Teacher Randy Eddy Gets Paroled After Serving Six Months (Out of 10 Years) for Sexually Abusing Student
Former Parma, Idaho middle school teacher Randy Eddy, 37, was convicted on two counts of sexual battery involving a 15-year-old female student. After serving serving six months of his original 10-year prison sentence he was granted parole after taking part in a “boot camp” and sexual offender treatment program.
Based on Eddy’s performance in the program, the judge decided he was ready for parole even though prosecuting attorney thought Eddy had not expressed remorse to the victim. (In court proceedings up to his sentence hearing, Eddy continually denied the charges of sexual abuse of the victim. However, he finally acknowledged that he had sexual relations with the victim and that he had lied to members of the community.)
The judge thought placing Eddy on parole would be a fit punishment for his crime since he had already lost the custody of his two children and any possibility of teaching again. The teenage victim attended the court hearing. She along with her parents asked the judge for Eddy’s continued incarceration.
Eddy will remain on parole for the next 9 1/2 years. As a part of his sentence, he must pay restitution to the victim and her family. He is also not permitted to have contact with the victim or her family. As a convicted felon he is also restrained from coming into contact with minors under age 18, with the exception of his two children.
Stuff like this just pisses me off. Why have laws and convict someone when all he has to do is attend a program to get out of his sentence? Steal someone’s innocence and serve six months instead of 10 years? This is outrageous! Someone recall that judge!
Enjoyed reading this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed by clicking here.
Randy Eddy, parole, boot camp, sex offender program, sexual abuse, child abuse, Parma Idaho
February 11th, 2008 at 11:33 am
The girl in this article was 17 and was 18 by the time it went to court. I’m not excusing anything that was reported as happening, but many people would view it a little different with a girl almost 18 and a 15 yo. Again just asking that you please ensure your facts are correct.
Re Randy Eddy Article
February 11th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Also, many facts are never presented in court, just remember that when making judgements, especially when someone is released this early, there is usually more to the story than what is reported.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:22 am
Wow!!!! are you two people serious about the comments you posted?!?! lets see even though some facts may not be presented correctly in this article lets look at this. 37 year old male has sexual realations with a 17 old female (and this is the age during the act) hmmmm….whats wrong with this oh yeah thats right sexual assult of a minor. that would be stat. rape people. are you 2 really this ignorant? This guys who is entrusted to protect and educate his students betrayed everything in which he was suppposed to stand for, and commited a felony! you guys need to seriously open your eyes and think about how ridiculous you sound when you sit here and try to defend a predator.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:20 am
I completely agree with Mr. Swanner. After reading the above article I was completely appalled that a man who commited a sexual based crime would be released on parole after serving only six months. There are a lot of backwards minded people who can justify a middle aged man taking advantage of a teenager saying “well, she consented, besides she’s almost legal.” The fact of the matter is that even if a 15, or 17 year old wanted to consent to having sexual relations with their teacher they legally can’t do so. Like Mr. Swanner said, that is statuatory rape. Fortunately Mr. Eddy will not be able to prey on his students any longer because he no longer can teach. This man should have used his brain instead of thinking with another part of his anatomy… While this man has only 9 1/2 years of parole to look forward to has anybody stopped to think about what the child he raped has to go through? Food for thought. Let’s just pray to God almighty that he doesn’t victimize another child.
July 21st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
LOL, backwards minded huh. When did I say that it was ok to do this. But can you not see a crime against someone almost 18 who consented and against someone 15 or 16 or even younger are different. I’m not saying excusable by any means, simply that they are different. If he had lived in the state I live in he wouldn’t have even committed a crime because the age of consent is 17. So you are saying he should do 10 years because he lives in a state where the age of consent is 18. I’m not saying what he did was right or excusable, but to put it in line with violating a younger child is not right. Are you actually saying that he should have served 10 years for this, but if she had been 6 months older, no harm no fowl. That’s what the law says. He was punished and will pay for what has happened but saying it’s ridiculous that he was released is crazy. I don’t believe this falls in the same category as a child predator stalking young children as you are suggesting. Morally wrong yes, worth 10 years in prison, not in my opinion. If that makes you want to resort to name calling and call me backwards minded so be it. For the record, she was not his student as you stated, he was a middle school teacher, she was in high school. So I consider your statement about him preying on his students absurd. There have never been claims he ever did anything inappropriate with his students. Again, please understand, I AM NOT EXCUSING HIS ACTIONS as you are insinuating, I simply believe he paid for his mistake and will continue to, and don’t share your opinion that it’s ridiculous he is already released. And for the first poster that commented about me, you said I was trying to defend a predator, explain to me how saying that there is probably more to the story, or the first poster saying that he’s not excusing what happened defending him? Perhaps you need to sit back and read the statements before commenting. And yes to me there is a difference between someone 15 or 16 or younger and 17 almost 18. Not that either is ok, but one is much worse than the other. I find it insulting that people consider me backwards minded and state I’m justifying what happened because I disagree with them. I never have said that what happened was justifiable, simply that there are usually more to a story if they are released earlier and that the punishment should fit the crime, which I believe has happened in this case.