I've been a little lacking in few time today, but I wanted to go ahead and get this story up, I'll be adding more to it tomorrow- when I have a bit more time. For now though:
Circuit Judge Philip Kirk didn't think the fact that the defendant engaged in sex with not one, not two, not even three- but FOUR underage girls ranging from 15 to 17 was really all that bad. After all, the minors had consented to the sex.
Now, I know some of you are scratching your head right now wondering just how it is that a minor who by LAW can not consent to sex, was able to do so according to the judge.... haven't figured that part out for myself yet.
I will say that the girls willingly participated, in fact one even made a recording of the acts... but consent? We know the legal talk... and we know they can't consent if they are under the legal age of consent. But, let's drop that part for just a moment. Instead... we can scratch our heads at the actions the judge decided to take
Now, we're used to liberal judges swinging around the law book until they come up with whatever insane way of playing legislator they can. And, so we can't be really surprised at the actions of this one... until this:
Why do we even bother with laws when judges just turn their noses up at them anyway? Of course, I have a lot more to say about this... but you'll have to wait for my update to read it. Until then, please feel free to share your thoughts on it.
Tip of the Hat to Charles, who passed this along to me.
Categories: predators,
Circuit Judge Philip Kirk didn't think the fact that the defendant engaged in sex with not one, not two, not even three- but FOUR underage girls ranging from 15 to 17 was really all that bad. After all, the minors had consented to the sex.
Now, I know some of you are scratching your head right now wondering just how it is that a minor who by LAW can not consent to sex, was able to do so according to the judge.... haven't figured that part out for myself yet.
I will say that the girls willingly participated, in fact one even made a recording of the acts... but consent? We know the legal talk... and we know they can't consent if they are under the legal age of consent. But, let's drop that part for just a moment. Instead... we can scratch our heads at the actions the judge decided to take
Roloff, of Waupaca, was convicted of three felonies last year under a plea agreement. The plea deal included a joint recommendation of six months in jail and an unspecified term of probation. As a convicted sex offender, Roloff also should appear on the state's sex offender registry.
Kirk, however, doesn't think Roloff should be on the registry because the girls willingly participated in the sexual acts, some of which were videotaped by one of the girls. Those under the age of 17 cannot legally consent to sex even if they willingly participate.
[...]Kirk viewed the videotape before the Nov. 7 sentencing.
"I was aghast at the behavior of all parties," Kirk said, according to the sentencing transcript. "There was no way to separate, in terms of culpability, that of these four teenage girls.
[...]
Kirk refused to impose a sentence on the felony charges so that Roloff would not become a registered sex offender. Instead, he placed Roloff on probation for four years and ordered him to serve six months in jail on the misdemeanors that were part of the original set of charges.
Now, we're used to liberal judges swinging around the law book until they come up with whatever insane way of playing legislator they can. And, so we can't be really surprised at the actions of this one... until this:
The state attorney general's office intervened by securing a court order from the 4th District Court of Appeals, Madison, that forced Kirk to complete the sentencing. At a second sentencing hearing April 21, Kirk placed Roloff on probation for two years and 200 days on the felony charges and ordered him to register on the sex offender list.
But the judge added a twist. Kirk stayed the sentence for 100 years, effectively keeping Roloff off the sex offender registry for life.
"The sex offender registration is a death knell for anybody," Kirk explained.
Why do we even bother with laws when judges just turn their noses up at them anyway? Of course, I have a lot more to say about this... but you'll have to wait for my update to read it. Until then, please feel free to share your thoughts on it.
Tip of the Hat to Charles, who passed this along to me. Categories: predators,
Comments
do you know what state this occured in? my understanding is that the "age of concent" varies from state to state with some states having an age of consent that is decidedly younger than 18. do you think something like that might have influenced this judge (i.e. knowing that other states had a differing age limit).
that brings me to another thought...should we encourage the federal government to mandate a uniform age of consent across the states?
a proud american!
This happened in Wisconsin, where the legal age of consent is 17.
In honesty, I believe this judge made a error in his first judgement... by not looking at the seriousness of the felony charges and passing over them. And by referring to underage teenagers as "consenting". Then, when he was called on it- he dicided to "show his ass" as they say. The "his courtroom, his laws" way.
I've got another post related to this that I am drafting up... which will more than likely answer the other question.
how do we deal with sexually active kids? my son was sexually active at 15 despite all the training, talks, "abstinance" chats we had with him. and this guy was 20...not a big age disparity. i mean, his judgement at 20 isn't what mine is at (oh shoot...let's not discuss my advanced years...LOL).
but it really does beg the question...was the judge just being an idiot or was he saying, look our sexual predatore law (in wisconsin) and our registry laws tie my hands in dealing with "crimes" like this where the young ladies involved were very willingly participating. heck, even the executive director of the sexual assault crisis center said the "statute should be revisited". perhaps this was why the judge imposed this sentence...understanding that it would force those who make the laws to review them.
when kids start to have sex it gets tricky. and i've learned from experience that they don't call a family meeting one day to inform the rest of their family that they are now "sexually" active.
our kid grew up going to a good church. went to a very good private school. really has had the best life had to offer. we have a great relationship with him. he says he had sex for the first time when he was ready (15). was he? of course i don't think so...hahaha...
a proud american!
Ok, maybe the 17 year old I might accept. But the 15 year old? The guy was a quasi-adult, and I feel pretty certain that he was probably aware of the age of consent laws. Therefore, consenting or not, he knew what he was doing was illegal.
As for my son, I would have hit the roof if his first sexual encounter at 15 was with a 20 year old female. To be honest, I don't know anything about the young lady to whom he lost his virginity. Maybe that's a good thing though...I'm not sure it would matter her age...I don't think I would like her (I can hear him laughing at me for even thinking this).
A Proud American!
Clearly he judged that the defendant was not the type of 'sexual offender' who should be listed on the Offenders list. As the list grows with so called 'offenders' it gets watered down thus lumping many people with hard core, proven pedophiles, etc. As judge mentions, getting on the list is a death knoll....for the serious perpetrators, yeah, as it should...but it's is great to see a judge take a stand with reality.