Introduction
Offenders frequently commit crimes for various reasons, and they also do it in various ways. Certain victimology concepts can be utilized to try to explain the reason why such crimes do occur. These theories can be used in an attempt to explain why such crimes do occur. By applying various models and theories to a number of these crimes and dissecting them, one might better understand what may have occurred when these crimes were committed. These criminological ideas are frequently utilized in discussions aimed at determining the most plausible explanation for why the crimes in question were committed in the first place.
Luster’s Early Life
Andrew Stuart Luster was born on the 15th of December in the year 1963 in the city of Las Vegas, Nevada. A convicted sex offender and the heir to the cosmetics company Max Factor, he was found guilty of having sexual relations with a minor. Henry Luster, a psychiatrist, and Elizabeth Luster, the parents of Andrew Luster. His mother was Freda Factor, the daughter of Max Factor, Sr., and the adopted daughter of Freda’s biological father. He attended Windward School in Los Angeles during his formative years after having spent his formative years in Malibu, California. After graduating from college, Luster relocated to Mussel Shoals, California, where he supported himself by drawing income from a trust fund worth $1 million and maintaining a beach cottage valued at $600,000 (Chawkins, 2013). According to the Los Angeles Times, this move and Luster’s “freewheeling lifestyle” weakened his “already tenuous” ties to the Factor family, which was heavily involved in the arts and philanthropy (Chawkins, 2013). The Factor family was known for their support of charitable organizations.
Luster’s Alleged Crimes
In 2000, Luster was apprehended when a student at a nearby college reported to the authorities that she had been sexually assaulted at Luster’s residence. After conducting an investigation, the police charged Luster with drugging three women with the date-rape drug GHB, sexually assaulting them, and videotaping the assaults after discovering videotapes of the assaults when they searched his home (Chawkins, 2013). Luster was charged with all these crimes because police found videotapes of the assaults when they searched his home.
After posting a bail bond for one million dollars, Luster skipped his court date in January 2003 to defend himself against the charges. After failing to appear in court, Luster was found guilty and sentenced to 124 years in jail. Due to the wealth of Luster’s family, the court dispute they were involved in attracted much attention. In January 2003, the FBI filed a warrant for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution against Luster. In June of 2003, the American bounty hunter Duane “Dog” Chapman tracked him down in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, and took him into custody. Following their escape, Luster and Chapman were both taken into custody by Mexican authorities. Luster was given over to the authorities in the United States. When Chapman was released on bail, his attorney advised him to leave Mexico immediately because the felony kidnapping case against him had been reduced to a misdemeanor.
Chapman later said that he believed his activities in Mexico were legitimate because he worked closely with a Mexican police officer while in that nation. However, the American judge in Luster’s case declined to offer Chapman any reward or bond for his capture of Luster. Chapman also explained that while pursuing Luster, he consulted with a forensic expert specializing in sex crimes (Chawkins, 2013). This expert believed that Luster’s preference for raping unconscious, passive victims indicated a necrophile tendency that could lead to murder. Chapman believed this expert’s opinion because Luster’s preference for raping unconscious, passive victims indicated a necrophile tendency.
The California Court of Appeal cited that Luster had been a fugitive as the primary reason for denying his appeal. It has been established through years of precedent that fugitives disrespect the authority of the court, and as a result, they lose their ability to appeal the decision (Chawkins, 2013). In succeeding years, both the Supreme Court of California and the United States declined to reverse this decision.
Luster’s Case Appeal
Late in 2009, Mr. Luster submitted a petition for habeas corpus as a last-ditch effort to have his case looked at by a different court on appeal. Jay Leiderman and J. David Nick was the attorney who represented Luster in that legal proceeding. The petition for habeas corpus was granted back in April 2012 (Chawkins, 2013). Since the trial judge did not provide clear justifications for imposing consecutive sentences, the Ventura County Superior Court vacated Luster’s 124-year sentence on March 11, 2013, but did not overturn his conviction. The court also scheduled a new sentencing hearing for April 4, 2013.
On April 16, 2013, Judge Kathryne Stoltz of the Ventura County Superior Court lowered Luster’s sentence to 50 years, 48 years for the rapes, and two years for the drug-related offences. The total sentence now stands at 50 years (Chawkins, 2013). The legal representation for Luster has suggested that they would file an appeal. In 2016, those who opposed California Proposition 57 distributed a flyer that said that Luster might be eligible for early release because of the lack of clarification around what constitutes serious offences. In response to this leaflet, Governor Jerry Brown of California informed Sheriff Margaret Mims of Fresno County that Luster had been originally sentenced to a hundred years in jail and was a registered sex offender (Chawkins, 2013). He would not be coming out of prison any time soon. Even if Proposition 57 were to be successful, Brown’s administration made it clear that Luster would not be eligible for parole since he would need to register as a sexual offender. Two of the victims were successful in their civil claims against Luster, and he was ultimately compelled to pay a total of $40 million in damages. After that, Luster parted ways with most of his possessions and filed for bankruptcy.
Luster’s Current Situation
Currently, Luster is detained at the Valley State Prison, located in Chowchilla, California. Following the laws of the state of California, because his actions caused harm to other people, he is obliged to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence before being eligible for release with time off for good conduct (Chawkins, 2013). If his original sentence had been upheld, Luster would not have been eligible for parole until he had completed 105 years of what was essentially a life sentence.
Why Luster’s Case Got Too Much Media Attention
Since Andrew hailed from an affluent family and was a well-known figure, the media lavished attention on him. Second, he was on the run, and the media aired any information they could find on him to help authorities find and catch him. After he left the United States to assist in his capture, a film called “A Date with Darkness: The Trial and Capture of Andrew Luster” was filmed about his actions ( Mitchell, 2021). The film concluded with a snapshot of Luster and an appeal for witnesses to his whereabouts to notify authorities. Because filming had already begun when Luster was arrested, the ending had to be altered to reflect this reality. Power, Privilege, and Justice, a true crime television series hosted by Dominick Dunne, aired an episode about the case on August 28, 2009 ( Mitchell, 2021). The episode was titled “Evil Deeds” and was part of the show’s Season 3, Episode 4. The first episode of Guilty Rich aired on Investigation Discovery on August 31, 2017 ( Mitchell, 2021). This episode documented Andrew Luster’s crimes, subsequent capture, flight, and eventual conviction and imprisonment.
Conclusion
Since Luster was recording what was going on, one may deduce that he was hoping to avoid getting punished for how he had followed the model in his head and instead receive an actual reward in its place. Luster did not foresee any results or impacts regarding the cognition or even the conduct he had displayed in the long run due to such behavior as raping his victims after he had engaged in such activity. Luster did not prepare himself in any way for the possibility that he might spend time in jail due to his rapping activity, as it has been established that this is the expected outcome for such behavior.
Luster’s activities portrayed some mastery expertise in how he conducted his business while also being able to elude the police dragnet for a significant amount of time. This is a reference to the cognitive theory, in which it is stated that a specific process may be able to assist a given individual, such as Luster, in being able to perform the activities they are undertaking while leading to objectives that may be considered to be more complex. Luster was able to give his victims a sense of passion through verbal persuasion, which he did before drugging them, which resulted in the crime of rape being committed by him.
References
Chawkins, S. (2013). Los Angeles Times. Convicted Rapist Andrew Luster’s 124-Year Sentence Vacated.
YouTube. (2021). A Date With Darkness The Trial and Capture of Andrew Luster Lisa Edelstein 2003.YouTube. Web.