Rapist Too Important for Prison?

In the Supreme Court case Coker v. Georgia (1977), the court considered the legitimacy of applying the death penalty to rape.  The court was divided in the end, but the opinions of the court did not hesitate to classify rape as an immensely egregious offense.  Writing for the majority (which ultimately considered the death penalty too strong a punishment for rape), Justice White penned the following:

We do not discount the seriousness of rape as a crime. It is highly reprehensible, both in a moral sense and in its almost total contempt for the personal integrity and autonomy of the female victim and for the latter’s privilege of choosing those with whom intimate relationships are to be established. Short of homicide, it is the “ultimate violation of self.”  It is also a violent crime because it normally involves force, or the threat of force or intimidation, to overcome the will and the capacity of the victim to resist.  Rape is very often accompanied...by physical injury to the female and can also inflict mental and psychological damage... Rape is without doubt deserving of serious punishment.

Deserving of serious punishment...but not for a rapist with a background of work with stroke and brain-injury victims, according to Judge Rayford Means of Philadelphia.  This rapist is "too important" for that, so he gets house-arrest and probation. 

Justice seems to require something more. 

In Pennsylvania law, which is properly reflective of the gravity of the assault, rape is a felony of the first degree alongside extremely violent crime involving "serious bodily injury," which is defined as, "Injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a body member or organ." (See here and here for details.) 

Given this, what would the judge have done if the rapist had instead bashed one of his stroke-patients in the head, with permanent injury resulting?  Would Judge Means have reduced the sentence in that case?  Would he have assuaged the victim with, "Well, he did help you to recover from your stroke, right?" 

Somehow I doubt it.  But Means seems to have adopted the singularly strange notion of prior good deeds "building up credit" for bad ones - at least when it comes to rape.

Even more to the point: In '77, justices were debating whether or not to apply the death penalty--THE DEATH PENALTY--to rape.  Less than 30 years later, Means is slapping a rakehell on the wrist for the same crime.  It's an outrage.

"[T]he ultimate violation of self," next to homicide, requires a stronger response.  Judge Means isn't fit to judge much at all, if he can't see that.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin and nyominx.

____________________________________________
* Edited for additional commentary, 3/4/05 9:01 PM.

# UPDATE 3/7/05 9:25 PM:

Click here for additional, up-to-date news coverage.  In particular, the AP is reporting that

The same month a prospective student reported being raped by a University of Pennsylvania professor, co-workers confronted the acclaimed researcher over his conduct with women, according to school documents submitted by prosecutors Friday.

Penn never told prosecutors investigating the case about the November 2002 intervention and only forced Tracy McIntosh to resign in December after he pleaded no contest to sexual assault, prosecutors said.

Penn officials defended the university's actions.

It looks as if this website will allow interested parties to send a FAX to Judge Means.  Click here to see recent faxes to him.

What else can be done?  How about contacting Pennsylvania Senators Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter, or Gov. Rendell?  Tell them about your disgust with Rayford Means' decision in this case.