NE - Richard Thompson for sex abuse of 12yo girl, Sidney, 2005

[sherri79]

It doesn't sound like the Judge's sentence was based on the man's height - though I agree that it is confusing and misleading that she would bring it up during sentencing.

Ultimately, it sounds like the sentence was based on numerous case factors and psychological examination.

Maybe she was trying to cut him down by mentioning the height thing...or scare him about what might happen if he breaks probation....who knows? As we all know, height shouldn't have anything to so with sentencing. And in this case, I don't think that it did.

nobody can say for sure what this judge was thinking. we can look at what she actually said.

THE COURT:What you have done is absolutely inexcusable. Absolutely wrong. You will never have any idea of how deeply you have harmed this child. You are an adult. You betrayed the trust and you betrayed it not only at a psychological but a physical level and there’s nothing you can do to change that. You already did it and this young person will spend a lifetime dealing with the effects of your choices and behaviors. You’ve earned your way to prison. So, I’m sitting here thinking this guy has earned his way to prison but then I look at you and I look at your physical size. I look at your basic ability to cope with people and, quite frankly, I shake to think of what might happen to you in prison because I don’t think you’ll do well in prison.
And it is -- I was relieved to know that the people who evaluated you -- you are a sex offender, okay. You did this and you did it to a child. That means that at some level you have a sexual preference to children. That doesn’t make you a hunter, the predator that we hear about on TV all the time. I was very relieved to know that you do not fit in that category of human being because that gives me more leeway to not send you to prison. But you need to understand I am going to try to put together some kind of order that will keep you out of prison.
I’m going to say it to you, again, you are a sexual deviant. You have a serious sexual problem. Lucky for you the specialists believe that if you can get over your denial. You tend to say that’s just one time. I’m not saying you’ve done it more than that but the way you think you are a sexual deviant. You need and have to look at it and the consequences are ten years in prison if you don’t. So, he’s to do all the counseling and follow all the counseling and that’s to be followed very tightly that he maintains those contacts.
You, as directed by the counselor and probation, are to make a written apology to the victim in your case and whether that’s ever given to the victim or not is up to the victim’s family and the victim’s counselors

 

[sherri79]

We've discussed this on other threads before - not all people who commit sexual assault on children are pedophiles. LE classifies child sexual offenders in two different categories: Pedophile (ie - people with a real honest to God prediliction towards sex with children) or situational offenders (people whose primary sexual orienation is not towards children but who take advantge of a child in a given situation - proximity, poor boundaries and drug/alcohol are often involved with situational offenders).

What is surprising to me is that - according to LE statistics - chlidren are more likely to be sexually assaulted by a situational molester than a pedophile.

Additionally, many situational molesters are not predators while most pedophiles are.

the way i look at is is a pedo will hurt a child given a chance and a situational offender will hurt any1 he thinks he can get away with. old, mentaly ill, a child.
i'm not sure how the fact he will go after any1 weaker than him if given the chance makes him safer to unleash on the public.

i know SCM is not saying he should be free. i dont want to be misunderstood on that because i referenced her quote.

 

[southcitymom]

nobody can say for sure what this judge was thinking. we can look at what she actually said.

I agree with you 100 percent. Based on what the Judge said, I don't think his height was the reason this man didn't get jail time.

 

[sherri79]

I agree with you 100 percent. Based on what the Judge said, I don't think his height was the reason this man didn't get jail time.

i think she did not want to send him to jail because of his height. she then looked for excuses not to. here are the quotes that lead me to that belief.

So, I’m sitting here thinking this guy has earned his way to prison but then I look at you and I look at your physical size. I look at your basic ability to cope with people and, quite frankly, I shake to think of what might happen to you in prison because I don’t think you’ll do well in prison.

And it is -- I was relieved to know that the people who evaluated you -- you are a sex offender, okay. You did this and you did it to a child. That means that at some level you have a sexual preference to children. That doesn’t make you a hunter, the predator that we hear about on TV all the time. I was very relieved to know that you do not fit in that category of human being because that gives me more leeway to not send you to prison. But you need to understand I am going to try to put together some kind of order that will keep you out of prison.

 

[southcitymom]

i think she did not want to send him to jail because of his height. she then looked for excuses not to. here are the quotes that lead me to that belief.

Yes, I can definitely see how you could read it that way.

I read it differently - I think she didn't send him to jail because she didn't believe he was a high risk for re-offending and she was backed up in her opinion by the Pros who didn't ask for jail time and by the evaluations which said the same thing.

I think she mentioned the height thing and how poorly he would fare in jail in hopes of adding pressure to him to abide by the terms of his long-term probation.

 

[sherri79]

Yes, I can definitely see how you could read it that way.

I read it differently - I think she didn't send him to jail because she didn't believe he was a high risk for re-offending and she was backed up in her opinion by the Pros who didn't ask for jail time and by the evaluations which said the same thing.

I think she mentioned the height thing and how poorly he would fare in jail in hopes of adding pressure to him to abide by the terms of his long-term probation.

i dont read it that way at all but i do understand where you are coming from. lets pretend i agree with you. lets pretend the judge is right. lets say he never hurts another person. would that make this right?

is probation a fair punishment? yes i said punish. no help the offender or fix him. punish a person within the bounds of the law for a crime they commited. we may disagree about why the judge did this but do we agree that it fails to meet the standard of justice?

 

[txsvicki]

The way the this judge words her little speech to the freak shows me that she is looney tunes. A 50 year old man sexually molesting a 12 year old child and SHE "shakes" to think what would happen to him in prison. That was very dramatic and stupid of her to even say such a thing. The guy has to be cunning and manipulative to even take advantage of a child in that way. There must be something to the so called experts labeling this guy a deviant instead of a predator. I say they are all a bunch of morons and the judge was too big a wimp to come out and say exactly why she ruled this way, instead giving a bunch of limp excuses. Who cares how this silly female shakes and feels and all. Go by the law and throw the book at the little jerk.

 

[Bobbisangel]

Anyone that damages a child should go to prison. I don't care who they are, how tall or short, pretty or ugly, whether the child was a relative or a stranger or someone that the person knew. The damage is the same no matter how you look at it...it is the same.

 

[southcitymom]

i dont read it that way at all but i do understand where you are coming from. lets pretend i agree with you. lets pretend the judge is right. lets say he never hurts another person. would that make this right?

is probation a fair punishment? yes i said punish. no help the offender or fix him. punish a person within the bounds of the law for a crime they commited. we may disagree about why the judge did this but do we agree that it fails to meet the standard of justice?

You know, Sherri, based on what I know, I would have liked to see this man do some jail time - on that we agree absolutely.

But as a general rule, I trust the Court and believe that Judges have much more information about the cases they handle than I do. So I am usually - though not always - comfortable to defer to the Court's decisions in any given case unless the evidence is obvious and overwhelming that the Court screwed up (and usually, when that's the case - plenty of folks - namely Pros - are hollering about a miscarriage of justice)

I am curious as to why the Pros didn't demand jail time. In many criminal trials, the Judge, Pros and Defense attorneys pretty much agree on and know what the sentence is going to be before it is even handed down.

I guess it just seems like there may be more going on with this case than meets the eye. I am not convinced that the Judge is terrible in her decision and am not convinced enough to say her decision fails to meet the standard of justice.

But still - yes - I would like to see some jail time here. When people hurt children - especially in a way as calculated as sexual abuse - I generally think they should go to jail.

 

[catsmeow]

In above article it states what this creep did, Thompson, 50, had sexual contact over a couple of months last year with a 12-year-old girl, said Sidney Police Chief Larry Cox. He was sentenced on two felony sexual assault charges.

Also in the article it says this:

A spokesman for the prison system said Thompson's height would not put him at risk among the state's 4,400 inmates. There are protections available in prison to help inmates who feel threatened, prison spokesman Steve King said, but to his knowledge, no one has ever taken advantage of them based on fears related to their height.

"He's not the shortest guy we have in prison," King said. "We've got some short guys that are as tough as nails. We've got people from all ages, physical stature of all sizes, in general population."

State Sen. Ernie Chambers, a longtime critic of judges, said he was baffled by the sentence.

"If shortness is an excuse and protection from going to prison, short people ought to rob banks and do everything else they would wind up going to prison for," Chambers said. "We're talking here about a crime committed against a child, and shortness is not a defense."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...EMPLATE=DEFAULT


I hope this all gets reversed and this goes to prison for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time!

OMG!!!!!!! Something ought to be done about this JUDGE!!!!!! How crazy is she??????????????? Too short????? Insane! I am glad this is being appealed, this guy needs to go to jail. This is the craziest excuse. Are psychiatrists going to go on the stand and start using this as an excuse next, my client is short, so he was naturally drawn to children because they are short. UGH!!!!!!!!!!! Does this judge even KNOW what she is opening the door for?????

 

[Belinda]

So Raping 13 Year Old Girls is OK if you are 5′ -1″ (Richard W. Thompson - Sex Offender)

Ever wonder why we read and see so many cases of teen and pre-teen girls and boys sexually assaulted, raped and murdered? The answer lies in our pathetic legal system and judges that should have their heads examined, then thrown off the bench. Richard W. Thompson, the too short sex offender, had his probation upheld. That’s correct. Our legal system has decided that a convicted sex offender should not serve jail time because he is too short. They also deemed that be would not re-offend, he was not a sexual predator, nor a pedophile. Huh? So much for victims rights.

OMAHA, Neb. - A judge had valid reasons for sentencing a 5-foot-1 sex offender to probation, even though she cited the offender’s height as part of her rationale, the Nebraska Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. An examination by a clinical psychologist and the results of a test used to determine the risk that Richard W. Thompson would reoffend both indicated that Thompson, 52, is neither a pedophile nor a sexual predator, the court said. (Yahoo News)


http://*************.com/2007/07/18...-you-are-5-1-richard-w-thompson-sex-offender/

 

[kbl8201]

i was really hoping the update would show him back in prison and the judge off the bench.

 

[Belinda]

Yeah, me too. Pretty disappointing, especially since the DA filed an appeal.