The Judge who sentenced Abigail to 8-25 years in prison had two opportunities -first after the Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that mandatory-minimum sentences with “unconstitutional” and then after a Court of Appeals decision that upheld her conviction but ordered a re-sentencing- to release her with “time-served” or sentence her to “only” 2 or 3 or 4 years in prison with “time-served, in which case she would have been released from prison in January of 2017 or 2018 or 2019.
At sentencing on January 14, 2015, he had no discretion, no choice to impose a sane and just and condign and rational sentence. He now had the discretion to overturn the sentence of 8-25-years in prison he was constrained to impose in January of 2015 and to exercise the options mentioned above and also the discretion to vacate the life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” she can never remove. But he twice upheld the sentence of 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of electronic parole-monitoring. I don’t know if he had the discretion to overturn the life-sentence of public sex-offender registration, imposing a sentence of only 20-30 years of public registration. But if he did have such discretion, I’m sure he would have also upheld this sentence.
At sentencing on January 15, 2015, in explaining why he chose to impose the mandatory-minimum sentence of “only” 8-25 years in prison rather than the maximum of 25-years to life for a first-offender convicted of a nonviolent and victimless and malum prohibitum “crime,” the judge noted that Abigail was not a “predator” who was likely to re-offend and that her “victim” also knew their affair was “wrong” and was thus partly responsible. Thus, at the time, he was not a CSA victimologist.
For these comments, merely a bit of honesty and realism compared to what I would have said in his place and have written on this matter in general and specifically on the insane and execrable laws of Michigan and Abigail’s sentence, I’m sure he was not only criticized, not only rebuked, respectfully, but also condemned, denounced, traduced, vilified, and probably subjected to a barrage of hate-mail and possibly a few if not more than a few death-threats.
In July of 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that mandatory-minimum sentences were “unconstitutional” -theoretically in violation of the 6th rather than 8th Amendment.
And in August, roughly a month later, in justifying his decision to uphold her 8-25 year prison sentence and her life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet,” he now argued (whether sincerely, having been “re-educated,” or insincerely out of fear and cravenness and pure self-interest) that she was a “predator” who can never be cured but only deterred by imprisonment, at least 8-years of enslavement, and then by a lifetime of quasi-totalitarian surveillance, a “predator” who was surely or likely to re-offend by having sex with young men under statutory age and, perhaps, also molesting prepubescent children. I wonder if he described her as a “rapist” and “pedophile” or, at least, a “child molester” and/or “child sexual abuser”?
He now realized or affected to believe that she was so dangerous, such a threat to all the children of Michigan and the other 49 states and the entire world should she be allowed to move or travel after her release from prison, that she deserved to be enslaved for at least 8-years if not longer and also forced to wear an electronic ankle-tether/”bracelet” that she can never remove by herself, not even when bathing or having sex with a lover if the state of Michigan and other jurisdictions permit such relationships, and which can only be removed, finally and officially, I assume by people in roles of authority, when she dies at age 77 or 86 or 94 or 102.
Our great good friend, Barton Deiters, who can barely conceal and contain his joy and approval and tendentiousness, writes:
A judge says the former Catholic Central High School tutor convicted of having illegal sex with her 15-year-old student was not denied a fair trial and does not deserve to be re-sentenced.
Kent County Circuit Judge Paul Sullivan also rejected the contention of Abigail Simon’s attorney that she should not be required to wear an electronic tether for the rest of her life.
Sullivan also shot down Teiber’s request that the state-mandated lifetime electronic tether requirement be lifted because she was not a threat of re-offend. Tieber argued that the electronic monitoring violated his client’s privacy and Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and was “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Sullivan dispatched both arguments, saying that the public’s safety outweighed the minimal intrusion into Simon’s privacy.”Additionally, the invasiveness of a GPS monitoring devise can seem relatively minimal compared to the often lifelong effects these types of crimes can have on victims.”
“Shot down,” “dispatched,” what a joke! Yes, the “public’s safety outweighs the minimal intrusion” into the privacy of a woman who never committed a violent or other malum in se crime in her life and never will and is not a “threat to society” and “public safety” or to anyone nor even a danger to “re-offend” by transporting another biological man under age 16 to carnal Elysium -and that’s assuming she lying about his forcing himself on her and “controlling her life.”
Simon remains in the Huron Valley Women’s Correctional facility, where she is serving out her eight to 25-year prisons sentence.
Her case has been filed with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which will likely hear her arguments within the next six to eight months. (“See why Judge says Catholic School Tutor does not deserve a new sex assault trial,” mlive.com., Aug. 13, 2015.)
Almost a year later, in June of 2016, the Court of Appeals upheld her convictions and also her life-sentence of electronic monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet.”
The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Abigail Simon, but says Kent County Judge Paul Sullivan should determine if she should get a different sentence…After Simon’s conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court changed the way those sentencing guideline are applied, allowing judges to use them only as a recommendation…In it’s ruling Thursday, the Michigan Court of Appeals sent Simon’s case back to judge Sullivan who will determine if, using the updated guidelines as as guide, Sullivan would give Simon a different sentence…The Court of Appeals also rejected Simon’s claim that lifetime electronic monitoring after her release from prison was unconstitutional. (woodtv.com, 6/17/2016)
Once again, as after the Supreme Court decision, Sullivan uphold her sentence of 8-25 years in prison and her life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring.