O.C. Judge Who Gave Child Molester Reduced Sentence Asked to Resign

[ScreamingMeemie]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-child-molester-sentencing-20150409-story.html

snip-

But Kelly said he wrestled with the case and finally decided that giving Rojano-Nieto such a sentence — even though it was the mandatory minimum sentence under state law — would be “cruel and unusual punishment.”

So he gave him 10 years instead.

The judge’s decision has landed him at the center of a growing firestorm. On Thursday, three Orange County supervisors called on him to resign, thousands signed petitions condemning his actions and conservative talk show hosts revised their programming to discuss the case and news blog.

Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas, meanwhile, said he plans to appeal the sentencing.

-snip


------------------------------------

Conservative talk show hosts revised their programming? Who the heck cares?

[In_The_Wind]

1. He should resign!

[malaise]

2. Good - apparently raping a three year old isn't cruel and unusual punishment

Fuck both of these fucking fucks

[ScreamingMeemie]

4. You said it waaaaay better than I could.

[misterhighwasted]

3. Saying "he intended no harm to the child" What reason would the Judge side with the rapist?

A 3 yr old child??
Why would the judge reason leniency in such a case?
He should resign & the case be reassigned.
This is the stuff that makes you absolutely recoil in disbelief.

[ScreamingMeemie]

5. His reasoning, of course, blames the 3-year-old.

It's not like the rapist stalked her or anything...she had the audacity to toddle into the garage. And he didn't intend to harm her...while putting his hand over her mouth so her mother couldn't hear her as she tried to get in the garage...

[msanthrope]

6. Actually....he doesn't seem to blame the victim so much as he

focuses on the perpetrator......there was apparently a great deal of evidence offered to the court that the rapist is a low functioning individual, with a severely dysfunctional home life. He also seemed to accept responsibility and show remorse. He's also 20.

I'm not defending this sentence. But there seems to be a bit more to it than victim blame.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. We'll have to disagree. Saying the victim walked into the garage where he was playing a

video game instead of the perpetrator taking advantage of the victim is blaming the victim. In his mind, if she had never walked into the garage, this wouldn't have happened.

[msanthrope]

11. If she hadn't walked into the garage, this wouldn't have happened. But that doesn't

mean any blame should go to the victim.....not at all. I think the judge should have phrased that better.....but legal opinions, including mine, often come across as unfeeling because they can be fact- as opposed to emotion-driven.

No, I think the point the judge was trying to make was that this rapist was not out trolling....this was a random, unpremeditated act by someone who is low-functioning. It's a crime, but it's a crime of opportunity, as opposed to something sought after with intent.

Does this make him less culpable? To this judge, yes. I'm not saying I agree, I'm discussing how I think this judge came to this sentence.

And let me repeat.....No blame to the victim, here. And I don't think the judge was blaming the victim.....but rather focusing on a perpetrator who is apparently quite disadvantaged.

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. Let me repeat... It is what it is...IMO= victim blaming

It's okay to disagree, but you're not going to change my mind.

[msanthrope]

13. No--it's stating a fact. It's the classic legal but-for. The judge is justifying his

sentencing by stating that: But for the victim walking into the garage, the crime would not have happened. The mere stating of that conclusion is not victim blaming. Had the judge said that victim should not have done that, or if he spoke of her disparagingly (as judges have done in other cases) then I would say that this judge is victim-blaming. But what I think the judge is saying is that this crime happened because of a set of circumstances that were more about coincidence and opportunity, as opposed to devious intent.

This is not blaming the victim. And I am not blaming the victim.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with this judge, but I can see how he got to where he did. I think a deeper issue going on here is that I think the judge assumes the three-year old will recover from this---will have support, and services, and, in time, might not even remember it. That's a gamble.

[kcr]

15. I might agree, except for another ruling this same judge made

on a prior case giving a light sentence to a cop who trolled on the internet for underage sex. This makes me inclined to think this judge has a serious problem with a terrible bias.

[msanthrope]

18. Yeah--having read about that case, I think that proves my point--this judge isn't victim blaming so

much as he focuses on the perpetrator, particularly when he's able to justify that the victim is not subject to further harm---

from the article....

He also said the girl now “appears to be a happy healthy child.”

“So it’s hard to gauge how this crime may affect her mental state in the future,” he said. “It certainly may, but I hope it does not. It doesn’t appear she suffered any serious violent physical injuries, and by all accounts she appears headed for a normal life.”

In the case of the cop, you had no actual victim--it was an online sting.

Don't get me wrong---I don't agree with this judge. But what I'm saying here is that the issue is not "victim-blaming" so much as I think he's able to compartmentalize, and frankly, overcompartmentalize.

[kcr]

19. It doesn't prove your point

I'm not sure how focusing on the perpetrator means he isn't blaming the victim.

[msanthrope]

20. Well, in the case of the cop, there was no victim to blame. Here, in this case, I don't think

the judge blames the victim for what happened to her. Because she is apparently so recovered, he focused on the relative who raped her.

I'm not saying that's right or moral....I'm saying that's what I think the judge is doing here.

Focusing on the perpetrator doesn't mean the victim is culpable---I did juvie justice for a time, and often, the juveniles themselves needed more help than their victims. Particularly juvie sex offenders.

[kcr]

21. No, but the case still shows his bias

Without knowing that bias exists, I can see giving the benefit of the doubt of your explanation. Knowing of that other ruling, I absolutely think he means to blame the victim because he thinks the perp isn't at fault. The judge is using the fact that the victim walked into that garage as an extenuating circumstance. It is clear in that ruling. I could give the benefit of the doubt that it was merely a poor choice of words were it not for the other ruling that clearly shows a bias.

[msanthrope]

23. Oh no--the judge is saying the perp is at fault. Walking into the garage is not an extenuating

circumstance, but it indicates that the perpetrator was not seeking out the girl, this a crime of opportunity. Can you point to any language where the judge characterizes the actions of the girl in a negative way? Or characterizes the girl negatively?

I think the point the judge was trying to make was that the girl--a visiting relative--walked into the garage, and a crime of opportunity took place. This was not someone laying in wait, or someone who had pre-planned a scenario.

Do I agree with the judge? No. But I don't think this is victim blaming. More like "female victim is okay, we have a male perpetrator who doesn't fit the mold."

Which is it's own form of sexism, much more difficult to address.

[bettyellen]

29. I get what you are saying- but the judge doesn't think rape is such a big deal- and that is pretty

Fucked up.

[msanthrope]

32. I think he does. I think what you have here though, is a unique victim and perpetrator.

You have a victim, who by all accounts, is doing well. That in no way diminishes what happened to her. And if she's lucky, bettyellen, she may never remember it, or when she grows up, it may not be a traumatic memory for her. We can't know, because each victim is different.

You have a perpetrator who is apparently a young, very disadvantaged person, in a dysfunctional home, who is remorseful and apologetic. Ten years is going to be ten years of hell for him. He will pay for his actions--mentally, physically, emotionally. Did you see his booking photo at the link?

And they are related. So the entire family is involved, and torn. I think the judge tried to do what he thought was justice. He may be wrong, but I can't see anything in his decision making that indicates he felt the girl was at fault, or that this is anything but a crime.

He may be a sexist. Maybe. Or maybe he just had a horrible case with a perpetrator who isn't your usual sociopathic rapist, and he's trying to be merciful to one he thinks deserves mercy. Our justice system is supposed to take that into account.

[bettyellen]

34. Confused while being smart enough to muffle her cries? Seriously?

It was a very violent thing to do to a toddler, despite the judges hopes it will not effect her.
he is minimizing this as if it was just a silly mistake. I can't accept that- any teenager shld know better. He knew he was hurting her when he was doing it.
Many of us came from severely fractured homes too, and that doesn't give us a free pass to be be rapists. Sorry. He is minimizing a violent act, and sending a message that rationalize rape. Just no.

[kcr]

39. Oh yes

I'm glad you agree that walking into the garage is not an extenuating circumstance, but it sure looks like the judge does. Like I said, if not for the other ruling, I could see reading it the way you are.

[truebluegreen]

7. Methinks somebody should look in that judge's closet.

No one would blame a 3-yr-old or claim the rapist meant no harm...unless he can relate because he shares the proclivities.

[misterhighwasted]

10. The jusdge's statement as to the lesser sentence does kinda makes one think in this direction.

What's in his closet.
Sounds like a Republican.

[magical thyme]

14. this, exactly. nt

[aikoaiko]

8. "no intended harm" is straight out of NAMBLA.

[Comrade Grumpy]

16. He did sentence the guy to 10 YEARS in prison. That's quite within the norm for civilized countries.

You know, where they emphasize maximum sentences instead of mandatory minimum ones.

But not to worry, DU--Bill O'Reilly is outraged, too.

[kcr]

17. I think it has more to do with the comments the judge made

If the initial sentence had been 10 years with no reduction and outrageous comments, it wouldn't be a story.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. ^this^ the comments are what make me question this judge's ability to assess the situation

and mete out justice/mercy accordingly.

[LiberalAndProud]

24. He acted outside the parameters of the law

and made comments to the effect that the three-year-old child in some way contributed to her own abuse.

Whether I agree that a 25-year sentence is just is really not the point. The judge's comments made it very clear that he should not be on the bench adjudicating in matters such as these. I would go so far as to say that he is perverted.

[Yo_Mama]

40. Yes, there is something wrong with him and he should resign.

All of his reasoning is twisted. He's either twisted himself or he is a high-functioning autistic. The perp did not "inexplicably become aroused." The perp is a pedophile.

If this had happened to a 13 year-old girl who could verbalize the pain and fear she experienced, the judge would not be making the comments that there is no harm. The toddler experienced enduring pain (it was her later suffering that prompted the mother to investigate) and undoubtedly fear. The idea, btw, that the child will suffer no lasting effects is also insane. It's just that she's so young she isn't able to verbalize or conceptualize.

The reasoning that the perp did not intend to harm the child is insane. A 20 year-old fucked a three year-old up the ass. If the child wasn't screaming to high heaven, she was either frightened into mute rigidity or, more likely, he had a hand clamped over her mouth and nose so she couldn't scream. She suffered acute pain. Because it requires LESS violence to physically control a three year-old does not make this a non-violent crime.

What this judge's reasoning amounts to is that a voiceless victim is no victim. It is an intense perversion of justice for the most vulnerable to have the least legal protection in the eyes of the court. He is showing a depraved unwillingness to sentence the offender based on the crime the offender DID commit.

Why it is taken to be extenuating that the perp forcibly raped a child who just happened to wander by I cannot imagine. Would anyone take it as extenuating if his thirteen year-old cousin had happened to wander into the garage and had gotten raped? What it implies is that the perp has little control over his actions and is an opportunistic predator. Nor was this pure impulse. Obviously the garage door was opened when the child wandered in. The offender here then closed the door and seized the child for his own "use".

What may lie behind this is that the judge just believes that sentencing for sexual offenses is generally too harsh. But that is not a juidge's call to make, and even if it were a constitutional violation, a judge that is so stupid as to believe the things that he has said about this crime, this criminal, and this victim could not possibly be able to make that judgement.

The bottom line is that the perp is likely going to be released from prison in 5 or 6 years under this judge's sentence. The judge knows that. This girl will be facing this perp out and about before she is 10 years old, which is going to send her a really great message.

[DefenseLawyer]

27. I think you know DU has no time for your point of view

Demanding anything less than the harshest penalty you can think of in every case is obviously a tacit approval of the crime. So have you always loved child molesters?

[ScreamingMeemie]

31. This is completely untrue.

It's about the judge's statements and not so much the penalty for me. Thank you for realizing that.

[Yo_Mama]

41. Do you think that 5 or 6 years in prison is appropriate for this offense??

I really want to know the answer. Because in CA, that's all he is going to serve.

[DefenseLawyer]

42. I think prison ought to be for rehabilitation

Take the offender out of society to deal with his or her lack of judgment, immaturity, poor social skills, etc. I think for the average offender, those goals are accomplished, if at all, in the first 5 years of prison. Additional time doesn't equate to additional rehabilitation. On the contrary, the prisoner loses contact with family, with the "real world" and only knows how to survive in the brutal "might makes right" world of prison. We want to teach this boy that sexual abuse is wrong, so we send him to a place where he is sexually abused by the "leaders" of prison society on a regular basis. He becomes institutionalized. He can't function outside prison. And then after 20 or 30 years we send him back out among us and wish him luck. It hasn't helped him, it hasn't helped us, it hasn't lowered to crime rate. It makes you feel like you have properly expressed your hatred of the particular crime by demanding the harshest sentence you can think of. That's all that 20 or 30 years accomplishes.

[seabeyond]

22. he did not wrestle hard enough if he concluded there was no harm. nt

[msanthrope]

33. That's not what he concluded. nt

[Trillo]

25. Can we get this kind of action for the U.S. supreme court?

Could be handy should they ever decide something rather unpopular.

[NCjack]

28. Kelly, you are unworthy for the office. Resign. nt

[ismnotwasm]

30. Good. Nt

[Hekate]

35. Based on the judge's record, he should not be trying sex crimes with minors cases. He really....

....seems to have no clue. The 3 year old WILL remember being traumatized, regardless of how well behaved ("happy, healthy&quot she currently is. Her whole family will over time warp around this event, and that will affect her as well.

I hope he resigns, and soon. He's a disgrace to his profession.

As to whether the rapist is or is not mentally capable -- FFS, both our jail system and mental-asylum systems are broken. The biggest difference is how little money we give toward any kind of mental health support (especially hospitals) and how much we pour into criminal incarceration, making the County jails and State prisons into default housing for the chronically mentally ill, including low-IQ offenders.

So bloody much wrong with this story it makes me want to both and

[Initech]

38. He should be disbarred.

What is really making my blood boil about this story is not just that the judge basically allowed a child rapist to get off scot free, he tried to make it the kids' fault for being there in the first place! That is simply fucking mind blowing. The judge should resign and be stripped of his ability to practice law ever again. The kid is the victim here, the rapist is a piece of shit.

[Initech]

36. Further proof that there is no liberal media.

Who gives a shit what conservative talk shows talk about? A fucking judge let a fucking child rapist practically off the hook! Both of them should have their lives be a living breathing hell.

[vankuria]

37. Good!

And he should never be in any position of power or trust again! Aside from the sentencing, I'm in absolute disbelief about the sick comments he made, that this poor little girl somehow asked for this...he's a very sick, perverted man and needs psychiatric help.

[Rex]

43. Glad this is getting some traction! We said it here first! The judge has to GO!

Kick his ass off the bench! No sane judge would say the shit he did and give the guy a slap on the wrist!