Rapist Who Preyed on Men Gets 99 Years

[Roxie]

Wow, check it out.
A man convicted this week of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old boy at gunpoint was sentenced to 99 years in prison Thursday after he apologized for that attack and the rapes of four other young men.

In a written statement read in court, Keith Hill also said he decided to assault men rather than women because ''it would be less hard on them.'' Hill, 20, was convicted Tuesday of assaulting one of five young men he had confessed to raping during an eight-month spree in 2006 in Baytown, Texas.

Earlier, the defense had disputed his confession to police, but in the trial's punishment phase Hill said he deeply regrets the attacks and hopes his victims ''find it in their heart to forgive me.''

''It would not happen if I did not have mental issues,'' Hill said. He added that he had prayed to both God and the devil for instruction.

Hill blamed his aggressive behavior on an incident when he was 13, when a ''white guy in his 40s'' knocked on his door and said, ''We're going to have some fun.'' He said he screamed and ran away after the man touched his ''personal areas.''

The victim in the case that went to trial testified Monday that he thought he was going to die in the attack, which began when Hill abducted him from his driveway as the victim searched for something in his car.

The victim said he was blindfolded with duct tape, his hands were tied behind his back with zip ties, and he was forced in the back seat of an SUV. There the assailant forced him to perform oral sex and hit him on the back of the head with a gun eight or nine times.

Another victim testified Wednesday in the punishment phase that Hill had taken degrading photos of him and threatened to post them on the Internet if he talked.

The Associated Press generally does not identify victims of sexual assault.

Hill described feeling conflicted even as he committed the crimes, saying he struck two of his victims after assaulting them because he was ''upset at them for doing what I told them to do.''

His attorney, Laine Lindsey, had sought probation for his client, saying none of the victims claimed any ''lifelong trauma.''

Prosecutor Cameron Calligan countered, ''Nobody should have to go through what these young men did.''

The attacks spread fear in Baytown, an oil-refining town of 70,000 people about 30 miles east of Houston, and piqued the interest of those who study the criminal mind because the attacker preyed on men, something of a rarity in the world of crime.

The U.S. Justice Department says one in 33 men in the United States has been a victim of a rape or attempted rape, compared with one in six women. Experts say men are far less likely to report a rape because they fear being perceived as weak. (AP) (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hKq2kvf6SCCFmrCG7egQ5_UQqjjQD8U7VU4G0)


A typical comment
I have mixed feelings about this - why did he get so many years when men who rape women get so little? There does not appear to be any particularly extenuating circumstances in this situation - so that seriously pisses me off. On the other hand, if this does anything remotely to raise awareness of the rape of males that will be the one positive thing to come out of it. The media acts like it never happens, sexual harassment trainings say that it is extremely rare, and it's still ok to make jokes about it. One day that particular issue will have its lid blown off and we will ALL be better off for it.

I certainly do not agree with "extenuating circumstances" part, as I believe being kidnapped and held gun point to be quite extenuating. But the general feeling of this comment, anger about those who rape women receiving much lesser sentences, glad that this guy did get such a serious sentence, and desire for this topic to be taken more seriously, are what I have been seeing. What do you think?

[SlickWilly440]

Wow, I'm ashamed to be a Texan, due to this even.

Why sentence someone to 99 year's of prison, stead of life in prison? Sure there is a slight chance that he might live to be 119 years old and get out, but chances are unlikely.

Plus what happens if he dies before he carries out the 99 year sentence?

[Roxie]

Plus what happens if he dies before he carries out the 99 year sentence?
What do you mean "what happens"?
He dies, he's dead, the end.

His personal affects are returned to the family, if there is any.

[SlickWilly440]

Well I always thought that inmates who die before serving their full sentence are taken to some special section of the prison where they are left to rot until their sentence is fully served. Then their remains would be released for burial.

So I just had to ask.

[Shishio]

I certainly do not agree with "extenuating circumstances" part, as I believe being kidnapped and held gun point to be quite extenuating.

I suspect the poster was speaking relatively. As in, yes, to be raped at gunpoint is certainly a very aggravating set of circumstances to have to endure, but it's not, as far as this type of thing goes, abnormal. In fact, I imagine it's quite common, so it's unfair that one rapist gets a much longer than normal sentence than other rapists when the only real difference between him and most other rapists is that his victims were of the same gender as himself.

To me, his getting such a long sentence reeks of sexism and bigotry.

[Chuckles]

That ^


Raping a man is no worse or better than raping a woman. Then again, real sexual equality doesn't exist anyways so whining about it won't help anything.

[Shuft]

Well I always thought that inmates who die before serving their full sentence are taken to some special section of the prison where they are left to rot until their sentence is fully served. Then their remains would be released for burial.

So I just had to ask.Yep, they keep the remains in a soul-proof cell. That keeps the individual from going to their afterlife until they do their time. Atheists are the only ones that get away with the shortened sentence since they just stop existing.

[belladonna]

Wow, I'm ashamed to be a Texan, due to this even.

Why sentence someone to 99 year's of prison, stead of life in prison? Sure there is a slight chance that he might live to be 119 years old and get out, but chances are unlikely.

Plus what happens if he dies before he carries out the 99 year sentence?
life is not always meant to be the lifespan of the criminal, either, that's why people can get multiple life sentences

[MNJetter]

I certainly do not agree with "extenuating circumstances" part, as I believe being kidnapped and held gun point to be quite extenuating.
to be raped at gunpoint is certainly a very extenuating set of circumstances to have to endure
:rofl:
Do you guys know exactly what "extenuating" means? I don't think you meant to say that being kidnapped and held at gunpoint are circumstances that lessen the severity of a crime or justify a lighter punishment.

[Citizen]

Well I always thought that inmates who die before serving their full sentence are taken to some special section of the prison where they are left to rot until their sentence is fully served. Then their remains would be released for burial.

So I just had to ask.

There is not a facepalm.jpg large enough for that.

[Kaji]

Kind of ironic people are talking about how he's getting it extra hard for having raped a man instead of a woman here, considering raping a woman was punishable by death outright for at least half the 20th century in many places...

[Shishio]

I don't think you meant to say that being kidnapped and held at gunpoint are circumstances that lessen the severity of a crime or justify a lighter punishment.

I didn't, at least.

What I meant is that the punishment should fit the crime and saying otherwise when the only significant difference between two given crimes is that one criminal preyed on victims the same gender as himself very likely means you're a sexist bigot.

Kind of ironic people are talking about how he's getting it extra hard for having raped a man instead of a woman here, considering raping a woman was punishable by death outright for at least half the 20th century in many places...

First of all, we're talking about crime and punishment today, and second, whose to say being put to death is worse or better than 99 years in prison?

[Digital Masta]

Why sentence someone to 99 year's of prison, stead of life in prison? Sure there is a slight chance that he might live to be 119 years old and get out, but chances are unlikely.

Is it harder to come up for parole that way? Isn't that the purpose of sentencing some people to a ridiculous amount of years. I remember way back someone getting 3000 years.

[belladonna]

Is it harder to come up for parole that way? Isn't that the purpose of sentencing some people to a ridiculous amount of years. I remember way back someone getting 3000 years.
that's exactly the point of it... they try to make it so that he can't get out to do it again

[Citizen]

Adding years to a sentence doesn't stop parole. Only being imprisoned in a state that has abolished parole (Texas hasn't) or recieving a "without parole" sentence can stop parole.

Though the chances of him being paroled are highly unlikely, and if he is, it'll be when he's a senior citizen, which is fairly common, as seniors are generally no longer considered threats to society by the justice system.

[Pierrot le Fou]

He assaulted and raped 5 people, some with a deadly weapon. There is absolutely no reason that 99 years is abnormal or excessive.

[Digital Masta]

He assaulted and raped 5 people, some with a deadly weapon. There is absolutely no reason that 99 years is abnormal or excessive.

I would've gave him 100... a nice even number.

[Citizen]

He assaulted and raped 5 people, some with a deadly weapon. There is absolutely no reason that 99 years is abnormal or excessive.

You sexist!

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

You sexist!
In a written statement read in court, Keith Hill also said he decided to assault men rather than women because ''it would be less hard on them.''
That's some rather flawed reasoning. I think he's the sexist.

[Citizen]

Are you saying that my reasoning is flawed or that PLF's reasoning is flawed? Because I was just kidding and actually agree with PLF. People are claiming that the sentencing had a sexist bias, but when you look at how much he was convicted with, it really doesn't seem to.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

^ Neither of you actually. I agree with the both of you.(somehow) I was referring to the rapist himself and his reasoning behind raping men instead of women. That's kind of sexist imo, that a man could take being violated by another man better than a woman could.

[Citizen]

Well yeah, of course that part is sexist. People have just been ignoring it because it doesn't really have any bearing on the sentencing, which is the topic causing controversy.

[Mastiker]

Well what does a man who rapes 5 women usually get for a sentence?

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

Well yeah, of course that part is sexist. People have just been ignoring it because it doesn't really have any bearing on the sentencing, which is the topic causing controversy.

Couldn't the judge put Hill's amount of premeditation into account since he chose his victims through gender and not neccessarily because of his sexual orientation. As in, his sentence would be longer because he didn't rape on a whim/opportune time. I guess that might not matter but anything goes to plead your case.

[Chuckles]

You should go find out Mastiker.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

Well what does a man who rapes 5 women usually get for a sentence?
Less than 99 years probably. I don't feel like researching but I think 30-40 years is somewhat the norm for a serial rapist. In fact, I think there have been cases where the rapist killed the victim afterwards and has gotten less time.

[Citizen]

Urameshi: Yes, he could, but I doubt that anyone would argue against taking premeditation into account anyway, so it's still not the cause of the controversy. In fact, it just supports the theory that the sentence wasn't excessive. Besides, the fact that he did it multiple times already suggests premeditation. Rape doesn't happen on a whim five times in a row.

Mastiker: I'll look for something. Wiki failed me. Until then, some food for thought:

There is no national rape law in the United States. Each state has its own laws concerning sexual aggression. Nor is there any national standard in the US for defining and reporting male-male or female-perpetrated rapes. More than half the states use traditional sex-specific rape law, limited to male perpetration against females.

Who gets the short end of the stick again?

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

"Texas Rape Case Provides Chilling Proof The State Is Reluctant To Admit Mistakes" (http://www.commondreams.org/views/070400-104.htm)
Roy Criner, a Texas logger, is serving a 99-year sentence for the brutal rape of a 16-year-old girl, despite strong evidence that he didn't do it. Two DNA tests - one of them ordered by the prosecutor who won the conviction in 1990 - prove that the semen taken from the victim's body wasn't Criner's.
So when does Criner come home to his family? Well, I've just seen a rebroadcast of a gripping PBS "Frontline" program on the case, and my advice to the family is: Don't leave the light on.

No one in authority seems interested in seeking Criner's release - or even in re-trying him - not because they have much reason to be certain the right man was convicted but because the trial was technically "fair." This notwithstanding the fact that he was convicted almost entirely on the inconsistent testimony of three men who said Criner told them he'd had sex with - not raped - a hitchhiker he'd picked up. Investigators merely assumed that (1) the account was true and (2) the sexual conquest was the 16-year-old victim. The only physical evidence was blood that might have come from Criner or from millions of other people.

Two exchanges from the "Frontline" program, first broadcast in January, suggest the official attitude. The first is between "Frontline" producer Ofra Bikel and District Attorney Michael McDougal.

BIKEL: "So now your lab has told you (the semen) is not his."

McDOUGAL: "Right."

BIKEL: "So what are you going to do about it?"

McDOUGAL: "Nothing. It's not his."

BIKEL: "But he's still in prison."

McDOUGAL: "He's still in prison."

BIKEL: "And he will stay there?"

McDOUGAL: "And he will stay there.''

BIKEL: "(The fact that the semen was not his) doesn't make any difference?"

McDOUGAL: "No, it doesn't make any difference. I'm not going to argue with you. I've told you, and I've explained to you what it is. It means the sperm found in her was not his. It doesn't mean he didn't rape her, doesn't mean he didn't kill her."

The second exchange is with Judge Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, who wrote the majority opinion denying Criner's appeal of his conviction.

KELLER: "The evidence didn't show that he did not have sex with this woman. It can't. ..."

BIKEL: "Shouldn't the DNA test be considered important?"

KELLER: "It could be important. If it had come back positive it would have been important because it would have meant that he - it would have been more evidence that he did what he said he did."

BIKEL: "But the other way?"

KELLER: "It just doesn't mean that he didn't have sex with her."

What comes through with unmistakable clarity is the chilling reluctance of the authorities to admit they may have made a mistake. It would have been perfectly reasonable for the prosecution or the appeals court to say that the DNA evidence - unavailable at the time of Criner's conviction - had raised enough doubt to warrant a new trial. Instead they set about concocting theories that could explain the obvious contradictions.

The victim was "promiscuous" and might have had consensual sex with someone else before she was raped and killed. (A local reporter, Bob Burtman, says the police reconstructed the activities of the victim's last two days and found no evidence of sex before the rape.) Criner might have used a condom, or maybe he didn't ejaculate.

Civil rights lawyer Peter Neufeld dismissed these self-serving possibilities as "the case of the unindicted co-ejaculator."

The point of looking at the details of the Criner case is not to cast Texas prosecutors as especially unethical (or Texas Gov. George W. Bush as especially unfeeling). The point is to express the fear that the behavior of the prosecutors may be too typical. Perhaps it's typical of human beings, including journalists, to defend publicly announced conclusions. It must be infinitely more difficult to acknowledge the possibility that official error may have led to the taking of an innocent life.

In that regard, I suppose Criner is lucky. The capital murder case against him was abandoned for lack of evidence, so he wound up being convicted of aggravated sexual assault.

He's only got 89 years to go.
Who gets the short end of the stick again?
He does. TL;DR Texas judicial system is totally fucked up.

[Roxie]

Who gets the short end of the stick again?
Rape victims.

[Citizen]

So when it's sexist against women, the answer is "women", followed by "time to make a thread about it". When it's sexist against men, the answer is "both". Gotcha.

[Roxie]

I'm sorry, were rape victims not getting a bad deal?
I'm not sure what you've got it, but it ain't me.

[Citizen]

I'm sorry, were rape victims not getting a bad deal?

Of course they are. But that's also the most Obvious Man answer possible and also wasn't the point of my question. More like an unclever way of slinking around the fact that over half of the rape laws in the United States are actually sexist against men. Since the general sentiment in the opening post was that rape laws are sexist against women, I just assumed that, you know, this thread was about wether or not sex laws are fair/unfair to men/women.

I'm not sure what you've got it, but it ain't me.

What?

[Roxie]

Ah, no actually, that's not what I intended the original argument to be.
The argument that I'm seeing a lot of is:

1. Glad this guy got such time for his crimes
2. Finally, male rape (isn't it horrible we have to preface it with "male"? as if rape is inherently female...even though it's the majority, but still [/ot])
3. Men who rape women don't get sentences half this long

Which I think is more about people being upset at the sentencing than laws being slanted


Gotcha
As in "I got you" meaning you "understand" me, right?
Cause if that's what you think, then you've got it wrong.

[Citizen]

You should probably quote that next time, because it was confusing as hell. I thought you were trying to imply that I don't consider all rape victims to be victims.

[Roxie]

....now I'm confused. quote what? I thought I made it clear in the first post? :-/

[Citizen]

Nevermind, I understand what you were trying to say now anyway.

[Roxie]

:) kay!

[Pierrot le Fou]

3. Men who rape women don't get sentences half this long
Please provide proof of this claim. Find similar rapes violent rapes against women (5 women would be ideal, but 5+ and taking the average is acceptable too) where the man got less than 99 years with no extenuating circumstances (mental illness, etc.)

[Roxie]

It isn't a claim. If you don't mind rereading, it's a summary of a common argument in response to this article.

[Trump]

Average rape sentence is around 10 years. I don't know if that takes into account deadly weapon etc.

[Pierrot le Fou]

The question is for the average rape sentence in Texas with the assault with a deadly weapon factored in. I don't think the average is 10 years.

[Gorlam]

It occurs to me that sending someone who likes to rape men to prison is like punishing a fat kid with candy.

[Urameshi YuSooKey]

It occurs to me that sending someone who likes to rape men to prison is like punishing a fat kid with candy.
Not if he'd rather give than recieve. :innocent: