Jack Schaap blames health, financial woes for his relationship with teen (PDF attached)

There are 35 Comments

Ann B.'s picture

Jim wrote:

Ex-Ind. megachurch pastor seeks minimum sentence

Comment w the article:

Somehow, in Jack Schaap's logic, depression, stress, and financial trouble lead to child molesting. I cannot quite work that out, as I know plenty of men who suffer many things and yet never molest children.

My response: Doesn't make sense to me either!

Agreed 100%.  Was going to say the same thing but you got to it first.  I hope the judge gives this molester the maximum sentence.  

Ron Bean's picture

The most common man-made covering for sin is an excuse. Proverbs 28:13

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Ann B. wrote:
I hope the judge gives this molester the maximum sentence.

Amen! There should be nothing but maximum sentences served for all crimes small or large. Mercy has no place in a courtroom!

Jim's picture

The lawyer's request is for less than the 10 year statutory mandatory minimum sentence. (p 1 of the PDF)

 

Comes now Jack Allan Schaap, by counsel Paul G. Stracci and Alison L Benjamin of Thiros & Stracci, and submits his memorandum in aid of sentencing with the attached sentencing letters, all in support of the parties’ recommendation that the Court impose upon him a below-guideline sentence of 120 months (the statutory mandatory minimum sentence)

Wayne Wilson's picture

Amen! There should be nothing but maximum sentences served for all crimes small or large. Mercy has no place in a courtroom!

__________________

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say this, Alex.  Do you really mean in all cases everywhere?  What makes you so... unbending?

 

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Wayne Wilson wrote:

Amen! There should be nothing but maximum sentences served for all crimes small or large. Mercy has no place in a courtroom!

__________________

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say this, Alex.  Do you really mean in all cases everywhere?  What makes you so... unbending?

I am unbending for the same reason the person I quoted is unbending. And I do not think I have heard anyone say it either, I was simply magnifying the principle contained in the quoted material. By now the point I was making should be clearer.

 

Wayne Wilson's picture

By now the point I was making should be clearer.

It's probably me, but I missed what happened that made your point clearer.  I think the person you were quoting was hoping this Schaap fellow would get the maximum sentence.  You surprised me by stating you don't believe mercy ever belongs in a courtroom.  That's a fairly extreme position, and seems... lacking in mercy.  You don't believe there should ever be a cause for mercy or a reduced sentence ever...correct?

Wayne Wilson's picture

Thanks, Alex, I didn't pick up on that.  it didn't seem like you!

 

 

Jim's picture

How is Ann being merciless? 

She said: "I hope the judge gives this molester the maximum sentence."

There's a minimum mandatory sentence of 120 months (PDF document). And there is I suppose a maximum sentence. 

Ann is not requesting anything out of line. 

Schaap earned whatever sentence is he is receive. 

 

jcoleman's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
Wayne, I was parodying the merciless attitude of the person I was quoting. It should always be a judicial element.

I think that Ann's point was that someone who claims stress as a reason for a reduced sentence isn't someone who deserves mercy in the courtroom. Certainly the judge should be able to exercise mercy based on the circumstances. But the circumstances here seem to suggest that Schaap should receive no mercy in his sentencing.

Ann B.'s picture

jim wrote:

How is Ann being merciless?

She said: "I hope the judge gives this molester the maximum sentence."

There's a minimum mandatory sentence of 120 months (PDF document). And there is I suppose a maximum sentence.

Ann is not requesting anything out of line.

Schaap earned whatever sentence is he is receive.

jcoleman wrote:

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
Wayne, I was parodying the merciless attitude of the person I was quoting. It should always be a judicial element.

I think that Ann's point was that someone who claims stress as a reason for a reduced sentence isn't someone who deserves mercy in the courtroom. Certainly the judge should be able to exercise mercy based on the circumstances. But the circumstances here seem to suggest that Schaap should receive no mercy in his sentencing.

Thank you gentlemen.  That is exactly what I meant and do not think that the statement implied in any way that judges should never show mercy.

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Ann B. wrote:

jim wrote:

How is Ann being merciless?

She said: "I hope the judge gives this molester the maximum sentence."

There's a minimum mandatory sentence of 120 months (PDF document). And there is I suppose a maximum sentence.

Ann is not requesting anything out of line.

Schaap earned whatever sentence is he is receive.

jcoleman wrote:

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
Wayne, I was parodying the merciless attitude of the person I was quoting. It should always be a judicial element.

I think that Ann's point was that someone who claims stress as a reason for a reduced sentence isn't someone who deserves mercy in the courtroom. Certainly the judge should be able to exercise mercy based on the circumstances. But the circumstances here seem to suggest that Schaap should receive no mercy in his sentencing.

Thank you gentlemen.  That is exactly what I meant and do not think that the statement implied in any way that judges should never show mercy.

Only not in this case...because of course mercy should be doled out as you see fit? No

 

MShep2's picture

Hmmm. Now, let me get this straight. Because he was under stress, he did something that would greatly add to the stress already in his life??? Someone will have to explain that one to me. 

Until this, I had actually been encouraged by how he at least was taking responsibility for his actions - which was a great improvement over his predecessor, Mr. Coverup King himself. There is a longer article at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257468/Jack-Schaap-Married-mega-church-pastor-blames-health-financial-woes-sexual-relationship-16-year-old-girl.html

What a thrill to have actually known and gone to college (briefly) with such an (in)famous guy! 

Seriously, though, I have been dumbfounded recently by how many men in ministry I know personally who have spectaculary crashed and burned. I am humbled that God in His grace has kept me from such Christ-disgracing behavior. For me, God's gift of a great relationship with a great wife has been a big factor in this.

 

 

[made URL clickable - Jim]

MS
--------------------------------
Luke 17:10

Shaynus's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:

Only not in this case...because of course mercy should be doled out as you see fit? No

 

Alex, you're quite out of line. Mercy emphatically should exist in the courtroom. This is why legislators give leeway in law to judges. If there was no leeway, I think maximum penalties would be quite a bit lower in law for fear they were misused. The punishment should fit the crime, and not Alex, or Ann, or Shayne (but definitely not Alex). 
 

MShep2's picture

@Jim. I am not sure if it was the 1975-6 or 1976-77 school year but yes, he began his college days at Pillsbury. I did not know him well but he was in a men's singing group with me. He left because things were too sedate for him (or as he said in his infamous message, no one was doing evangelism and all the professors were hypercalvanist). He and another student started holding their own services (with a lot of loud shouting) in the men's dorm and some strange prayer meetings in the stairwells. He was asked to tone things down so he decided to go to HAC where things were more to his liking.

MS
--------------------------------
Luke 17:10

Jay's picture

There's a lot I could (and want to say about this), but I think Proverbs is pretty clear enough.

The Call of Wisdom - Proverbs 1
20 Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the markets she raises her voice;
21 at the head of the noisy streets she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? 
23 If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you.
24 Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
25 because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you,
27 when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. 
28 Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
29 Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD,
30 would have none of my counsel and despised all my reproof,
31 therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices.

Schaap can ask for a sentence below the mandatory minimum, but I would be stunned - stunned - if he got any less than that, and I believe that he'll probably get a lot more since there's a lot of exacerbating factors (minor, cross state lines, multiple points of contact with minors, etc).  If his lawyer is really good, then maybe...but I don't see it.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Alex Guggenheim's picture

The likelihood is that Jack Schaap will get the mandatory minimum or less. He has no points and has pled guilty. His lawyer has some bearing but frankly, in a federal case especially, the judge is the one who will have the greatest bearing, good lawyer or none.

Jim's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:

The likelihood is that Jack Schaap will get the mandatory minimum or less. He has no points and has pled guilty. His lawyer has some bearing but frankly, in a federal case especially, the judge is the one who will have the greatest bearing, good lawyer or none.

I agree with Alex except I see him getting 120 months (not less). Next strategy is good behavior and with the hope that he gets some kind of early release (perhaps on health reasons).

I suspect that the judge will grant the prosecution request for the additional 45 days. And that we will see a victim's statement. Probably no final decision until the 1st week of March.

Charlie's picture

The defense strategy seems to be based on presenting this action as unprecedented and uncharacteristic, a momentary lapse under extreme stress. I guess the sentencing will turn mostly on whether those involved believe that picture. I wonder if the "polish the shaft" sermon and other such things will in any way factor into the situation. 

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Jay's picture

Charlie wrote:

The defense strategy seems to be based on presenting this action as unprecedented and uncharacteristic, a momentary lapse under extreme stress. I guess the sentencing will turn mostly on whether those involved believe that picture. I wonder if the "polish the shaft" sermon and other such things will in any way factor into the situation. 

I would imagine that they would be factors.  While I doubt the prosecutors are interested in listening to all his sermons, I'm sure that they subpoenaed and searched anything recent.  We do know that they confiscated some computers and other electronic equipment from the plea agreement.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Jay's picture

I was link surfing and I hit this piece, and it sums up exactly why I think Schaap will get a harsher sentence.  Kudos to Darrell at SFL for putting into words what is so unfortunately often in our circles.  I do NOT agree with his levying this charge at BJU, but the point is clear and unassailable.

For no matter how many court rulings and media stories and witnesses and blogs and protestors rise up against you, you can be confident that you have never been wrong. This is your birthright. This is your heritage. This is the sacred trust passed down from father to son for generations: the gift of being always and forever right.

So Be Right, BJU. Be right, fundamentalist, wherever you are. But you can only be right until the stars fall. For in that latter day then shall the Judge of all the earth stand and deliver His final verdict on whether you truly did justly and loved mercy and walked humbly. There will be no more reasons or excuses or equivocations then. And unless you repent, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.

But there’s still today. There’s still this moment. You still have time. It’s not too late to do right.  

If there had been any real conviction of sin or the enormity of his crimes on Schaap's part, then I would say to give him less.  I still don't see it, and I doubt the judge will too.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Rob Fall's picture

has any relation to l'affaire de Shaap?

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Pages