Lately, I've been shocked by the nightly news. Seems like judges everywhere are sucking the big one when it comes to, I don't know, making competent decisions!!! Read on but you may want some blood pressure medication near by... because it's about to go through the roof.
A 50 year old man who had repeated sexual contant with a 12 year old girl is not going to prison for ten years. He is getting probation for ten years.
Because the judge says the man (standing at 5'1'') is "too short."
For full story read article. The judge claims that this short person (does 5'1'' qualify you as a short person?) would be unfairly endangered by being sent to prison with all the other scary, tall inmates. Ah yes, brilliant. But what about all the 12 year old girls out in the general public? Aren't they unfairly endangered with this wacko out and walking around?
Sure they put restrictions on him. Like, he can't be around anyone under 18 or date anyone who has children under 18 and ... boo hoo... he has to get rid of his porn. Poor guy.
If we're worried about crime in prison, then we need to take accounts of inmate rape more seriously. And I AM being serious. If we send sex offenders to prison to "rehabilitate them" and then look the other way while they get raped, then are we really rehabilitating them or punishing them? I am assuming, the judge was worried that this man would be at risk of rape since child molesters are not so popular with the general inmate population. However, we send all types of people to prison. Some are blind, or in wheelchairs, some are black, living a few cells down from a neo-nazi-- should we let all of them out too? If we want to make prisons safer- then we should DO IT. We should NOT solve the problem by sending child molesters back out on the street.
More insanity from the courts. This is why I advocate domestic violence training!!!! If the judicial system was better informed of the REAL danger that women face in situations like this one then maybe this judge would have understood how important a restraining order is. Maybe then this woman wouldn't have been set on fire!!! Either way, this racist, misognist judge should be removed from the bench and forced to do maid work in local battered women's shelters.
Watch this video to understand what I'm talking about
If you don't have a connection that will play this video, here's a synopsis:
A woman named Yvette Cade went to Judge Richard Palumbo to ensure that a protective order against her husband was renewed. Cade told the judge that her estranged husband, Roger Hargrave had been stalling their divorce and violated the current order by contacting her, intimidating her daughter and other members of her family and vandalizing the property of others.
When Cade told Judge Palumbo that she wanted a divorce he said, and I quote, "Well, I'd like to be six-foot-five, but that's not what we do here. You have to go to divorce court for that."
Then the Judge rudely told Cade that she should get "marriage counseling."
Um excuse me? She just told you that her husband was threatening her and intimidating her daughter also vandalizing property.
The Judge lifted the protection order against Cade's husband and a month later, Roger Hargrave walked into the T-Mobile store where Yvette Cade worked, doused her with gasoline, lit a match, and set her on fire.
Yvette Cade suffered burns to 65 percent of her body, and has undergone more than a dozen surgeries since the brutal attack.
The judge calls this "a clerical error."
We need to hold our courts accountable. The issues of molestation, rape, domestic violence are still not being understood and addressed helpfully or professionally (especially in Cade's case where the judge was rude to her and did not take her seriously).
In the meantime, pray that the "short man" case get a dose of reality and they send the man to prison, and also pray that when Judge Palumbo's court date comes up (where he'll be questioned on the Cade case) that he'll lose his job.