Man Gets No Jail Time for Child Rape Because of Shortness

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yup, a man got probation instead of jail because he was short. Last time I checked, that was not a mitigating factor.
From http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196947,00.html

Judge Rules Sex Offender Too Short Prison; Gives Probation Instead
Thursday, May 25, 2006

SIDNEY, Neb. — A judge said a 5-foot-1 man convicted of sexually assaulting a child was too small to survive in prison, and gave him 10 years of probation instead.

His crimes deserved a long sentence, District Judge Kristine Cecava said, but she worried that Richard W. Thompson, 50, would be especially imperiled by prison dangers.

"You are a sex offender, and you did it to a child," she said.

But, she said, "That doesn't make you a hunter. You do not fit in that category."

Thompson will be electronically monitored the first four months of his probation, and he was told to never be alone with someone under age 18 or date or live with a woman whose children were under 18. Cecava also ordered Thompson to get rid of his pornography.

He faces 30 days of jail each year of his probation unless he follows its conditions closely.

"I want control of you until I know you have integrated change into your life," the judge told Thompson. "I truly hope that my bet on you being OK out in society is not misplaced."

How kind of her to bet with someone else's child.

More Info: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197103,00.html

GAH! We should make head soup of the both of them.

Crazed Rabbit

[BHCWarman88]

that special Treatment right there..

[Don Corleone]

Typical. Just freakin typical. Is it any wonder child molesters are running amok in today's western world? Let's coddle them... let's worry about their feelings. Anybody puts their filthy paws on Jillian and they better pray they do get locked up, that'll be the only place I won't be able to get my hands on them.

[Silver Rusher]

If you ask me, child molesters get WAY too much media attention.

[Strike For The South]

so short pepole cant go to jail? Isnt the whole scare factor of prison getting raqped?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I doubt we are getting all the information here. The judge said he was "not a hunter", and call me crazy but I'd assume she knows more about the case than I do. That little news blip really gave you guys enough to make a good assessment?

[Kralizec]

I doubt we are getting all the information here. The judge said he was "not a hunter", and call me crazy but I'd assume she knows more about the case than I do. That little news blip really gave you guys enough to make a good assessment?

Yeah, that's what I generally think when I see/read people dismissing sentences as soft. This thread is no exception.

The judge's last sentence irks me though. "Bet"? If a judge can't be sure himself about his own judgement, who can be?

[Byzantine Prince]

This must be great news for DevDave. Not because he might molest anyone, but because he can do anything he wants without going to jail. Congratulations DevDave, on your newly found superpower. :laugh4:

[solypsist]

I say give the man stilts and lock his @$$ up.



This does touch on an issue that bothers me-I apologize ahead of time for not being able to site my source.

A man was convicted for statutory rape for having sex with a minor he picked up at a bar (She got in with a fake ID).

His defense was that it was a reasonable expectation for her to be of age because he was buying her drinks in a bar-the judge didn't see it that way. That decision really bugged me, that and no charges of any kind were brought against the girl.

[Keba]

She got in with a fake ID

How do you people get fake IDs, it's damn nearl impossible to fake a personal ID card over here?

As to the case ... feh, talked to an American lawyer last week during my English class ... the entire class was called cold-blooded for merely deciding that we would convinct mercy-killing as murder (yes, even if done by a 90-year old man on his deathbed), so you can guess where I stand on this particular issue.

It is possible that the judge knew something else, and the media reported it wrong (wouldn't be their first time). Although, I have to say, child molesters have a very bad time in any prison, they are considered scum even among prisoners.

[Crazed Rabbit]

From the second link:

Thompson, 50, had sexual contact over a couple of months last year with a 12-year-old girl, said Sidney Police Chief Larry Cox. He was sentenced on two felony sexual assault charges.

Enough, methinks, to be deserving of prison.

And Soly, I believe I heard about a case similar to that. A stupid decision by the judge.

Crazed Rabbit

[BHCWarman88]

Well,that sad..it like wtf, just because he a Midget, Means Nothing..

Keba, Who Cares?? WHO Cares if they have a Tough time in Prison.. If they Rape a Kid,they Go to Jail,period.. if they Rape my Kid, I would do something before,heh,if you know what I mean,but come on for christ sake,these Judges..

[Devastatin Dave]

This must be great news for DevDave. Not because he might molest anyone, but because he can do anything he wants without going to jail. Congratulations DevDave, on your newly found superpower. :laugh4:
LOL, no kidding. Its always been a big fear of mine, going to prison with my 5 foot three ass. I probably would be bought for a half a pack of smokes and a Snickers bar!!! I want to keep me old arse cherry in tack ya know.
Back to the topic, this dude needs to go to jail and be someone's bitch. Stupid decision by the judge period and its unbelievable that someone can find good reasoning in this decision but then again... well, nevermind considering who doesn't have a problem with this decision.:wall:

[Banquo's Ghost]

As has been noted, we don't necessarily have the complete facts, so I will comment on the story as currently known.

The judge was clearly wrong in principle, as an important part of imprisonment is the protection of the public.

However, judges have a responsibility to consider the human rights of defendants too (I imagine this is true in the US too, since I would imagine even convicted criminals are still protected by the Constitution). If the conditions in US prisons are so uncontrolled and potentially dangerous to inmates as it seems, then she has no choice but to take that into account.

In a way, sending this criminal to jail in the certain knowledge that he would be raped would, in effect, make her an accessory to that crime.

Perhaps if prisons were properly run, and rampant criminal behaviour stopped, judges might feel happier about sending felons there?

[Kralizec]

A slightly better article (http://www.wpxi.com/news/9278770/detail.html)


"I'm concerned about the message this sends to victims and perpetrators," said Marla Sohl with the Nebraska Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Coalition, adding that it shows more concern is being placed on the criminal and his safety in prison than the victim.

But Joe Mangano, secretary of the National Organization of Short Statured Adults, agreed with the judge's assessment that Thompson would face dangers while in prison because of his height.

"I'm assuming a short inmate would have a much more difficult time than a large inmate," said Mangano, who is 5 feet 4 inches tall. "It's good to see somebody looking out for someone who is a short person."

:dizzy2:

I'll have to agree with Mrs. Sohl, whatever the judge was thinking people will interpet this as preferential treatment for perpetrators.
Assuming there are no further 'details' that led to the judges conclusion, I thinkn the guy should have been imprisoned for a couple of decades. Not molested though, even if the two seem to go hand-in-hand in America.

Banquo's Ghost: I basicly agree, but if a judge doesn't want to send a felon to prison because of the conditions there, he should explicitly mention it in his sentence (preferably multiple times), to send a signal to the executive branch.
If prison conditions are so bad that judges feel they can't in good conscience send a man to prison, the blame lies with the executive, not the judicial power.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

He's probably just the right height for an axing.

Beirut, can I borrow that? Thanks mate!

[Soulforged]

However, judges have a responsibility to consider the human rights of defendants too (I imagine this is true in the US too, since I would imagine even convicted criminals are still protected by the Constitution). If the conditions in US prisons are so uncontrolled and potentially dangerous to inmates as it seems, then she has no choice but to take that into account.

In a way, sending this criminal to jail in the certain knowledge that he would be raped would, in effect, make her an accessory to that crime.

Perhaps if prisons were properly run, and rampant criminal behaviour stopped, judges might feel happier about sending felons there?
I disagree with you. The condition of prisons is not relevant legal issue in order to convict a person declared guilty by due process. So the conduct of the judge cannot be justified there. The human rights issue is only present when there's an actual violation to them, that's, only considered ex post facto, after the penalty takes effect, not before. If it was that way I don't see any reason to not forgive any given criminal for commiting any given crime (while the prisons are in this conditions), since human rights are above all other rights and it applies to any human. Also the lack of acomplisments in one branch of the state does not excuse the fault to duty in another branch, nor excuses contradictory sentences and unequality before the law, if this applies to a short man the same should be for a tall one. That's for the legal issue in my opinion.

Now, if we go to how courts work, then I completly agree with you. If I was a judge, I would be an human first, and I simply wouldn't be able to sleep sending a man to jail, for rape, in the knowledge that he would be raped.

[The_Emperor]

So somebody has to explain to that little girl why the guy who did that to her is still out there...

So much for justice.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So the conduct of the judge cannot be justified there. The human rights issue is only present when there's an actual violation to them, that's, only considered ex post facto, after the penalty takes effect, not before. If it was that way I don't see any reason to not forgive any given criminal for commiting any given crime (while the prisons are in this conditions), since human rights are above all other rights and it applies to any human.

At least in Europe, and in international human rights law, the principle is to act to protect someone who is at known risk of their rights being violated, not to wait until the violation occurs before acting.

And just to note, the man was not forgiven, he was given a sentence allowed by statute. We may consider it a remarkably lenient sentence, but he was still convicted and sentenced, not acquitted. That's what judges do.

I'm not defending the judge's decision as I personally think she made a mistake. But I can see the reasoning behind making such a decision, and thus I would lobby for better conditions in prisons, both from a humanitarian perspective, but also to allow improvements in appropriate sentences.

[Soulforged]

At least in Europe, and in international human rights law, the principle is to act to protect someone who is at known risk of their rights being violated, not to wait until the violation occurs before acting.I stand corrected, I thought you were trying to say another thing. :bow:

[Papewaio]

In a way, sending this criminal to jail in the certain knowledge that he would be raped would, in effect, make her an accessory to that crime.


By that standard if he now goes out and rapes someone doesn't that make her an accessory?

Surely the lesser of two evils is to have an adult rapist raped rather then an innocent child.

A judge shouldn't wait until the prison system mends itself anymore then they should would wait for cops to be totally crime free. It sounds very childish "I'm not going to do my job until someone else does theirs!". If anything judges are supposed to be leaders and setters of high standards, not passing the buck for not doing ones job.

[Soulforged]

By that standard if he now goes out and rapes someone doesn't that make her an accessory?
The only problem, aside from the legal issue, wich Banquo adressed very well, concerning human rights, is that you don't let someone free on the knowledge that he'll rape again as a patology, unless he has an actual patology, wich is not the case. On the other hand you KNOW that he will suffer more than he should if he goes to prison.

[Papewaio]

Right, so we should be more concerned for the welfare of a rapist then his next victim? Aren't rapists the most likely to repeat offend out of any violent crime group?

As for the prisons they should be reformed if they are not protecting prisoners. Justice however should not hold its breath to do its job waiting on others to do theirs.

How would it be now if a policemen stop arresting short people now because the judges are going to automatically let them off?

[Soulforged]

Right, so we should be more concerned for the welfare of a rapist then his next victim? Aren't rapists the most likely to repeat offend out of any violent crime group?That's not at all the issue. You recognize at least that there's a dilema right? From there we've two clear options. But the rights that are being menaced are the ones of the defendant not the ones of potencial inexistent victims. If there was a serious possibility that this man could rape again, then the judge would have ordered his inprisonement. As for the second question, I really don't know, an though the answer to your question is relevant, there's a question that has much more relevance: What was the probability that this particular man in this particular time commited rape again? The judge laid that and human rights in a balance, and the human rights issue had more weight.

As for the prisons they should be reformed if they are not protecting prisoners. Justice however should not hold its breath to do its job waiting on others to do theirs.That's my opinion. But the judges always value other circumstances, that in the end make a desicion just or unjust (that's if we're actually talking about justice), this circumstances comprehend supralegal issues like the socioeconomic situation of a given country in a given time. They don't have that forbidden.

How would it be now if a policemen stop arresting short people now because the judges are going to automatically let them off?Again that's not the case Pape. We're talking about a moral dilema here, human rights or deterance... The shortness seems to be a mitigating factor for the judge, but the decisive factor is wheter he was a potencial danger to society or not, that's how justice in general, functions today.

[BHCWarman88]

So somebody has to explain to that little girl why the guy who did that to her is still out there...

So much for justice.



lol Yea Man..

Some of you People are so worry that if he goes to Jail, He will Get Beat up and stuff and rape and such because..oh....oh My GOD,he 5 foot 3 inches!! ok

Tell the Little Girl

"Ok Little Girl,the bad bad man is still out there because the Judge thinks he will get hurt in Jail"

Let him Get Punish
He Wants to Ruin the Kid's Life to a Point, Give him a PunishMent.. Yes,we all Humans,but you F up,you get punish. that how Life is,you don't like it,deal with it..