R. Kelly, the Grammy Award-winning R&B singer, has been sentenced to serve all but one year of his 20-year sentence for child sex convictions simultaneously with a previous sentence. Despite prosecutors’ calls for him to stay behind bars until he is 100, Judge Harry Leinenweber ruled that Kelly could make it out of prison alive at the age of 80.
Judge Leinenweber was sympathetic to both sides during his ruling and noted that the victims would suffer from Kelly’s crimes for their lifetime. The judge also accepted defense arguments that since Kelly is 56 years old, he may not even make it to 80 so a consecutive lengthy sentence would not make much sense.
Kelly’s defense lawyer celebrated the ruling as a victory and some of his fans cheered outside the courtroom upon hearing the news. His accusers also had their chance to speak in court before sentencing – one statement read by an accuser’s representative called him a “brainwashed sex slave” and another spoke directly to him describing how he used her faults against her during abuse.
The U.S. Attorney in Chicago John Lausch conceded disappointment in the decision but stated “Twenty years is a significant sentence, and we are happy that that was imposed in this case.” In response, Jennifer Bonjean, Kelly’s defense lawyer said “the judge was reasonable” and took into account both sides before issuing a fair sentence.
Ultimately while this will likely be seen as an unsatisfactory outcome by many due to its leniency compared with what prosecutors were asking for; it serves as proof of our judicial system following proper procedure and being sympathetic to both parties involved – something we can all agree on regardless of political party lines. But would the judge have made the same ruling if it wasn’t someone famous?
