Judge Gets 4 Years for Exposing Himself

[Herman Munster]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/18/D8JJ01N80.html

A former judge convicted of exposing himself while presiding over jury trials by using a sexual device under his robe was sentenced Friday to four years in prison.
Donald Thompson had spent almost 23 years on the bench and had served as a state legislator before retiring from the court in 2004. He showed no reaction when he was sentenced.

At his trial this summer, his former court reporter, Lisa Foster, testified that she saw Thompson expose himself at least 15 times during trial between 2001 and 2003. Prosecutors said he also used a device known as a penis pump during at least four trials in the same period.

Thompson, 59, was convicted last month of four felony courts of indecent exposure for incidents that took place in his Creek County courtroom.

[SteppingRazor]

1. Four years in prison?!

Wow ... I mean, the guy's a jerk and all but, wow!

[lutefisk]

8. I wonder if he gets credit for the "hard time" he's already served?

Have to kind of admire the ability to multitask, I guess.:puffpiece:

edit: And seriously, I agree that 4 years is way too harsh.

[WinkyDink]

21. Totally disagree. This was no run-of-the-mill flasher on some street.

[Coyote_Bandit]

9. He was the presiding judge

He jerked off in open court. Repeatedly. During murder trials.

If I were the defendant who was convicted of murder during that trial I would think that perhaps the judge should be serving my sentence. He was after all a bit too preoccupied to be sure that the interests of justice were served. And as a taxpayer I'd be hacked off about the expenses incurred because of all the cases heard in his court that are now being re-tried.

A sentence of four years with the possibility of early release and a fine of $40,000 for conviction on four separate counts? He got off easy compared to what would have happened to most anyone else convicted of multiple incidents of jerking off in public.

Welcome to the sex offender registry, judge.

[MrCoffee]

18. A "jerk"...surely you didn't mean...

maybe you did. pervert.

[derby378]

2. ALL RISE!

The judge is showing off his legal briefs again...

[karlrschneider]

4. Here come da Judge!

:silly:

[karlrschneider]

3. This guy is local to me here, he's one of the most truly creepy

people I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. :scared:

[BuhByeChimp]

6. You obviously have not met Senator Inhofe yet.

[Z_I_Peevey]

17. Bwah!

Funny!

[karlrschneider]

27. Oh, yes I have. A number of times...and Coburn too. I flew him

all over the country for years when I was chief pilot for his daddy's company in the 1970-80s.
But those 2 guys are just assholes, not really 'creepy' in the same way as Thompson. ;-)

[madokie]

14. the beaten offest creep of a judge ever

what a toon

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Whoa, That Is One Harsh Sentence.

I would think he deserved 30 days tops and a loss of ability to be a judge. But 4 years in prison? Wow. Just wow.

[sgxnk]

7. too harsh

4 years??????????????????

that's absurd imo

btw what penal code was used to charge him??? :)

[Coyote_Bandit]

11. Would you think

the sentence was too harsh if you had been the murder defendant on trial in his courtroom facing the possibility of life imprisonment or the death penalty while he was jerking off? If my memory serves me correctly that guy was convicted and is seeking a new trial based on judicial misconduct. I'd be sure that defendant thinks the judge got off easy. Pain as they say depends on point of view.

[sgxnk]

22. i would nt

[Coyote_Bandit]

25. Are you sure?

Logically and rationally your response is consistent. But if you were innocent (and all defendants are to be presumed so) and facing the loss of either your life or the permanent loss of your freedom then I suspect that you just might reconsider. It is not like the judge had his attention fully focused on his work and his duty to protect and serve the interests of justice. He was, after all, a bit distracted.

Jerking off during the middle of a first degree murder tiral is a bit different than jerking off during traffic court - or in a public park or bar or in the privacy of ones home. Undoubtedly, the sentence reflects consideration of the circumstances and environment in which the judge chose to pleasure himself.

[sgxnk]

26. nobody

nobody can be sure what their emotional response would be in that situation

or even their response after reflection

regardless, imo, based on "detached indifference" and extensive experience in the criminal justice field is that the punishment is much too harsh

[Coyote_Bandit]

28. Based on my experience

as a resident of Oklahoma who, incidentally, happens to be licensed to practice law here - the judge was not treated too harshly.

If he were a guy who repeatedly got caught exposing or pleasuring himself in a public park or shopping area or such then I would agree with you. As is, his sentence under Oklahoma law will come up for review after one year and can be reduced at that time.

I do not think ultimately that this case was about a guy who was jerking off in public. It was about the circumstances in which that guy chose to jerk off - and what that suggested about his willingness to potentially abuse his authority. It was about a judge who was doing so in open court during the most serious of cases. It is one thing for a judge to fail to live up to our expectations outside of the courtroom. It is quite another thing for him to blatantly disregard those expectations during open court - just because he can and with the assumption that either no one will find out or no one will challenge his actions. Oklahoma is red state hell and it is heavily populated by fundies. There are fundies here that teach from the pulpit that couples should not kiss until they are married (sadly this is true, really). Some of those same folks believe that it is a sin for a man to "spill his seed" so to speak (Leviticus strikes again). What I am saying is that the offense and the punishment meted out have to be understood in the context of (1) the environment in which it occurred and (2) the peers who judged and imposed the sentence.

The harsher aspects of his conviction and sentence have not been mentioned here. Regardless of his sentence he will lose his judicial retirement and must register on the sex offender list. My personal opinion is that sex offender registries are unconstitutional. They also stigmatize and place unreasonable burdens on *some* folks who do not pose a danger. It is not uncommon for people to end up on these lists as a result of a youthful indiscretion. I know of one person who is on the list as a result of a fraternity initiation gone bad (he was arrested wearing a diaper in the street in front of the frat house). And I know a 17 year old who fell head over heels in love with a 15 year old girl and got busted for statutory rape and charged as an adult. Never mind the fact that criminal convictions are already a matter of public record.

I would agree that some of the consequences of this conviction are too harsh. But I have no quibble with a four year sentence for four separate counts - especially since that sentence will automatically come up for review and possible reduction after a year.

[sgxnk]

30. i don't disagre

with your basic logic, although don't think the whole tangent about oklahoma being a red state, etc. has any relevance whatsoever

the point is this. i don;'t think the sentence is appropriate for the crime

the fact that you think sex offender registries are unconstitutional is relevant how? you seem to be saying, "i think other people are treated unfairly, so the judge should be too"

i do not think sex offender registries are unconst. fwiw. but that's irrelevant. i do think that people should not be RSO's merely for indecent exposure type cases (with rare exceptions, like doing it an elementary school playground), but again thatg is irrelevant

the point is whether or not his sentence was too harsh for the crime. we can disagree on that. works for me

[QuestionAll...]

19. he's an aberrational freak.

a judge that considers his pumped dickie above his job...

I'd send him for 2 additional years.
something REally disturbing here you don't get.

[MrCoffee]

10. Who among us hasn't busted out the penis pump at work?

Oh...

[lutefisk]

24. You busted yours? I'm impressed!

:puffpiece:

[never_get_over_it]

12. OK throw the guy off the bench

disbar him - make him get help and call it a day - Jesus 4 years too ridiculous....

[enid602]

13. Bananas Foster

Well, it obviously didn't bother Ms Foster, who must have grown accustomed to this behaviour over a 2 year period.

[triguy46]

15. Here comes da judge, here comes da judge....

[arwalden]

16. One Year For Every Inch?

[BuhByeChimp]

20. For a straight shooter.....he sure got the shaft.

[TrogL]

23. You are truly evil

:spank::spank::spank::spank::spank::spank:

[mystique]

29. Sorry to ask this silly question...

But is he a Republican ??? I wouldn't be surprised if he were...

[rug]

31. I'm glad he didn't get off.