Comments on: This Week in Prosecutorial Discretion

By: Of Course they Didn’t Intend those Unintended Consequences « The Boys on the Board

Sun, 02 Sep 2012 04:05:22 +0000

[...] fire a guy who spent 60 days in the county lockup back in 1972. Surely, no prosecutor would ever abuse that discretion in order to further their careers. Of course not. [...]

By: Prosecution roundup

Prosecution roundup — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:03:01 +0000

[...] Six-year-old charged with sexual assault [Channel3000.com, Wisconsin; Radley Balko] [...]

By: John David Galt

John David Galt — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:31:39 +0000

I would do away with the office of prosecutor, or at least limit it to crimes where the victim is dead and has no heir, and put prosecution in the hands of each victim, along with full power to negotiate settlements.

As for this case, if I’m the six-year-old’s dad, I refuse the plea bargain: go ahead and prosecute me (or the child) for a felony, and see if a jury will convict. I’ll go without a lawyer so that I can talk nullification to the jury.

By: Mannie

Mannie — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:44:20 +0000

the girl’s parents are politically well-connected

And they are hiding behind the anonymity guaranteed to their rug rat in a sex case. They should be revealed, dragged out of their beds and hanged in their own front yard, with the prosecutor and judge on either side.

By: croaker

croaker — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:50:42 +0000

I’m on a list where the participants are coming up with creative ways to admonish this cunt.

Me, I go with the classics: Short stake up the ass planted on the courthouse lawn. Or maybe a black powder enema but it’s tricky to get just the right amount.

You know, we all bitch about child abuse, but what about cock-sucking bastards like this bitch who abuse children and then hide behind sovereign immunity?

By: CyniCAl

CyniCAl — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:51:05 +0000

I guess you missed the part where the girl’s parents are politically well-connected. That should fill in the blanks for you.

By: a_random_guy

a_random_guy — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:49:31 +0000

This is too stupid for words. The details on the case are a bit vague – nonetheless, another question that I find interesting:

Two small children playing “doctor” together – this is almost certainly mutual curiosity at work. If the prosecutor is going to charge someone, why the boy and not the girl? Could it be because the prosecutor herself is a woman?

In any case, I sincerely hope the prosecutor – and the parents of the girl who started this whole mess – all get their just rewards.

By: Poly the Tick

Poly the Tick — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 05:20:23 +0000

This is the county that attempted and failed to recall a judge in the mid 80s after he referred to a 5 year old female sexual assault victim as an “unusually sexually promiscuous young lady”.

By: CharlesWT

CharlesWT — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 04:49:49 +0000

"State law defines sexual intercourse, in part, as “intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body.”"

Better be careful with those wet-willies.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 04:46:39 +0000

Tar and feathers for the arresting officer, the prosecutor, and the judge.

By: CharlesWT

CharlesWT — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:27:04 +0000

I remember an instance where a mother had her baby taken away when she admitted to getting a buzz from breastfeeding.

By: Troy

Troy — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:55:26 +0000

So, under this stupid cunt’s logic, since age is no barrier. a breastfeeding infant could be charged for sexually assaulting the mother?

By: Mad Rocket Scientist

Mad Rocket Scientist — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:30:58 +0000

By: CyniCAl

CyniCAl — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:25:05 +0000

“The lawsuit also alleges the charges were brought because the 5-year-old is the daughter of a high-ranking official in Grant County.”

Remember this if anyone tries to convince you that Amerika isn’t founded on class. And remember that there are fewer classes with more protection than State agents.

It is time to identify which class you belong to and shun those above you.

By: bigjohn756

bigjohn756 — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 22:01:33 +0000

Are you sure that this isn’t from The Onion?

By: CharlesWT

CharlesWT — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:28:52 +0000

A young Wisconsin boy, age 6, was accused by one of the boy’s playmate’s mothers of sexually assaulting her daughter by sticking his finger in her anus. The little girl denied that the boy had done that, but the mother reportedly moved forward with her relentless plight to have the boy prosecuted for rape. The incident, which happened in the fall of 2010, happened at the home of a prominent politician in Grant County, Wisconsin. The alleged victim’s aunt is also Regional Social Services Supervisor, raising questions by the accused boy’s parents of conspiracy. The boy’s family now claims that the politically connected family used their connections to humiliate, bully and crucify the boy’s family in the community. [...] 6-year-old boy accused of molestation is allegedly tortured by his accusers

By: CharlesWT

CharlesWT — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:09:27 +0000

District Attorney Lisa Riniker

By: RandomDude

RandomDude — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:16:08 +0000

Silly CharlesWT (#23), it WILL be a kindler, gentler world. That disgusting boy will never again be allowed to impose himself on proper young ladies again!

By: CharlesWT

CharlesWT — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:24:36 +0000

Seems like I remember the argument being made decades ago that, with more women in positions of authority, it would be a kinder, gentler world.

By: Rob Lyman

Rob Lyman — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:21:46 +0000

So I don’t have time to make totally sure, but a “delinquent” under Wis. law is anyone 10-18 years old who has violated any criminal law, and the juvenile court definitely lacks jurisdiction over anybody under 10. This rather strongly suggests that children under 10 are not intended to be subjects of the Wisconsin courts. I suppose you could argue (if you were a lunatic) that kids under 10 were meant to be tried as adults.

I think it more likely that it is legally impossible for kids under 10 to commit crimes. Which means not only a 1983 lawsuit should be a winner, but also that somebody should seek to have the prosecutor disbarred (or at least suspended).