April 16, 2015
Not everyday can be visually interesting. Today was one of those days. Press conference at the DA’s Office.
About appealing the ruling of Judge…
Who gave less than the mandatory sentence of 25 years to a 19-year-old sex offender, instead giving him 10 years for sodomizing a three year old girl.
The Judge claimed twenty-five years would be an 8th Amendment violation, in other words, cruel and unusual punishment. Why? Because of the boy’s background, and a plea from his mother, and a court-ordered examination concluding Rojano-Nieto wasn’t a sexual predator and acted on impulse when he attacked a relative.
“Although serious and despicable, this does not compare to a situation where a pedophilic child predator preys on an innocent child,” the judge said. “There was no violence or callous disregard for (the victim’s) well-being.
Rojano-Nieto also stopped the assault within seconds, recognized the wrongfulness of his act and has been remorseful, the judge wrote.
The victim “appears to be a happy, healthy child,” the judge continued. “It is hard to gauge how this crime might affect her mental state in the future, but she did not suffer serious violent physical injuries, and by all accounts she appears to be headed for a normal life.”
We then headed to Chapman University to speak to a law professor about a judge’s prerogative to reduce a sentence.
The professor spoke of studies done on the teenaged brain, and how impulse control has been shown deficient, and that long sentences for teenage offenders aren’t effective. He also spoke of the importance of the judge’s ability to rule outside the mandatory sentence, and how, when there is a flesh a blood person sitting in front of you, it’s not so easy to simply throw down the hammer.
I’m just glad I’m not the one having to make those decisions.