Nebraska Child Molester gets NO JAIL time-

[elehhhhna]

Judge: Man Is Too Short for Prison


Email this Story

May 25, 7:22 AM (ET)


SIDNEY, Neb. (AP) - 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.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060525/D8HQP7F82.html

[Fierce]

1. Sometimes I really hate this society.

nt

[FreakinDJ]

15. One word - Lafave

[Warpy]

2. That judge needed to consider how small a child is compared to

Thompson. Then he'd look considerably less pathetic and defenseless.

[Fierce]

3. WTF is wrong with her?

From a bio:

Her professional involvement has included the Nebraska Commission for the Protection of Children, the Supreme Court Gender Fairness Task Force, the Rural Resources Task Force, the NSBA Indigent Defense Task Force and the CSA/NSBA Special Committee to Review Nebraska Juvenile Codes. As an active wife and mother she also donates much of her time to community service.

[RebelDawg]

4. WTF!!!

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. So I guess as long as your too short you can just molest away. Has this idiot judge never heard of solitary confinement?

[BrownOak]

7. WTF is right

How does one even begin to justify that decision?

[gratuitous]

5. That's a switch on "I'm too pretty to go to jail!"

I certainly hope that if Mr. Thompson re-offends (as the pleasant euphemism goes), Judge Cecava is there to explain to his victim that while it's too bad he or she got fucked in the ass, Mr. Thompson's just too short to go to jail. I'm sure the kid will understand.

[depakid]

6. A few more facts might be in order

before everyone goes off on this.

[RebelDawg]

8. I got all the facts I need to make judgment

from the article. Hopefully the community throws her out on her ass in the next election.

[seriousstan]

10. Really? Exactly what did he do?

[RebelDawg]

11. I'll let the Judge's words speak for me

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

That enough for you or do you have to be in the room while he does it?

[depakid]

14. and how old was the child

Big difference between 6 and 16.

Big difference between stautory rape and violent assualt.

All we've got here is licentious wire service fodder for the echo chambers.

It's DESIGNED to get people's ire up.

Run a google news search. There's about 75 entries with the exact same blurb

How easily people let themselves be manipulated.....

[etherealtruth]

16. The problem I have is with the judges words ....

"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."

If she believes as she stated, "His crimes deserved a long sentence," how can she justify the actual sentence she handed down?

[depakid]

19. Again, without more than a couple of sentences

you're flying blind- and have no real way to make a reasoned judgment about the case.

Judges often say things like that just to "put the fear of God" into defendants.

Some wire service reporter takes some things out of context- and then everyone around the country hops to the tune. I've seen this thousands of times before. It's one of the reason's America's in the mess its in.

Personally, I don't have an opinion one way or the other- becuase I realize I don't know anything.

[RebelDawg]

23. Why don't you give us the proper context

Mr. all knowing? Give me a break. The judge fucked up. Period.

[depakid]

24. LOL- I don't know anything- neither do you- I think that was the point.

[RebelDawg]

26. Wrong again Kid

I know the judge said he molested a child and deserved to go to prison. I also know that she said he was too short to go. Thats all I need to know. He was big enough to molest a CHILD then he should be big enough to go to jail. Period.

[depakid]

27. Simplistic thinking

Same kind that brought us GW Bush & Co.

[RebelDawg]

28. Sorry

I'm just a simpleton then. I hope you can "enlighten" me as time goes by. Tell me again why her decision isn't bull shit. He molested a child and got off with a slap on the wrist ONLY because of his height. Pretty cut and dry to me.

[depakid]

29. Wake me up

When you get some actual facts about the case.

[RebelDawg]

30. What facts do you not have

that you would need to make a judgment? There seem to be plenty there.

[redqueen]

43. No, it's really not.

That person is a sick man and a predator. No matter how old the victim was.

There are no extenuating circumstances I can think of that would justify letting a man off with only probation after comitting a sexual indiscretion with a minor.

This is why this kind of crap is so common... too many people treat it like it's some 'nothing' crime... it's not.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

60. I can't decide if I should hit alert or not...

[]"You sound just as dumb as O'Reilly
Posted by jerry611
You sound just as stupid as Bill O'Reilly. You have absolutley no facts on this case yet you already passed judgement.

What if the "child" were 17? That is legal in some states as well as most of the world."

Sorry, but the facts are that this man committed some sort of sexual act with someone with whom it's illegal to have such contact. Why does that not compute with you? If it was legal where he lives, it wouldn't be a matter before the court, would it?

Your jumping around all over the thread insulting people because you disagree with their views isn't going to win any arguments, you know. You might consider re-thinking your strategy.

[Jed Dilligan]

62. Do you think all laws in every place are just?

Why even have judges?

Don't you think some 17 year olds are more ready for sex and making their own decisions about it than some 18 year olds?

[redqueen]

63. No, I do not.

However that has nothing to do with this guy getting unequal treatment because of his height.

[Jed Dilligan]

65. Yes, I agree that's stupid

Especially as a tall guy who's been before a judge before!

However, I take issue with your "zero-tolerance" ideas... The "registered sex offender" thing is another "War On" as far as I'm concerned, a way to lump the relatively innocent with the most shamefully guilty and thus increase governmental surveillance and control.

[redqueen]

67. I agree to a point...

with the laws being enforced the way they are, you have a good point. We need clearer definitions in the law... a way to separate the statutory rape of a a willing 16 year old from the actual rape of a much younger person. The latter are the cases that I think unquestionably deserve zero tolerance... I stand by that opinion.

[Jed Dilligan]

68. I'd say there's three distinct categories

1. Adults having consensual sex with teens

2. Adults befriending prepubescent kids and persuading them to have sex when the kids don't know any better

3. Adults who violently rape children of any age

The threes belong in lock-up. The twos need to be monitored and kept away from kids, but lifelong financial reparations--for therapy, education, etc.--would be more beneficial to the victims than an "eye for an eye" (meaning prison rape). A lot of the 2's happen in the context of institutions like churches or schools, the former at least having deep pockets.

As for the ones, well, I'd lower the "age of consent" to begin with and just hope that judges can sort out what's right in what is usually a family dispute.

[redqueen]

69. I can dig that...

:)

[RebelDawg]

17. Beside the point

he is getting different treatment then anyone else because of his height. Thats Bullshit. Doesn't matter if she was 16. I fuck a 16 year old then I go to jail.

This molesting short fuck does it and he gets probation. People should be outraged.

[jerry611]

16 is legal in most countries

Hell, it's 14 in Canada, Italy, and Germany. I don't see those countries have mass child molestation going on. We have the most strictest child protection laws in the civilized world, but we have more molestation than most 3rd world countries.

In other words, something is wrong with our system.

[RebelDawg]

36. We don't know how old the CHILD was

Regardless, the main point is that had he been 5 inches taller his ass would be in jail. Thats Bullshit.

[Maine-ah]

74. child is 12 years old.

sorry it's from the moonie times but heres the link

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060526-110743-2455r.htm

[TheFarseer]

9. so midgets can do whatever they want?

sort of like minors?

[peekaloo]

12. Truly fucked up. I suppose he was molesting kids TALLER than him.

:banghead:

[DrDan]

13. another reference that shed additional light on this verdict

"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."


He is not a hunter - that explains it. Makes sense now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052500438.html

[RebelDawg]

18. All that shows me is that the judge should be removed

NOW. How do you sexually offend a child and not be a hunter as well? Sexually molesting children is the definition of predator to me.

[depakid]

20. Give it a rest

Wasn't the "fair tax" thread enough for one day?

[RebelDawg]

22. Give what a rest?

I think the judge made a huge mistake for not putting a CHILD MOLESTER in jail and you have a smart ass comment about the fair tax. OooooKayyyyy...why don't you give it a rest.

[karlrschneider]

34. We have exactly zero information as to the actual nature of

the 'molestation', the circumstances or the age of the victim. Without any details, none of us are in any reasonable position to evaluate, let alone criticize the judge's decision.

[RebelDawg]

37. We have plenty of info

How tall are you Karl? Cause if your taller than 5' 1" your ass would be in jail for the same offense. Doesn't matter how old the CHILD was. You and I would be in jail and this creep is out.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. It matters significantly how old the child was.

How can anybody say it doesn't?

[RebelDawg]

44. Because it was a CHILD!!

The main issue, however, is the fact that if he was taller he would be doing time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. So?

Having sex with a 17 year old "child" is considerably different than having sex with a seven year old child. One is totally illegal and immoral in every sense, one's fine depending on what state you live in.

Furthermore, the state has a legal and moral responsibility to protect the safety of its incarcerated. If you're so upset about this, perhaps you should work to improve the safety of prisons. Perhaps you can start with the people who like to see inmates get beaten and raped.

[RebelDawg]

51. Perhaps child molestation

wouldn't be as prominent if so many people weren't willing to overlook it. Perhaps you could start by changing your thinking that its ok to molest a child OF ANY AGE. The CHILD was young enough that what he did broke the law. If I had done it (i am 6 feet tall) I would be in jail. The little person gets a pass.

[redqueen]

45. No it doesn't.

How can anyone say it does?

[RebelDawg]

48. Apparently DU has several

posters who see no problem shagging 16 year olds. I wonder where their cut off age is. 15 1/2? 14? Makes you wonder...

[redqueen]

50. The media pushes it...

we see girls that age painted and primed to convey sexual readiness, so it's to be expected I suppose.

[jerry611]

54. You say there is no difference between age 10 and age 16?

There is a huge difference.

Why do you think it is pedophilia if someone has sex with a 17 1/2 year old? But then it suddenly becomes normal if the "child" were 18?
2/3rd of High School students say they've had sex already anyway.

Age makes a difference? I guess you were with the righties during the Clinton impeachment then. Clinton was like 25 years OLDER than Monica.

[RebelDawg]

55. Ok now your comparing

Monica and Bill to a Predator and a CHILD. This Child may have been 10 for all you know. Could have been 16 for all I know. Regardless, they were underage and it was illegal. Why is that hard for you to comprehend?

HE MOLESTED A CHILD. Keep repeating and maybe it will sink in.

on edit

Still waiting for you to show me the stats that drug abusers and murderers re-offend more often than child molesters. Thats what I thought.

[jerry611]

57. I made it quite clear

The stat I got about drug convicts was from a police officer that I know. He told me the vast majority of people he arrests have drug priors.

As for the homicide rate being higher in states with the death penalty...I can hunt down that statistic if you wish. But it is out there.

[redqueen]

64. I guess it makes some people feel better to try to assume

that the victim wanted it, and liked it.

No idea why that assumption is so right, but any others are wrong.

[karlrschneider]

61. I'm 5-10. Average. But we do not know what the "offense" actually was.

Raping a 9 year old is a hell of a lot different than grabbing the tit of a 17 year old - what actually happened is probably somewhere in between but the news reports have not said...the ones I've seen, anyway.

[Maine-ah]

75. sorry, it from moonie times....12 years old.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060526-110743-2455r.htm

[Occulus]

56. You don't live in MI, do you?

I only ask because my state does what you apparently want done- lumping all types of sex offenders into one category- i.e., the MI sex offender registry- without seperating their crimes by type. For example:

I know one guy who was accused of (and pled guilty to) second degree criminal sexual conduct involving a child under the age of twelve. According to the transcripts from one of the hearings held during his case, the "victim" testified that the "offender" was in fact sleeping at the time. Per the "victim's" testimony, the "offender" flopped the back of his, the offender's, hand onto the kid's crotch in his sleep.

And that flew in court (he got scared into a plea when the judge didn't dismiss the case as she should have done), which to a small number may mean the system works, but to anyone actually sane means the system is severely broken and in fact works against the goals it states to have in the first place.

Moral of the story: Not all sex offenders are even "molestors". Not all of them are "predators". Some people classified as sex offenders never actually touched anyone, but are guilty of some other sex crime, such as flashing, public nudity/exposure, etc.

The judge's statement may well have been perfectly correct, but because of laws such as what we have in MI, many many people (including, apparently, YOU) see every sex offender as a child molestor of the worst kind, when that quite simply is not the case.

The laws regarding these crimes may be or may not be well-written, too: again turning to my home state, the classes of crimes are (in order of severity, top-down) 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 4th. NOT 1-2-3-4, but 1-3-2-4, which means someone who says "I was convicted of 2nd degree CSC" may be heard as saying "I was convicted of the second-worst type of sex crime." Well, not true... but the law is written to make it seem true, to make not-so-bad cases into more than they are.

They may all be "just as bad as the others" to you, but (thankfully) to juries and legislators, rape with penetration of three nine-year-old girls is not as "bad" as fondling the chest of a ten-year-old.

Our legal system needs to be tempered by some wisdom if it is to function as advertised. This judge was wise enought o know that the guy would likely be turned into a sex slave in the prison upon arrival. I'm very hesitant to state that that's the sort of thing our prisons should be about.

The "they deserve it" mentality only helps keep the prisons open longer. I hope you realize one very simple fact about prison here (or, seemingly, anywhere): when you put someone in prison, what you're doing (this from current and former prisoners, some of whom I still count among friends) is placing them into an environment where rules and conforming behaviors are exactly opposite from those we have "on the outside". People in even minimum security prisons learn behaviors we would consider to be "bad" and live under that sort of mentality for months or more commonly years at a time.

Upon release, they are sent back into society with a couple hundred bucks if they're lucky, but no job, no home, nothing to return to except the exact sort of people "on the outside" that they grew to live with "on the inside". There's no support system, nothing to steer them back into what we call civilized society. No, we expect them to flip-flip their entire set of acceptable behavior twice... once when they go in, and once when they go out... and then expect no consequences for the rest of us, period, or its (and here's the sick part) BACK TO JAIL all over again.

Notice I didn't once mention fines and/or parole terms. Those add to this whole ball of wax.

Mentalities such as those I see from your posts are part of the problem, not the solution. For all we know, the judge did the right thing, the guy really isn't a predator (I don't know the specifics of the case, so I myself can't comment to that until I do), but if he were sent into an environment filled with that and more as we know prisons are, he very well could have come out more dangerous to us, as a result of "getting what he deserves" while in prison.

So what can you do when you reasonably expect someone sent to prison will likely come out worse? You can't keep them past their sentence, regardless of their behavior, unless they do someone while in prison that extends their time. If they don't, even if their behavior toward others, kids, or what have you, is worse, you have to release them. You can't just say "me think you bad" and keep them there, either. That's not what their sentence was.

I'm not confortable with a mentality that lumps all types of crime together (for example, killing: there are legal and illegal ways in which one person might kill another) and asks that they all be punished in the same way. That's not what our legal system outght to be about.

It should be about reform, not simple punishment (and remember: the punished may end up worse as a result, not better). If the judge felt that reform would be better served by not sending someone to prison, then we have to trust that the judge has seen enough of these cases to know when the offender is actually a predator and when he's not.

[karlrschneider]

35. That is identical to the linked story in the OP

...

[electron_blue]

21. Does anyone ever really recover from being a child molester?

I'm no expert, but I can't imagine it happening. Anybody know what the recidivism rate is?

[jerry611]

31. Not much more than most other crimes

Actually I think drug dealers and drug addicts have a much higher rate of reoffending than child molesters.

I know a cop and he once told me that 90% of the people he arrests has priors for various drug convictions.

The current prison system is not designed to rehabilitate, it is designed to punish. Unfortunately punishment is all that society cares about. The problem with this is when the convict is let out, he/she will commit or at least consider committing the same crime or even a more severe crime. Our only response to this is to increase prison sentences...which doesnt do a damn thing other than further crowd the system.

[RebelDawg]

38. Got any data to back that up?

I don't think you can.

[redqueen]

49. You think? You're just going to guess, and base your opinions on that?

Turns out your wrong... fancy that.

http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C24.htm

[Pavulon]

77. High enough for the state to invol commit

IMHO. Any child molester who repeats (key) should be committed on mental health grounds to a locked psychiatric facility. There they can be treated.

Thorazine, Haldol, Clozaril and Risperdal in large doses would take care of these folks.

They can spend their lives coloring and doing 3rd grade crossword puzzles.

[MadHound]

25. What happy horseshit this is

Too short for prison!? This is blatant discrimination, no matter what the crime is. If the man is tall enough to do the crime, he's tall enough to do the time.

[redqueen]

52. Exactly... unfair treatment due to HEIGHT... THAT is the issue...

not the "hey it's really not so bad if he only did it with a teenager!"

Yes, it is... no matter the crime, he's receiving unfair treatment. That is wrong, period.

[Catherine Vincent]

32. Would she give him probation had it been her kid?

[Fleshdancer]

33. WTF?

This is insane. Absolutely insane. Could you imagine being that poor child? Could you imagine being the parent? Or the neighbor of the predator? This asshole creates a hell for everyone and he's treated like the victim. Nice. Real nice. :grr:

What else can this short asshole get away with? Robbery? Murder? :wtf:

Not only does he get probation, but he's only electronically monitored for the first 4 months of his 10 year probation. AND, if he breaks the "rules" of his probation, he gets only 30 days of jail for each year of his probation! HOW is this incentive for him to not rape kids? So he can BREAK HIS PROBATION while charged with SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD and still only get less than one year's worth of jail time spread out over 10 years? :grr:

I hope karma steps in.

[jerry611]

40. Like that would solve anything?

Punishment does not deter criminal activity.

The rate of homicide for example is actually statistically HIGHER in states that have the death penalty.

[Fleshdancer]

46. Does a slap on the wrist deter criminal activity?

Giving him a 10 year probation while only electronically monitoring him for the first 4 months doesn't exactly sound like a deterrent either. Besides, this is about the possibilty of a repeat offense which doesn't exactly correlate with getting the death penalty for homicide. :shrug:

[dogday]

41. I guess he should of thought about

that before he molested that child... This is unacceptable... Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.....

The judge is giving him a first time offenders sentence, but they need to change that law for these kiddy preverts. They need time the first time out....

[redqueen]

53. "They need time the first time out...."

AMEN!

[Jed Dilligan]

66. I have a feeling class as well as height came into it

Bet you anything this is an upper-middle-class white guy....

[porphyrian]

42. Well, it's the victim's fault.

That kid should've been less sexually attractive to that poor molester.
</disgustingSarcasm>

[Jed Dilligan]

58. Has this judge never heard of prison gangs?

No one is tougher than ten guys. Even if the defendant was 6'10" 400 lbs he would be vulnerable in prison if he was not an established gang member.

[ForrestGump]

70. Tall people! We march on Nebraska!

i) regardless of the actual severity of the crime ('consensual' statutory rape, for example, with one near the age of consent versus true molestation of a young kid), the double-standard inherent to this judge's decision is unacceptable, given that it seems the key factor why he didn't go to jail is that he is shorter than average (i.e., someone like me would have gone to jail for the same offense)

ii) why are prisons so unable to guarantee, or at least pretty much so, the safety of their inmates that judges are afraid to send criminals there lest they be sending them to their doom? What's next? What are the next circumstances under which a judge refuses to jail an offender for fear of their life or welfare? Should we start prisons with no-rape-or-other-bodily-harm sections?

Maybe she shoulda just had him stood up against a wall and shot. Like her career could now be, regardless of how well-intentioned her judgment...

[electron_blue]

71. The child was 12 yrs old. Can we stop talking about hypothetical 17.5 yr

olds now?

So what say you all now?

Two counts against a 12 yr old.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/too-short-for-jail-sex-offender-gets-probation/2006/05/26/1148524854545.html

[elehhhhna]

72. 12 y/o daughter of his fiancee...he shoudl rot in hell.

[BlooInBloo]

73. Not that it makes a difference, but the story I got says 13....

... jus' sayin...


EDIT: I guess it would help to put the link in... http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?id=30666&siteSection=1

[BlooInBloo]

76. Hmmm - the molester is white... anyone know if the girl *ISN'T* ??

Just getting cognitive dissonance here - female judge keeping molester of 12 yo girls out of prison...