In the ongoing prosecution of the disgraced R&B singer R.Kelly, prosecutors have asked the courts for a sentence longer than the previously discussed 25-year sentence. R.Kelly’s lawyers are arguing that this extension does not coincide with the laws. This is what we know so far.
Prosecutors Want To Extend R.Kelly Sentence Beyond 25 Years
Last September, authorities found Robert Sylvestor Kelly, better known as R&B artist R.Kelly, guilty of sexually abusing women, girls, and boys for decades. A judge convicted him of all nine accounts against him in the famous sex trafficking trial. His official sentencing is set to take place on June 29 of this year. Ahead of his sentencing, the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York wrote to the judge requesting that the singer’s sentence be increased beyond the originally suggested 25 years. (1)
“In light of the seriousness of the offenses, the need for specific deterrence and the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant … the government respectfully submits that a sentence in excess of 25 years is warranted,” they wrote. (2)
They also argued that R.Kelly showed no remorse for what he did. They state that because of his transgressions and his apparent lack of remorse, this makes him apt to re-offend. For the protection of others, he should be locked away for a long time.
“While the government doubts that the defendant will be deterred, a lengthy sentence of imprisonment will serve to deter others — including those with wealth, fame and the outsized power such status brings — from engaging in similar crimes,” they said. “This is particularly so given the high-profile nature of the defendant and the likelihood that the length of his sentence will be widely publicized.”
They also say that R.Kelly should be fined between $50,000 and $250,000. (3)
Read: A 17-year-old boy died by suicide hours after being scammed. The FBI says it’s part of a troubling increase in ‘sextortion’ cases
The Defense
Jennifer Bonjean, R.Kelly’s lawyer, disagrees. She says that the singer should receive fewer than 14 years.
“[M]any of the enhancements suggested by the government and probation are simply unsupported by the evidence and the law,” she countered.
She cites how the circumstances of one of the minors, Jane, was not entirely as it is seen to be. There is evidence of the victim’s parents encouraging her relationship with the singer in hopes that he would help advance their daughter’s career. They didn’t seem to care that their daughter was underage. There is some evidence to suggest that even she, herself, wanted the relationship to happen and was excited about moving into the singer’s home. Whether or not it was more coerced excitement it is hard to say.