Woman in Student Sex Case Banished for 15 Years from Hometown

Sentencing

Woman in Student Sex Case Banished for 15 Years from Hometown

Posted Jul 11, 2008, 04:48 pm CST
By Martha Neil

A 40-year-old Wisconsin woman who admittedly had sex with a 16-year-old high school classmate of her daughter, while she was serving as his tutor, has been sentenced to a one-year jail term--and banished from her hometown for 15 years.

Since she is employed by her parents in Amery, a village of 2,800, this will force her to find a new job, reports the Pioneer Press. Brenda Baillargeon reportedly had repeatedly violated restraining orders prohibiting her from contacting the victim. She resigned her job as a teacher's aide as the case was being investigated.

While unusual, the banishment is appropriate and by no means a unique punishment, Polk County District Attorney Daniel Steffen tells the newspaper.

Baillargeon was granted work release, which will allow her to leave jail for up to 50 hours weekly for her employment. But if she contacts the victim again, she will get at least a five-year state prison sentence, Polk County Circuit Judge Molly GaleWyrick told the mother of four at sentencing yesterday.

"You are going to prison if he contacts you and you respond," the judge told Baillargeon. "It's that simple."

At one point, Baillargeon and the teen victim were engaged to be married.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Chris - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 hour, 11 minutes ago

Banishment? Are these people serious. What is this? 1750? Let’s encourage every town to banish people who commit crimes, after all, they’ll just disappear into thin air and won’t make trouble anywhere else. What makes this town so special?
Posted by Andrea Bookbinder - 5 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 2 hours, 44 minutes ago

I think they made a movie about this case. I agree with the court’s decision. We must uphold the rule of law, because if we don’t we will be little better than the primates we see in the zoo.

I think there may be a more endemic problem going on where women of a certain age like to feel that they can recreate their youth (or have the youth they missed when they were teenagers.

Hence, these people find the need to select a person of that age to get close to.

I don’t think this is good, for either the man or the woman.

As a result, I think that the person who was not the minor should be punished.

It is not enough to say “but we were in love”, because I think that there could be a degree of insenserity here, on the part of the older person, and a degree of ignorance on the part of the minor.

Yes, I think the court made the right decision.
Posted by kay sieverding - 5 months, 3 weeks, 6 days, 2 hours, 17 minutes ago

The woman was punished for statutory rape with a one year jail term. What I object to is the use of a restraining order without due process of law. As the article said, she “reportedly” attempted to contact the youth. What does “reportedly” mean? It means that they didn’t convene a jury to find out if she really did or not. There is a definite possibility that someone pretended to be her and mailed a counterfeit letter to the youth in order to hurt her parents and get their business. The Magna Carta requires a law and a jury trial before banishment.
Posted by Contrarian - 5 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 10 hours, 55 minutes ago

It’s a village of 2,800 people. I’d be surprised if they didn’t run her out on a railroad tie. I wonder how many lawyers versed in Constitutional law she had to choose from.

I further disagree with Ms. Bookbinder’s (#3) assertion that the policy is a good one. There is nothing wrong with an older woman trying to relive her youth before it slips away entirely forever. How old are you, Ms. Bookbinder? I would guess 20-something.

What’s more is I can think of no better partner for an older lady than a consenting 16 year old male. I think most guys that age are curious enough and full of energy (Lord knows I was), and experience with an older lady could spare them years of otherwise frustrated attempts at understanding the opposite sex. A uniform statutory age of consent for males and females results in unjust punishment.
Posted by tabler - 5 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 8 hours, 49 minutes ago

sieverding - Juries are not necessary, and even a hindrance at times, for a court to issue restraining orders. The term “reportedly” is vague. The judge probably did have sufficient evidence to issue the restraining order. It seems probable that she did try and contact him as she knowingly engaged in statutory rape and they were engaged to be married. While the situation you describe is possible, it is far less probable, especially since we have no clue what the evidence against her is.

She has no express right to be in contact of a minor without his guardians’ consent. I highly doubt she had their consent, as they would have probably been married if she did. In most jurisdictions, 16 year olds can be married with their parents’ permission.
Posted by Native Atty - 5 months, 3 weeks, 3 days, 2 hours, 54 minutes ago

Why not? The American legal system takes a page from Native American traditional law and custom…more than appropriate.
Posted by kay sieverding - 5 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 22 hours, 14 minutes ago

I know that restraining order statutes vary quite a bit from state to state. For instance, a friend in Cal said that without any statement that there was a problem, a woman he knew basically placed him on a do not call list, which automatically expires in 6 months.

What you are talking about though is an injunction. Was there a motion and by whom, was a law actually cited, was there discovery? I know that in Colorado, if a restraining order is obtained by a district attorney, it automatically expires at the end of the criminal prosecution or, I think, probation.

No contact would probably be a condition of probation anyway. I don’t see why the judge was getting so involved. Those impeachment proceedings of Judge Real involved his interfering with other matters related to a woman whose conviction he oversaw.

It is well documented that injunction hearings have great potential for abuse. The Internet is full of men who claim that they were subject to malicious injunctions based on fraudulent evidence. Apparently a lot of women claim that they were hit in order to get a better financial settlement. I personally was involved in a restraining order hearing and there was no discovery at all. In fact, the court would not allow financial evidence to be introduced.

The woman and her parents have really a lot at stake in this matter.

As far as statutory rape in general, my personal opinion, as an older woman, is that all the statutory rape laws should be based on the relative ages of the parties.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Sentencing