengence?

I am NOT advocating her release, I'm just raising the questions. I don't have the answers. If it's my daughter, I'd say off with her head, but it's not, and this woman's sentence being 10 years or 25 years isn't going to make it more or less likely that someone else will do something to me or my family. And I'm not 100% sure that someone should be locked up to fulfill the victims sense of revenge, either.

Nope, I DEFINITELY don't have the answers to this one. But I think as a society we should better define justice and what it really is before we even try to.

[Wickett]

Interesting issue.

What are jails for? Are they to segregate members of society who are no longer welcome? Or do they keep those that are a danger to society away from the rest of us? Are they a vehicle of punishment, or a vehicle of rehabilitation? All of the above? If they are all or some of the above, what's the right mix?

At what point should someone who truly changes stop being punished and start becoming a productive member of society again? What true purpose does continuing someone's punishment serve if they have become truly "rehabilitated"? I mean, to you or me, what's the difference between someone in for 10 years, or someone in for 15 years? Would someone sick enough to commit a crime this severe even realize jail can happen, and if so, would how long they'd go in really make an impact on their decision to commit the act? Like, if she knew she'd go to jail for 25 years she wouldn't do it, 10 years she would? As long as this woman won't do anything like it again, then it doesn't affect you or me how long she's in. So keeping her locked up would seem to be purely punitive. Is that right? What purpose does it serve, other than vengence?

I am NOT advocating her release, I'm just raising the questions. I don't have the answers. If it's my daughter, I'd say off with her head, but it's not, and this woman's sentence being 10 years or 25 years isn't going to make it more or less likely that someone else will do something to me or my family. And I'm not 100% sure that someone should be locked up to fulfill the victims sense of revenge, either.

Nope, I DEFINITELY don't have the answers to this one. But I think as a society we should better define justice and what it really is before we even try to.

Good points.. Another question is what is it about this case that makes the judge think she won't commit this sort of crime again. Drug abuse? The potential is there for her to fall off the wagon, I suppose.

[loveevhsince79]

IED - I agree wholeheartedly with what you are getting at and I do think jails are a combination of many things. She is obviously working on being rehabilitated, that's cool. She is also serving time as punishment for a crime that was committed and IMO, when it's crimes against children, people should serve the maximum time allotted. She has injured another human being for the rest of their life. Never, ever will that child have any sense of normalcy in her life. It's not robbing the 7-11 for $20 for drugs, it's selling her own flesh and blood for $20 for drugs.

It will be interested to see what the Supreme Court says about it.

[jrk5150]

She is also serving time as punishment for a crime that was committed and IMO, when it's crimes against children, people should serve the maximum time allotted. She has injured another human being for the rest of their life. Never, ever will that child have any sense of normalcy in her life.

I get that, and I don't necessarily disagree. But will her being in jail another 10 or 15 years undo to the hurt she's caused? Is it going to ease her or any child's suffering?

What's done is done. The question is, how long does someone pay for a transgression, and why?

[Axxman300]

Here's the problem with letting her out early, there are thousands of other sick fuckers out there (one may even live next door to you) that would see it as a green light to do their thing.

The fact is that if she's changed for the better then she should also understand the horror and evil she enabled and accept her punishment and do her time. The fact that she wants an early release underlines the fact that she's only interested in herself.

[loveevhsince79]

I get that, and I don't necessarily disagree. But will her being in jail another 10 or 15 years undo to the hurt she's caused? Is it going to ease her or any child's suffering?

What's done is done. The question is, how long does someone pay for a transgression, and why?

LOL, well, greater minds than mine determine it that's for sure. I would assume that sentences are determined over the years by taking into consideration how heinous the crime itself is, the possibility of rehabilitation and the length of time it might take, public opinion of what is fair and just, how much of a danger the person poses to society and the person being remorseful for the crime.

You make the comment "what's done is done" and while the punishment will not ease the suffering, it's the price to be paid for doing wrong. On the most basic level such as with my own kids, if I don't follow through with a time out or taking away a priviledge, bad behavior will most certainly continue. It serves not only to teach my kids what is expected of them but when one kid gets in trouble, the other pretty quickly straightens up as well. Rule of thumb is to have the time out last one minute for each year of the childs age. Experts over the years have found the length of time that serves as discipline, teachs a lesson, is uncomfortable for the child but doesn't overdo it so that the child forgets what they did wrong in the first place. I hope we have experts who have done the same sort of calculations for criminals as well. Then it's up to the judge to consider circumstances unique to the case and adjust the sentence within reason. We in turn elect the judges so indirectly, we determine the punishment. It's not perfect but it's certainly one of the best systems going as it's continously changed.

[muffdiver]

10 years is too lenient....

20 years is too lenient....

100 years is too lenient....

This woman should be fucking beheaded, along with the trash that was paying her.

I"m with him on this one...