Teen who killed her alleged rapist ordered to pay his family $150,000

 

CNN  — 

An Iowa judge’s ruling this week ordering a teenage girl – who was 15 when she killed a man she said raped her multiple times – to pay his family $150,000 in restitution has reignited conversations about what justice looks like for girls and young women who have experienced sexual violence.

Pieper Lewis, who killed her alleged rapist in 2020, received a deferred judgment from Polk County District Judge David Porter after pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter and willful injury.

Lewis is just one of several teenagers – often of color – who have been legally penalized or convicted of killing their sex trafficker or assaulter in recent years in the US.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/us/pieper-lewis-sex-trafficking-other-cases-reaj/index.html

 

The disgrace here is Iowa law which mandates financial restitution.

 

The judge himself ruled favorably for the accused where he has the leeway to do so, reducing the custodial sentence by time already held in juvenile detention and commuting the remain to probation with the possibility of the criminal record being wiped clean.

 

Thousands of people have recognized the injustice this young woman has suffered, her legal fees and the restitution she must now pay have been met by generous donations to the ‘go-fund-me’ appeal set up by her old math teacher to help her.

 

What needs to change is Iowa’s draconian laws.

 

Two more full reports here:

 

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/rekha-basu/2022/09/15/pieper-lewis-gofundme-sentence-iowa-justice/10376390002/

 

 

https://www.kuow.org/stories/a-teen-ordered-to-pay-150-000-to-the-family-of-her-rapist-is-flooded-with-donations

 

 

 

 

I'm a US citizen, and this news, of course, is horrible. However, whether the young girl is guilty of a crime depends on when she killed him. The news article, and none of the reports I've heard on TV, doesn't say.

If she killed him while he was in the act of raping her, or immediately after he raped her, or even if he attempted to rape her or told her he was giving her to a "client," that would be considered self-defense and there would be no crime.

 

If she killed him the next day, or several days after the rape, that could be considered aggravated manslaughter or justifiable homicide.

 

If she killed him the next month or year, that could be considered premediated murder.

 

But, as for the civil penalties, the $150,000, I don't know why that would ever be awarded in the case of the first two timelines. 

 

40 minutes ago, billsmart said:

If she killed him the next month or year, that could be considered premediated murder.

I’d still give her a medal. 

Killing a rapist is understandable if the forensics find sperm on her. An open and shut case. Key is as mentioned, how long did she plan the killing. In the UK, using more force than needed can lead to prison. The blood money to the rapist's family is positively third world. 

2 hours ago, billsmart said:

If she killed him while he was in the act of raping her, or immediately after he raped her, or even if he attempted to rape her or told her he was giving her to a "client," that would be considered self-defense and there would be no crime.

 

If she killed him the next day, or several days after the rape, that could be considered aggravated manslaughter or justifiable homicide.

 

If she killed him the next month or year, that could be considered premediated murder.

" That night she was assaulted five times. After Brooks passed out, Lewis found a knife while searching for her dress.Then, Lewis stabbed Brooks 37 times and ran away from the apartment. "

https://worthycelebs.com/trending/pieper-lewis-wikipedia-parents-boyfriend-now/

 

So no premeditated murder. This is disgraceful.

Edited September 17, 20223 yr by SunnyinBangrak

8 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

" That night she was assaulted five times. After Brooks passed out, Lewis found a knife while searching for her dress.Then, Lewis stabbed Brooks 37 times and ran away from the apartment. "

https://worthycelebs.com/trending/pieper-lewis-wikipedia-parents-boyfriend-now/

 

So no premeditated murder. This is disgraceful.

hope she did it slowly and painfully ...this piece of S#£t got what he deserved..

 

 

A Go Fund account to pay this $150,000 judgement, has already received over $500,000.

54 minutes ago, tweedledee2 said:

A Go Fund account to pay this $150,000 judgement, has already received over $500,000.

Wonderful! hooray ????????

Ahh the great USA. A land where rape victims are forced to give birth to their rapists babies. A land where medical practitioners are murdered, bashed, blown up, shot, harassed, threatened and civilly charged for giving care and treatment to women. 

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The disgrace here is Iowa law which mandates financial restitution.

 

The judge himself ruled favorably for the accused where he has the leeway to do so, reducing the custodial sentence by time already held in juvenile detention and commuting the remain to probation with the possibility of the criminal record being wiped clean.

 

Thousands of people have recognized the injustice this young woman has suffered, her legal fees and the restitution she must now pay have been met by generous donations to the ‘go-fund-me’ appeal set up by her old math teacher to help her.

 

What needs to change is Iowa’s draconian laws.

 

Two more full reports here:

 

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/rekha-basu/2022/09/15/pieper-lewis-gofundme-sentence-iowa-justice/10376390002/

 

 

https://www.kuow.org/stories/a-teen-ordered-to-pay-150-000-to-the-family-of-her-rapist-is-flooded-with-donations

 

 

 

 

Well, it all comes down to how and when she killed him. If she killed him during the rape, it would've been self-defense. If she killed him days, weeks or months after the rape then she killed him extrajudiciously and that's the reason why she was sentenced.

 

Her rapist had it probably coming/deserved it, but she still didn't have the right to kill him extrajudiciously. 

20 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Well, it all comes down to how and when she killed him. If she killed him during the rape, it would've been self-defense. If she killed him days, weeks or months after the rape then she killed him extrajudiciously and that's the reason why she was sentenced.

 

Her rapist had it probably coming/deserved it, but she still didn't have the right to kill him extrajudiciously. 

So why the payment to the family?

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

So why the payment to the family?

Because she 'didn't have the right to kill him extrajudiciously' as has been said already.

19 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Because she 'didn't have the right to kill him extrajudiciously' as has been said already.

I asked a question to another poster who failed to explain why the additional monetary penalty. I appreciate the answer, but you don't explain as well.

Edited September 17, 20223 yr by stevenl

 

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

So why the payment to the family?

   Because of a victims compensation law, passed by the Iowa State Legislation last year.  Anyone convicted of a felony in which a death occurred has to pay $150,000 to the victims family. The Judge used good judgement in his leniency sentencing the defendant to probation, but he could not vacate the monetary award.   

13 minutes ago, tweedledee2 said:

 

   Because of a victims compensation law, passed by the Iowa State Legislation last year.  Anyone convicted of a felony in which a death occurred has to pay $150,000 to the victims family. The Judge used good judgement in his leniency sentencing the defendant to probation, but he could not vacate the monetary award.   

Thanks for the explanation, my question was more 'why this law'. Imo stupid and doesn't seem to make any sense.

Agree with you it looks like the judge applied common sense.

Well, stupid law as already stated, but widespread if one reads the original (well researched) CNN article. Amazing how rape and sex trafficking victims still have to defend themselves and are subject additionally to years behind bars. While if someone shoots an intruder entering their home then it's ok.

Let's not even mention the racial component.

Alleged.

 

Definition: "said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality."

 

So it's all right to kill one's rapist, albeit an alleged and maybe not a real one.

 

Can I kill my alleged mugger? My alleged housebreaker? My alleged anything? There are a handful of noxious individuals I'd be glad to get rid of. Need the alleging happen beforehand, or can I just go ahead and kill those guys, and take care of the alleging afterwards?

It's beginning to look a lot like Thailand ????

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

So why the payment to the family?

Damages? 

Wow, even our resident MAGA fans are siding with the woman!

 

 

I can see banana republic similarities with Thailand's justice system here.

Absolutely disgusting but as the US has the biggest human trafficking problem in the world it's hardly a surprise, although they still like to get on their high horse and preach to the rest despite not fixing their own backyard, as usual.

Why anyone would listen to the US beggars belief.

14 hours ago, Tropposurfer said:

Ahh the great USA. A land where rape victims are forced to give birth to their rapists babies.

Hyperbole. 

8 hours ago, JackGats said:

Alleged.

 

Definition: "said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality."

 

So it's all right to kill one's rapist, albeit an alleged and maybe not a real one.

 

Can I kill my alleged mugger? My alleged housebreaker? My alleged anything? There are a handful of noxious individuals I'd be glad to get rid of. Need the alleging happen beforehand, or can I just go ahead and kill those guys, and take care of the alleging afterwards?

I don’t think any rational person hearing the woman’s account of her rapes and abuse, considers her to be making false allegations.

 

Certainly the judge did not.

 

 

Any judge has to follow the existing law. Even if he and/or many people think that law is incorrect and should be changed. It's the law!

I read another article about this, and it sees that is exactly what happened. The judge had to do this because he had to follow the law. He can't just say: in this case we ignore the law.

 

Obviously some laws are unfair and should be changed. But until they are changed or canceled, they still exist, and judges have to follow them. 

Doesn't seem right ,She should get at the most a Medal and a slap at her wrist or butt.