• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

More Judges Protecting Rapists

Tsukasa Buddha

Other (please write in)
Tsukasa Buddha
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
15,302
The 16-year-old girl was visibly intoxicated, her speech slurred, when a drunk 16-year-old boy sexually assaulted her in a dark basement during an alcohol-fueled pajama party in New Jersey, prosecutors said.

The boy filmed himself penetrating her from behind, her torso exposed, her head hanging down, prosecutors said. He later shared the cellphone video among friends, investigators said, and sent a text that said, “When your first time having sex was rape.”

But a family court judge said it wasn’t rape. Instead, he wondered aloud if it was sexual assault, defining rape as something reserved for an attack at gunpoint by strangers.

He also said the young man came from a good family, attended an excellent school, had terrific grades and was an Eagle scout. Prosecutors, the judge said, should have explained to the girl and her family that pressing charges would destroy the boy’s life.

So he denied prosecutors’ motion to try the 16-year-old as an adult. “He is clearly a candidate for not just college but probably for a good college,” Judge James Troiano of Superior Court said last year in a two-hour decision while sitting in Monmouth County.

Now the judge has been sharply rebuked by an appeals court in a scathing 14-page ruling that warned the judge against showing bias toward privileged teenagers.

...

In the other case, the appellate division reversed another judge’s decision not to try a 16-year-old boy as an adult after he was accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl in 2017.

The second family court judge, Marcia Silva, sitting in Middlesex County, denied a motion to try the teenager as an adult and said that “beyond losing her virginity, the State did not claim that the victim suffered any further injuries, either physical, mental or emotional.”

The appellate judges also upbraided Judge Silva, overturning her decision and noting that the teenager could be culpable because the 12-year-old was not old enough to provide consent in the first place.
Click to expand...

Linky.

At least we are hearing about the cases because the appeals courts overturned them.
 
Astonishing. I can understand there being an issue about whether they have to stand trial as an adult or juvenile but how on earth could any qualified judge make those comments regarding rape in a judgement? Surely that should be enough for disciplinary action against the judges?
 
I honestly don't understand the mindset that leads to rulings like this. It seems that neither of these judges understands even what the law is. Good that the appeals court is doing its job.

Dave
 
Should probably start chucking some charges against the parents of the boys in cases like those two

Not sure what, but something big enough for parents to realise they have to actually teach their kids not to be scum.
 
It is a very recent thing that all teenagers carry smart phones and can make video recordings of their own feats. Unfortunately, there was no such thing when Kavanaugh was that age.
 
Seem like the judge forgot that you are supposed to keep your absurd biases unspoken. Luckily for the public, this judge was dumb enough to document his reasoning for leniency, allowing for it to be easily challenged.

The classism of this is so gross. Surely this judge has handed down sentences that have derailed many lives. But to derail the life of someone with a "bright future" is somehow beyond the pale. Toiling in the criminal justice system is meant for the little people, not rich kids on their way to the top of society.
 
dann said:
It is a very recent thing that all teenagers carry smart phones and can make video recordings of their own feats. Unfortunately, there was no such thing when Kavanaugh was that age.
Click to expand...

Personally think that it is better to try to sort out the now and current scum than worry about blokes there is no evidence against from years ago.

Fixation with one case tends to mean not putting enough effort in the current.

But then hey, I am not even a yank and have no skin in the game. Just an observer wondering why people like yourself are fixated with sides of the fence and not who is an actual crappy parent letting kids get off
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The classism of this is so gross. Surely this judge has handed down sentences that have derailed many lives. But to derail the life of someone with a "bright future" is somehow beyond the pale. Toiling in the criminal justice system is meant for the little people, not rich kids on their way to the top of society.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this.

I am reluctant to charge a 16 year old as an adult. But the judge seems to have a special standard that only applies to some special people and not a general rule.

Getting good grades in school is not an excuse. Should not be a consideration.
 
Sadly Judges are like the President in the sense that certain "checks and balances" were never written into the core DNA of how they are placed into power because the assumption was the at very least halfway decent people would be the only ones elected, so the kinds of misuses of offices you had to watch out for where specific and didn't cover every possible angle.
 
"Her little tune is such a happy song
Her son is innocent, he can't do wrong
'Cos Dad's a judge and knows exactly
What the job of judging's all about"
- XTC, "No Thugs In Our House"
 
Dave Rogers said:
I honestly don't understand the mindset that leads to rulings like this. It seems that neither of these judges understands even what the law is. Good that the appeals court is doing its job.

Dave
Click to expand...

They don't want to see the lives of these criminals ruined by one little mistake. I mean being a rapist shouldn't get in the way of your fun college experience after all.

I wonder who they sentence blacks for pot possession though.
 
During the recent sexual-assault seminar I’ve mentioned before, it was mentioned that these “privileged young men” are very likely to be repeat offenders and to continue this activity into adult life.

Likewise, that adults being investigated for such crimes should be scrutinized as to their past behavior as well.
 
Bikewer said:
During the recent sexual-assault seminar I’ve mentioned before, it was mentioned that these “privileged young men” are very likely to be repeat offenders and to continue this activity into adult life.

Likewise, that adults being investigated for such crimes should be scrutinized as to their past behavior as well.
Click to expand...

Almost as if getting away with a crime encourages repetition.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Juvenile offender. Unless he is charged as an adult, they get kiddie court.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that's the case.

I'm trying to find details and yet again I'm being reminded that local court websites are the literal worst designed things ever, but it seems like Juvenile Court and "Family Court" aren't the same thing in Jersey.

The "Family Practice Division" the New Jersey Court system deals marriage and divorce and annulment and and child support and adoptions and all that jazz, although they do mention a vague "juvenile delinquency" on their home page, so.... I have no idea.

The New Jersey Court's "Juvenile Justice Commission" seems to be the one to deal with actual like crimes committed by juveniles.

Like I said I'm a hard time finding like an actual clear breakdown of any of this and it could the article misspoke / was worded badly so all this should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
I don't particularly want to open this can of worms but both participants in the sex act being minors and intoxicated does raise a few questions for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom