Judge Says Child Molester Is Too Short For Prison

[Itsme]

Judge Says Child Molester Is Too Short For Prison

Attorney General Will Appeal Sentence

POSTED: 8:23 am CDT May 26, 2006

LINCOLN, Neb. -- The sentence of probation for a man the judge said was too short to go to prison for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl will be appealed by Attorney General Jon Bruning.

Bruning said the sentence of 5-foot-1-inch tall Richard Thompson is far too lenient. Bruning said his office will file the appeal within the next two weeks.

The case was drawing international attention, with crime victim advocates decrying the sentence and supporters of short people saying it's about time someone recognized the challenges they face.

Thompson was sentenced in Cheyenne County District Court on Tuesday to 10 years probation on two felony sexual assault charges.

The Cheyenne County district judge in the case said in her ruling that Thompson deserved a long prison sentence for his crimes, but gave him probation because she believed he was too short to survive in prison.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha said he's baffled by the probation sentence. Chambers said if shortness serves to protection criminals from going to prison, short people "ought to rob banks and do everything else they would wind up going to prison for."

Chambers said shortness is not a defense, especially in crimes against children.

[Yossarian]

thats ****ing stupid. i don't go around suing door mandufacturers because i whack my head off of the frame. nor do i sue school desk makers for forcing me to wedge myself into a desk in which i can't comfortably sit or write in. i could go on and on. the world is ruled by short people anyways, us larger sized folks get the short end of the stick.

pun intended

[MJordanash]

Wow, are you kidding me? Go ahead little people, molest a child, you wont survive in prison so probation will suffice. Give me a friggen break. That makes me mad thinking its okay to break the law and get an easy break just because you're short.

[starkiis]

That judge needs to be shot lets let a short guy free to do it again. I feel sorry for all the kids in that area.

[PoorAvatar]

Here's a picture from smoking gun:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0525062shorty1.jpg

[starkiis]

If I was a teen I would run the other way he would scare the hell out of me. Run girls

[DarkFury]

I guess the judge figured that in prison, that lil guy would become the #1 Doorknob polisher... and as you know, most jail cells don't have "doorknobs". :eek:

[esme]

Judge Says Child Molester Is Too Short For Prison

Attorney General Will Appeal Sentence

POSTED: 8:23 am CDT May 26, 2006

LINCOLN, Neb. -- The sentence of probation for a man the judge said was too short to go to prison for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl will be appealed by Attorney General Jon Bruning.

Bruning said the sentence of 5-foot-1-inch tall Richard Thompson is far too lenient. Bruning said his office will file the appeal within the next two weeks.

The case was drawing international attention, with crime victim advocates decrying the sentence and supporters of short people saying it's about time someone recognized the challenges they face.

Thompson was sentenced in Cheyenne County District Court on Tuesday to 10 years probation on two felony sexual assault charges.

The Cheyenne County district judge in the case said in her ruling that Thompson deserved a long prison sentence for his crimes, but gave him probation because she believed he was too short to survive in prison.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha said he's baffled by the probation sentence. Chambers said if shortness serves to protection criminals from going to prison, short people "ought to rob banks and do everything else they would wind up going to prison for."

Chambers said shortness is not a defense, especially in crimes against children.

that is such BS ....who cares about their physical appearance if a crime was comitted ....if he couldn't "survive" in prison then he should of thought about that before going around hurting people like that .....:yell:

he just doesn't want to become someone's B!tch.....that's all

[MJordanash]

he just doesn't want to become someone's B!tch.....that's all
Oh I so agree he would be someone's "wittle fwiend" ahaha

[BigJon]

Ridiculous. That's all I can say.

He probably asked the judge if he could just be sent to juvie instead...sick bastard.

[KIISQueen]

Oh my!!! He looks scary and that a bunch BS. Send his lill ass ta jail and have other inmates beat his cheeks and do him dirty!!!!!

[starkiis]

Oh my!!! He looks scary and that a bunch BS. Send his lill ass ta jail and have other inmates beat his cheeks and do him dirty!!!!! I agree with you kiisqueen with judges like that no ones safe

[DarkFury]

Oh my!!! He looks scary and that a bunch BS. Send his lill ass ta jail and have other inmates beat his cheeks and do him dirty!!!!!
Please reference my earlier post in this thread. :D


For him it won't be "Don't drop the soap..." Probably more like... "don't yawn and stretch". :heh:

[BigJon]

...beat his cheeks and do him dirty!!!!!
:hihi:

Now that's gonna give me nightmares.

[DarkFury]

:hihi:

Now that's gonna give me nightmares.

New prison sport... "The Midget toss".

Now do you want your midget with Jelly or Syrup? :heh:

[RoniMan]

wow! this is great! this opens the door for chinese/japanese ppl to commit crimes! God bless America!

:rolleyes:

[bachviet]

That is total B.S. Give him probation after castrate him is okay with me though.

[KIISQueen]

New prison sport... "The Midget toss".

Now do you want your midget with Jelly or Syrup? :heh:


YUK!!! that is gross!!!! :puke:

[PoorAvatar]

That is total B.S. Give him probation after castrate him is okay with me though.

Yeah, :agree:

If they're not sending him to prison, then castrate his little weenie so the little man can't prey on little kids.

[clutchy]

wtf, is this a joke? who cares if they can survive in prison. If they don't want to go don't molest kids... man what a bunch of pansies we've all become...

[jstreet]

supporters of short people saying it's about time someone recognized the challenges they face.Cry me a river. His status as a child molester would get him ****ed up before the other inmates even realized he was short.

[PoorAvatar]

wtf, is this a joke?

Might be. This article places it in Sidney, Nebraska not Lincoln, Nebraska. Maybe the Attorney General is in Lincoln and the Judge in Sidney? Actually the mug shot is in Lincoln so I guess it's not a joke, except for the Judge!

The Judge is quoted as saying, "that doesn't make you a hunter." Huh? :shifty:

Updated: 5:37 p.m. MT May 25, 2006

SIDNEY, Neb. - 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.

"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."

Thompson will be electronically monitored the first four months of his probation, and he was told to never be alone with someone under age 18 or date or live with a woman whose children were under 18. Cecava also ordered Thompson to get rid of his pornography.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12969163/?GT1=8199

[dougadam]

That's foolish!

[Sirrich3]

give him some heels to wear behind bars...

[neutral]

give him some heels to wear behind bars...
:lmfao:

[jstreet]

I was expecting someone to talk about judicial activism by now.

[clutchy]

Might be. This article places it in Sidney, Nebraska not Lincoln, Nebraska. Maybe the Attorney General is in Lincoln and the Judge in Sidney? Actually the mug shot is in Lincoln so I guess it's not a joke, except for the Judge!

The Judge is quoted as saying, "that doesn't make you a hunter." Huh? :shifty:

Updated: 5:37 p.m. MT May 25, 2006

SIDNEY, Neb. - 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.

"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."

Thompson will be electronically monitored the first four months of his probation, and he was told to never be alone with someone under age 18 or date or live with a woman whose children were under 18. Cecava also ordered Thompson to get rid of his pornography.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12969163/?GT1=8199


i think they mean child predator



I was expecting someone to talk about judicial activism by now.


what for? it'll just get the thread locked... i have a serious case of learned helplessness...

[InfiniteNothing]

Cry me a river. His status as a child molester would get him ****ed up before the other inmates even realized he was short.


Shut up Ben. Grab your torch and lets go. All child related crimes require cruel and unusual punishment and then death by strangulation..

[PoorAvatar]

i think they mean child [B]predator

That's what doesn't make sense. Prey on a child once, not a hunter/predator????
:johnwoo2: Stupid Judge :bash:

[PoorAvatar]

I was expecting someone to talk about judicial activism by now.

Ben, I would love to hear your thoughts on this (In a manner which won't lock this thread, of course)

[jstreet]

I was expecting someone to talk about judicial activism by now.Ben, I would love to hear your thoughts on this (In a manner which won't lock this thread, of course)My expectation was that someone would talk about judicial activism by this point, because typically that is today's label when a judge does something that someone else thinks is "wrong" or out of the ordinary. I don't like this definition of judicial activism. This is a good post (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050617.html) that more or less sums up how I feel about the subject.

I really don't know enough about what went on in Nebraska to have an idea what happened in this case. I don't know exactly what the assult was, how much evidence there was, whether or not there were any mitigating factors, what his criminal record was, what the judge's actual reasoning and full statement was, if she has sentenced similar crimes before and if so what is regular, what is the regular sentence in general for a crime of this nature, etc. Is there evidence that short people are abused more in jail and was it introduced at trial?

If she decided willy-nilly not to sentence him to jail time if that's the norm, then I'd question her competence. And if she said short people are entitled to special protections tall people are not, then I think she's acting irresponsibly and abusing her position.

I wish I knew more, or there was some kind of opinion or full statement other than a few clipped quotes. Most of the media articles I can find are just repeats of the AP broadcast that don't even print her quote where she apparently says her decision was because he was short.

The judge was in the top 10% of her class in law school, she's sent people to death row when it wasn't a requirement, and she established a special court for drug offenders. The prosecutor in the case trying the child molestor said, "he wasn't 'as shocked as other people' because of the presentence investigation report... [a] confidential report prepared for a judge to provide background about the convicted person and aid in sentencing". There is no evidence she's done anything "weird" before. It seems like there's more to this story and the media, typically, may be trying for shock value. Or maybe she just went nutso. Can't say.

[VTGreg]

We just need some vigilante justice inflicted from someone under 5'. According to this judge, he could kill this child molestor and then only serve probation since he couldn't survive in prison.

[clutchy]

My expectation was that someone would talk about judicial activism by this point, because typically that is today's label when a judge does something that someone else thinks is "wrong" or out of the ordinary. I don't like this definition of judicial activism. This is a good post (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050617.html) that more or less sums up how I feel about the subject.

I really don't know enough about what went on in Nebraska to have an idea what happened in this case. I don't know exactly what the assult was, how much evidence there was, whether or not there were any mitigating factors, what his criminal record was, what the judge's actual reasoning and full statement was, if she has sentenced similar crimes before and if so what is regular, what is the regular sentence in general for a crime of this nature, etc. Is there evidence that short people are abused more in jail and was it introduced at trial?

If she decided willy-nilly not to sentence him to jail time if that's the norm, then I'd question her competence. And if she said short people are entitled to special protections tall people are not, then I think she's acting irresponsibly and abusing her position.

I wish I knew more, or there was some kind of opinion or full statement other than a few clipped quotes. Most of the media articles I can find are just repeats of the AP broadcast that don't even print her quote where she apparently says her decision was because he was short.

The judge was in the top 10% of her class in law school, she's sent people to death row when it wasn't a requirement, and she established a special court for drug offenders. The prosecutor in the case trying the child molestor said, "he wasn't 'as shocked as other people' because of the presentence investigation report... [a] confidential report prepared for a judge to provide background about the convicted person and aid in sentencing". There is no evidence she's done anything "weird" before. It seems like there's more to this story and the media, typically, may be trying for shock value. Or maybe she just went nutso. Can't say.



i tend to consider judges "judicial activists" when they go around the will of the people and strike down laws voted in by the people of this country. If the sentencing was inside the guidelines put forth by the law i don't really have a problem with it. I would hope they'd give them more time, but i'm not in position to judge. clutch lacks most all the facts...

[Houdini]

Here's a picture from smoking gun:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0525062shorty1.jpg

:guitar: "Five foot two, eyes of blue, has anybody seen my....child molester?" :guitar:

This is one of the stupidest news stories I've seen/read in long time. Child molesters usually have a deservedly pretty hard time in prison. Even other inmates hate them more than simple murderers.

[LPMiller]

i tend to consider judges "judicial activists" when they go around the will of the people and strike down laws voted in by the people of this country. If the sentencing was inside the guidelines put forth by the law i don't really have a problem with it. I would hope they'd give them more time, but i'm not in position to judge. clutch lacks most all the facts...


A judge is supposed to around the will of the people if it violates the law. The one thing they aren't really intended to do is follow the will of the people. That's a whole 'nother branch of government.

[clutchy]

A judge is supposed to around the will of the people if it violates the law. The one thing they aren't really intended to do is follow the will of the people. That's a whole 'nother branch of government.


ok, go around the will of the people to interject their own agenda instead of the law. better?

[LPMiller]

no, because again, the will of the people is irrelevent, for the most part. As for 'going around' the law, they judge interprets it, which is their job. Your answer, if you don't like it, is change the law. Activist judge is a fallacy.

[VTGreg]

no, because again, the will of the people is irrelevent, for the most part. As for 'going around' the law, they judge interprets it, which is their job. Your answer, if you don't like it, is change the law. Activist judge is a fallacy.

So technicallly, what you are saying is that a judge can rule any way he wants on anything because it is his or her interpretation of the law?

While I understand your point about the term Activist judge, there are many judges out there who interpret things in very radical ways to promote their agenda. These judges are labeled as activist judges because they use their power as a judge to impose their beliefs based on how they "interpret" the law.

[jstreet]

So technicallly, what you are saying is that a judge can rule any way he wants on anything because it is his or her interpretation of the law?
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.Spoken at pretty much the founding of this nation, as true now as it was then.

Judges take a law and apply it to a situation to the best of their abilities. If that decision is so "radical" that the people can't stand it, then they must change the law.

[jstreet]

Relevantly to this topic:


Justice falls short
Outgoing statute does too little to punish sex crimes. How could judge cite one's stature to do even less?

Even if a judge hadn't prompted visions of prisoners acting out Randy Newman's old hit song ("Short people got no reason/To live"), convicted child molester Richard W. Thompson couldn't have been put behind bars long enough to protect either his victim or the public.

Circumstances would have been different seven weeks from now. That's when Legislative Bill 1199, the much tougher sex-offender bill unanimously passed by lawmakers in April, takes effect. The bizarre sentence that Thompson got this week for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl proves why the current law had to change.

First, however, the question of the defendant's height. District Judge Kristine Cecava of Sidney, who is a former Keith County attorney, may be right that some inmates in the penitentiary would see a 5-foot-1-inch, 100-pound, 50-year-old guy -- who authorities say had no prior record -- as ripe to receive what he doled out.

But how on Earth can that justify giving a sex offender no guaranteed time behind bars?

Yes, it's an insult to people of modest stature (not to mention the prison system). But that isn't the reason to appeal Thompson's 10-year term of intensive supervision probation, which Attorney General Jon Bruning plans to do. Letting Thompson sit at home, even with electronic anklets to keep tabs on him, hardly makes up for robbing a child of innocence.

The existing sex-crime laws, however, also don't do enough. Until July 14, when LB 1199 takes effect, the current statutes are what judges have to work with.

In the Thompson case, Cheyenne County prosecutors dropped a child-rape charge, which carried a possible one- to 50-year prison term, in exchange for no-contest pleas to two counts of sexual contact with a child. Each count now carries a maximum five-year prison term but no minimum.

Even if Thompson got the maximum possible sentence of 10 years, that would mean only five years with good behavior. By the time of his release, the victim, now 14, would barely be into adulthood.

Under the new law, LB 1199, conviction for sexual contact with a 13-year-old carries one to 50 years per count. With two counts, Thompson would have spent at least a year in prison. And a judge could have crafted the sentence to protect the public and fairly account for his sexual predilection.

An examination concluded that Thompson isn't a sexual predator, World-Herald staff writer Paul Hammel reported. If Thompson were amenable to treatment, he would have ample opportunity to learn how to control his sexual urges while in custody, especially with the additional treatment resources that LB 1199 calls for.

Maybe Thompson will get treatment in Sidney. But it isn't clear from Cecava's sentence that he must. And if he doesn't have to, that's yet another reason to appeal this ridiculous sentence. No matter how short Thompson is.

Omaha World-Herald (Nebraska)
May 27, 2006 Saturday
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 06B