It may not have been ALL the judge's fault

[Shazzie]

Looks like the prosecutors share in the responsibility for letting this guy go--plenty of blame to go around, it seems. :(

http://www.in-forum.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=D8B6QN8O1

The Minnesota judge who allowed Joseph Duncan to post bail was told during the hearing that Duncan was a convicted sex offender, and he expressed surprise at how prosecutors were handling the case, according to a transcript.

<snip>

Prosecutors choose whether to issue charges as a summons, where a defendant is ordered to show up for court, or an arrest warrant, where they'll be jailed until their court date. The transcript suggests that Schroeder was surprised that prosecutors chose a summons for Duncan.

At the hearing, Assistant County Attorney Mike Fritz pressed the judge to set Duncan's bail at $25,000. He also asked for several conditions if Duncan was allowed to post bail, such as agreeing not to fight extradition from his home in Fargo, N.D., and that he have no contact with minors.
"You're asking for all that?" The judge responded. "I'm puzzled as to why this was a summons."

Fritz responded, "Your Honor, there were a number of different reasons, originally, as it went out as a summons, and I'm going to refrain from making those comments in open court at this time, because of the investigation that went on." They eventually headed into the judge's chambers to finish the discussion, which was not recorded. Bail eventually was set at $15,000.

It seems that several odd things took place in the handling of this case. First of all, my understanding is that the prosecutors could have asked for higher bail (or maybe even no bail), but they didn't. Also, they did not tell the judge Duncan was a LEVEL 3 (i.e., at very high risk to reoffend) sex offender. IMO, they should have made a point of doing that. Lastly, after he was arrested for that particular offense, he was actually released and then issued a summons to appear in court rather than being held in jail--so he was free to reoffend even before this hearing where his bail was set!

Judges have to make their rulings based on the information that is presented to them by attorneys, and it sounds to me like these attorneys did not give this judge what he needed to make an accurate ruling. It also sounds like their handling of the case sent confusing mixed messages about whether this guy was seriously dangerous or not.

According to this article, the prosecutors could not be reached for comment. Gee whiz, I wonder why. :rolleyes:

[lady-eowyn]

The whole system sucks and needs an overhaul...this isn't about letting someone who smokes a little pot every now and then off...why don't they take their jobs seriously?!!

[tuppence]

WHATEVER. Who sets bail at $15K for a molestor of a 6 yr old? Typically you only have to raise 10% of that to get out.

That judge should be out of office and we should be reviewing this kind of information about a judge's past rulings before any judge is re-elected.

:behindbar

[MrsMush99]

I think, there should be no bail set for child molesters EVER. Keep them in jail and away from our children. It is dispicable, IMO that they are being charged with molesting a child and they are allowed out on bail. Do they think, because they are out on bail, they will not molest a child again? Or worse, murder them??? The laws need to be tougher, much tougher, and I say start with not letting them out on bail EVER.

[ISPTRAX]

I don't AGREE! This "Judge" is an idiot!!! "I don't recall what I recall because I don't recall setting the bail" GEESH!!!

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/12049280.htm

[kk's mom]

The whole system sucks and needs an overhaul...this isn't about letting someone who smokes a little pot every now and then off...why don't they take their jobs seriously?!!

Exactly. I'm questioning now then why the prosecutors only asked for $15,000 (I thought they are on the victims side) and then I'm questioning the judge why he didn't question the prosecution on why the "low bail", and also why he still didn't review this freak's past.

I mean, seriously, aren't these judges given a folder of every case that's brought before them? What's in these folders? Don't they review everything? Is it a folder of only current info and not any type of printout of "priors"?

[lady-eowyn]

Exactly. I'm questioning now then why the prosecutors only asked for $15,000 (I thought they are on the victims side) and then I'm questioning the judge why he didn't question the prosecution on why the "low bail", and also why he still didn't review this freak's past.

I mean, seriously, aren't these judges given a folder of every case that's brought before them? What's in these folders? Don't they review everything? Is it a folder of only current info and not any type of printout of "priors"?
I think some of these judges just try to get these cases through their courtroom so quickly that they don't care.

[Anarinda]

I think some of these judges just try to get these cases through their courtroom so quickly that they don't care. And some of these judges are pedophiles themselves.

[mysteriew]

It sounds to me like there were more than one error the Minn. case. First that JED was issued a summons rather than having him in jail- that in itself would have reduced the urgency in the Judges eyes. Then in this article it says that the judge was told that JED was a registered sex offender, but it doesn't show that he was told he was a level 3 offender. An earlier article quotes the prosecutor and says that the judge was difinately told that he was a level 3. And in any case, the judge didn't ask what level. The prosecutor's office did ask for a higher bond ($25,000) but the judge issued the lower bond, based on the fact that the guy was only looking at a 13 month sentence for the molestation! It doesn't appear that they looked at JED's history much at all.

[newtv]

In my opinion the judge should have asked what level of offender he was. And he should have known from the crime that was comiited in the past. You dont spend 14 years in prison cuz you are a really good guy.
If I were a judge I would have at least asked a couple of questions. If I had it within my power to set a high bail I would have. The judge is as responsible as anyone..maybe more. A Judge can ask questions at any time.

If prosecutors did not provide the info they are also at fault but the Judge is the most powerful person in the courtroom and can do anything before the sentencing, etc. (By this I mean ask questions and especially that one).
If he had asked the question, then was told level three and then the pros suggested he be allowed out on bail then thats different. The Judge simply screwed up big tme-they all did.

[Shazzie]

Exactly. I'm questioning now then why the prosecutors only asked for $15,000 (I thought they are on the victims side) and then I'm questioning the judge why he didn't question the prosecution on why the "low bail", and also why he still didn't review this freak's past.

I mean, seriously, aren't these judges given a folder of every case that's brought before them? What's in these folders? Don't they review everything? Is it a folder of only current info and not any type of printout of "priors"?
Actually, I believe they asked for $25,000 and ended up agreeing to $15,000. I'm not clear on the reason for the reduction, but I don't understand why they didn't ask for a lot more in the first place.

The judge gets whatever info the prosecutors give them, I guess. It doesn't sound like this one was given very much.

[newtv]

It sounds to me like there were more than one error the Minn. case. First that JED was issued a summons rather than having him in jail- that in itself would have reduced the urgency in the Judges eyes. Then in this article it says that the judge was told that JED was a registered sex offender, but it doesn't show that he was told he was a level 3 offender. An earlier article quotes the prosecutor and says that the judge was difinately told that he was a level 3. And in any case, the judge didn't ask what level. The prosecutor's office did ask for a higher bond ($25,000) but the judge issued the lower bond, based on the fact that the guy was only looking at a 13 month sentence for the molestation! It doesn't appear that they looked at JED's history much at all.
Lets face it, the law should throw them in jail if accused. In my city if a woman accuses a man of hitting her or harrassing her he is thrown into jail without question. It's zero tolerance. He could be being falsely accused but will still go to jail first.
We are talking about criminals here who have raped before, the law should simply be that if you are accused of it you go to jail and no bail at all.
What do these guys need to know more than what is already known. He got 20 years for his first offense, that should say something about his crimes.

[Shazzie]

It sounds to me like there were more than one error the Minn. case. First that JED was issued a summons rather than having him in jail- that in itself would have reduced the urgency in the Judges eyes. Then in this article it says that the judge was told that JED was a registered sex offender, but it doesn't show that he was told he was a level 3 offender. An earlier article quotes the prosecutor and says that the judge was difinately told that he was a level 3. And in any case, the judge didn't ask what level. The prosecutor's office did ask for a higher bond ($25,000) but the judge issued the lower bond, based on the fact that the guy was only looking at a 13 month sentence for the molestation! It doesn't appear that they looked at JED's history much at all.Exactly, mysteriew--a bunch of stuff went wrong, including (but not necessarily limited to) the following:

The summons sent the wrong message to the judge
JED should have been kept in custody until the bail hearing took place for that reason as well as the likelihood of his reoffending
The bail ruling was based on insufficient information about JED's history
Bottom line, the judge made the wrong decision. But I think there's plenty of blame to be spread around, and the prosecutors deserve a share of it.

[newtv]

Actually, I believe they asked for $25,000 and ended up agreeing to $15,000. I'm not clear on the reason for the reduction, but I don't understand why they didn't ask for a lot more in the first place.

The judge gets whatever info the prosecutors give them, I guess. It doesn't sound like this one was given very much.
That is no excuse. Judges ask questions-they are not figure heads only. I mean that is just no excuse at all. The Judge has the right to even ask the criminal/accuseed. He could have said, "What level of sex offender are you categorized as?"
You are being way too soft on the role of a Judge.
I used to sit on judicial reviews for cops accused of bad behaviour, I had all the power. I could ask anything. I could hold things up if I did not feel I had all the info - and I could delay until I had it.
I am not a Judge-I was a Board member. The buck stops with the Judge-an experienced Judge would wonder about such things and admonish the pros for not having it handy.

[Shazzie]

That is no excuse. Judges ask questions-they are not figure heads only. I mean that is just no excuse at all. The Judge has the right to even ask the criminal/accuseed. He could have said, "What level of sex offender are you categorized as?"
You are being way too soft on the role of a Judge.
I used to sit on judicial reviews for cops accused of bad behaviour, I had all the power. I could ask anything. I could hold things up if I did not feel I had all the info - and I could delay until I had it.
I am not a Judge-I was a Board member. The buck stops with the Judge-an experienced Judge would wonder about such things and admonish the pros for not having it handy.
Okay, then, what do you think the prosecutor's responsibilities are? Do you feel these prosecutors were blameless in this case?

I am not trying to absolve the judge at all, merely pointing out that there are other factors involved and, IMO, other culpable parties. Maybe you see things differently.

[newtv]

Exactly, mysteriew--a bunch of stuff went wrong, including (but not necessarily limited to) the following:

The summons sent the wrong message to the judge
JED should have been kept in custody until the bail hearing took place for that reason as well as the likelihood of his reoffending
The bail ruling was based on insufficient information about JED's history
Bottom line, the judge made the wrong decision. But I think there's plenty of blame to be spread around, and the prosecutors deserve a share of it.
This makes sense- your earlier post sounded like the Judge should get the least of the blame. I think the Judge deserves the lions share of it.
I mean even if he had an inkling that something did not make sense, (and apparently he did). His way of correcting some of it would be to ask agree to the 25K for bail-he had that much he could have done.

[newtv]

Okay, then, what do you think the prosecutor's responsibilities are? Do you feel these prosecutors were blameless in this case?

I am not trying to absolve the judge at all, merely pointing out that there are other factors involved and, IMO, other culpable parties. Maybe you see things differently.
I think the prosecutors should be fired. If more were held responsible maybe they would think long and hard about what they are doing when preparing for a case.
Your comments were about the Judge's role. Thats what I am responding too..but its as if you are saying that if the CEO of Exron did not know the money was being inflated by his workers, he has no blame.
The workers are never as much to blame as a CEO-cuz its the CEO's job to know. Its his job to ask questions and so on.
Otherwise anyone wanting to comit a fraud could simply say he did not know.
The prosecutors are to blame-its the Judges job to look for mistakes and irregularities-if not during the proceedings then to ask for a report.
Your post suggested the prosecutors were the most responsible, I do not agree. They are at best as responsible, but not more so.
However, to be kind about the Judges role is as erroneous as being kind about anyone's role in such an error- It cost 4 lives- thats not OK.

(Not with a guy who has this kind of background-he wasnt just a small change offender-even we know that by virtue of his last offense-the amount of jail time he was given (for a first offense+at a young age).

[Shazzie]

I think the prosecutors should be fired. If more were held responsible maybe they would think long and hard about what they are doing when preparing for a case.
Your comments were about the Judge's role. Thats what I am responding too..but its as if you are saying that if the CEO of Exron did not know the money was being inflated by his workers, he has no blame.
The workers are never as much to blame as a CEO-cuz its the CEO's job to know. Its his job to ask questions and so on.
Otherwise anyone wanting to comit a fraud could simply say he did not know.
The prosecutors are to blame-its the Judges job to look for mistakes and irregularities-if not during the proceedings then to ask for a report.
Your post suggested the prosecutors were the most responsible, I do not agree. They are at best as responsible, but not more so.
However, to be kind about the Judges role is as erroneous as being kind about anyone's role in such an error- It cost 4 lives- thats not OK.

(Not with a guy who has this kind of background-he wasnt just a small change offender-even we know that by virtue of his last offense-the amount of jail time he was given (for a first offense+at a young age).
I feel you have read things into my posts that weren't there. Since I have no wish to get into an argument, I will leave it at that.

We obviously agree that Duncan should never have been released on ANY amount of bail. The rest is just details, IMO.

[mysteriew]

I would love to know what the discussion in the judges chambers was about. I don't think that should be allowed except in certain very tightly controlled circumstances. (for instance if info is going to be discussed involving another case or a case still under investigation). Court cases are held publically, because the public is the one who judges the fairness of the court. So if all of the important info is going to be discussed behind closed doors, why hold the court in public? (I don't know if that makes sense to you, but I guess I just don't like public officials keeping secrets)

[kpass]

Like Jay Leno said during the MJ trial..."They can put a bracelet on MARTHA STEWART, but let Pedophiles out!" The system DOES suck!!!!!!

[Incognito]

How about the whole State of Minnesota Government bow their heads in shame. Did everyone catch this?

Evans said one reason prosecutors didn't ask for higher bail was because it appeared Duncan faced only about 13 months in prison if he was convicted - even with his prior conviction in Washington.

So...if Duncan gets convicted on the Becker County charges he was only looking at 13 months. I know first time offenders for pot who get more than that!!! We send drug users, DWI offenders to prison and let our sex offenders walk the streets.

[LTUlegal]

Yes, the system DOES need a huge overhaul, I thoroughly agree. However, and this will go over like a lead balloon it's not just the system's fault...Duncan made a CHOICE. Every time he hurt a child, every time he had those thoughts, he had a CHOICE. When he killed Brenda, Slade and Mark, he CHOSE to do that. When he abducted and molested Dylan and Shasta, he had a CHOICE. He didn't need to act on his impulses. He had a CHOICE, his victims did not.

The system has let him off easily, and the state of Washington failed the first time with him, but it is his choices that have gotten him where he is.

[Mirielle]

You may be right about the perpetrator's choices, but I think someone in the grip of this much rage acts out regardless of choice. The problem with Duncan is that he saw himself as a victim and was determined to get back at society. In this case, the system failed miserably. They should have seriously looked at what the man did in the past, his whole mo, rather than just looking at 13 months and out, the future sentence.

We microchip our pets. How about microchipping these kind of offenders? We need a national data base and we need courts that are less crowded with minor stuff, like pot busts. We also need to reconsider whom we think of as a sexual offender. Someone who engages in underage consensual sex (like a 16 and 18 year old) should not be lumped in the same category as someone like Duncan, or even be considered an offender at all. I also think that any sexual abuser should have just one strike, then microchip.

[newtv]

I think, there should be no bail set for child molesters EVER. Keep them in jail and away from our children. It is dispicable, IMO that they are being charged with molesting a child and they are allowed out on bail. Do they think, because they are out on bail, they will not molest a child again? Or worse, murder them??? The laws need to be tougher, much tougher, and I say start with not letting them out on bail EVER.
I am with u all the way.
And to think martha stewart is walking around with a tracking device on her ankle yet duncan goes free. It is insane.

[newtv]

Yes, the system DOES need a huge overhaul, I thoroughly agree. However, and this will go over like a lead balloon it's not just the system's fault...Duncan made a CHOICE. Every time he hurt a child, every time he had those thoughts, he had a CHOICE. When he killed Brenda, Slade and Mark, he CHOSE to do that. When he abducted and molested Dylan and Shasta, he had a CHOICE. He didn't need to act on his impulses. He had a CHOICE, his victims did not.

The system has let him off easily, and the state of Washington failed the first time with him, but it is his choices that have gotten him where he is.
It is entirely duncans fault-but it entirely the responsibility of the system to do their job in such a way that the obvious offenders cannot repeat. They have to be in jail not to repeat. He had a violent past-served 20 years for the rape of a 14 year old boy when he was 16. (You have to know it was as bad as bad gets for him to be senteneced for that long). He is now out on the streets, reoffends and then is given bail?
I can see bail if there is no background-first time being caught. I can see that slipping past authorities. I cannot for the life of me get why a known violent offender gets bail. It doesnt take much to know he is a dangerous type-thats why he was locked away as a young man for so long.
If you give these guys bail then make it house bail..gps and dont leave your house for any reason.

[newtv]

How about the whole State of Minnesota Government bow their heads in shame. Did everyone catch this?

Evans said one reason prosecutors didn't ask for higher bail was because it appeared Duncan faced only about 13 months in prison if he was convicted - even with his prior conviction in Washington.

So...if Duncan gets convicted on the Becker County charges he was only looking at 13 months. I know first time offenders for pot who get more than that!!! We send drug users, DWI offenders to prison and let our sex offenders walk the streets.
well even with 13 months the shoene family would still be alive.
I would go for the 13 months with any offender-better than nothing.

[Shazzie]

You may be right about the perpetrator's choices, but I think someone in the grip of this much rage acts out regardless of choice. The problem with Duncan is that he saw himself as a victim and was determined to get back at society. In this case, the system failed miserably. They should have seriously looked at what the man did in the past, his whole mo, rather than just looking at 13 months and out, the future sentence.

We microchip our pets. How about microchipping these kind of offenders? We need a national data base and we need courts that are less crowded with minor stuff, like pot busts. We also need to reconsider whom we think of as a sexual offender. Someone who engages in underage consensual sex (like a 16 and 18 year old) should not be lumped in the same category as someone like Duncan, or even be considered an offender at all. I also think that any sexual abuser should have just one strike, then microchip.
Your suggestions make a lot of sense to me. The way I see it, we need the following:

1. Stiffer, longer sentences for these crimes, including for first offenders.
2. A way of tracking these offenders for life, including a NATIONAL database to make it easier for LE to find out what someone they've arrested may have done in another state.
3. A system for permanently locking up those that offend more than once.
4. A national registry of all convicted child molesters available online to everyone (some states don't even have their state registries online at this point).

I also agree with your point about not lumping in the 18 year old guys who have sex with their underage girlfriends who are only a little younger than them. I don't think those people should have to register as sex offenders. But the ones that qualify should be on a VERY short leash, IMO, and they should be locked up permanently if they get out of line again.