‘Pillowcase Rapist’ Christopher Hubbart Released to Home East of Palmdale

[Nuclear Unicorn]

‘Pillowcase Rapist’ Christopher Hubbart Released to Home East of Palmdale

A 63-year-old man who raped dozens of women in Southern California then repeatedly reoffended after his release was taken to live in a home east of Palmdale Wednesday on the orders of a judge in the San Francisco Bay Area.

...

“He will be under constant supervision for a period of several weeks to months,” the news release stated.

http://ktla.com/2014/07/09/pillowcase-rapist-christopher-hubbart-released-to-home-east-of-palmdale/

And then what happens?

Hubbart was ruled a Sexually Violent Predator under state law, a determination he unsuccessfully appealed.

After his sentencing in 1972 for assaults in Southern California, he was released in 1979 to the San Francisco Bay Area, where he again sexually assaulted a series of women, according to court records. He was sentenced in 1982 to 16 years in state prison, but was released in 1990.

He again reoffended and had been in state custody since 1996.

By the way, he has state contracted security to protect HIM.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. How the hell

do you rape 'dozens' of women, and not get a life sentence?

There are very few people I think should probably be behind bars for life, but raping 'dozens' of women certainly should qualify one for life, no parole.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Unfortunately, the article doesn't say what the judge's reasoning was.

[Orrex]

3. Probably wasn't legitimate rape

Or something.

[ieoeja]

8. 63 years old. 33 of those in jail. He's probably in really bad condition.

Jail time takes years off your life expectancy. Lack of mental and physical exercise. One square meal a day. One additional light sandwich.

They probably figure he's incapable of harming anyone. Just at a guess.

[Xithras]

9. He committed them before sentencing guidelines were stiffened.

He committed his last rape in 1990. Three strikes and other legal changes that made rape a crime eligible for a life sentence weren't passed until 1994 and later. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) you can't go back and resentence someone after the fact.

By the way, this article (and many others) contain an error. He wasn't locked up in 1996 because he raped again. He was locked up in 1996 because he told his parole officer that he felt like raping again, and his parole officer utilized a California law to forcibly detain him in a mental hospital, where he has been ever since. Unfortunately, under that law, the only thing he has to do to be set free is to convince a judge that his mental instability has passed. Because he wasn't actually in prison for a crime, the law didn't allow him to be detained if the state couldn't demonstrate that he was an "imminent danger".

In all probability, the guy will rape again. And under the new guidelines, he'll spend the rest of his life in prison afterward.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. The judge had discretion to release or retain. The DA argued against the release.

I will not defend the war on drugs but I doubt it is to blame. The judge could have released a non-violent drug offender in lieu of this monster.

[Mnemosyne]

6. A sad bunch? How so, Adam? nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. I took his comment to say women deserved sympathy, as opposed to a connotation of being pathetic.

However, that was after doing a double-take. Your alarm is wholly understandable.

[Mnemosyne]

18. I hope that is it, quite possible. Thanks, NU. nt

[Skidmore]

7. Really?

How are we "a sad bunch?" What does that mean or have to do with anything in the OP?

[Skidmore]

12. Really?

Are they? Women are victimized the world over, including in the other nations of the developed world. Do reporting patterns differ due to laws and cultural pressures? I would venture to say they do. Do you have information to back that up?

[Tanuki]

14. Speaking of google, I did a DU site search on YOU

and noticed that your proportion of self-defeated posts is quite extraordinary. I've never seen anything like it.

[Orrex]

19. Telling someone to google your info for you is an admission that you're full of baloney

[TeeYiYi]

16. Rec'd for visibility...

This is terrible. I don't care how supposedly old and frail he is, he needs to die in prison.

TYY... Scared for the women in this guy's future.