A girl of 10 was raped and assaulted by two men.?

Question

And the judge said she looked 16, referred to her continually as a "young woman" and said she dressed provocatively. She was wearing a bra and a thong. Which the rapist would never have known unless he'd taken her clothes off.
He was sentenced to 4 months. The judge's name was Julian Hall. What was he thinking of?
What is the world coming to? Two twenty four year old men cannot tell the difference between a 10 year old and a 16-year old?

I have an 11 year old. There is no way she could physically look 16. Even if she wore tons of make-up.
There is no way they could have known she had a bra or a thong on, until they took her clothes off.

I'm assuming it is a statutory rape.

Answer 1

We had an idiot judge like that here in my state, too. He was so bad he made the Reader's Digest list of worst judges in the country one year, and he also appeared on several lists of worst judges in the US published by big newspapers.

One case that really stands out in my mind was an eight-year-old girl who was raped and then molested repeatedly by a man in her neighborhood. The judge cited things that he felt were mitigating circumstances to the man's unpardonable behavior, including the fact that the little girl was allowed to run through the sprinklers in a two-piece bathing suit, which he called a "revealing bikini with a bra top" (bra--give me a break, a bra is for women who have breasts--that little girl certainly did not), the fact that she dressed in those little short skooter skirts which look like skirts but are shorts (the judge said they are actually mini skirts, made to show off the legs and bottom of the woman wearing them), and the fact that before the man molested her, he saw her playing with Barbie and Ken dolls, and she had set up a little house on her lawn, and the two dolls were sleeping in the same bed (the judge stated that that meant the girl was interested in sex--a psychologist who interviewed her said the little girl said she put them in the same bed because Barbie and Ken are married, and married people sleep in the same bed, "like Mommy and Daddy do," and also, Skipper needed a bed, but she only had two shoeboxes to make into beds, and Skipper wanted to sleep alone, which was okay, because the other two were married). The final mitigating circumstance was that the day the man lured the little girl into his house, she was wearing fruit-flavored lip gloss (the judge cited the fact that adult women wear lipstick to make their lips appear fuller and moist, which mimics the physiological changes in a woman's face when she is ready for sex). Despite the fact that the man raped the girl, and then fondled and penetrated her digitally several times afterward, he was sentenced to probation and time served, because clearly the little vixen was asking for it.

In another notorious case, he released a man without bail so he would be home to take care of his stepdaughters. Why did he need to take care of his stepdaughters? Well, his wife caught him fondling one of them, and they had an argument, and he beat the heck out of her, putting her in the hospital. The judge's ruling was that the man was a better influence than the girls' natural mother, because the mother wears thigh-high stockings, rather than pantyhose. (The mother, and her GYN, testified in court that the reason for that is that she is subject to yeast infections, and the GYN told her she had to wear cotton only underwear, and no pantyhose, which trap moisture, to try and keep the problem from recurring. The judge, however, stated that thigh-high stockings are for prostitutes and strippers, not for women who are supposed to be role models for their daughters.) Luckily, the woman's attorney got the family court system involved, and they put the girls with their grandparents, pending their stepfather's prosecution for assault of their mother. (Unfortunately, because it all got handled in the same judge's courtroom, the molestation/fondling charge which precipitated the fight which led to the beating was dismissed because the mother was "not a reliable witness" and there was no evidence, beyond the testimony of her and her two daughters that the man had fondled one of the girls.) Sadly, I could go on and on. A newpaper reporter did an expose on him right before election time, and referred to something like a dozen cases where he had completely ignored a female's testimony, saying it was "unreliable" or "hysterical", while the man who had abused her or was on trial for some other horrible thing was "reliable", "upstanding", and "not the type" to do those bad things.

The greatest tragedy of the whole thing was that he worked in a rather small, underpopulated judicial district, and was one of only three judges who handled criminal cases there. Judges here where I live are appointed, and at election time we only vote on whether they should keep their seat on the bench or be removed. Voters actually voted to remove him twice (that's two terms--eight years), but there was no other qualified person for the governor to nominate in his stead, so he kept his seat. Finally, a decent judge from down here in the city moved up there specifically so he would be eligible to be appointed to the bench if the bad judge was not retained in the next election. The crappy judge was not retained, and the governor appointed the other man the day after the elections, and asked the state legislature to make an exception and have him take up the position immediately (a slight breach of protocol--new judges aren't supposed to take the bench until January 1st, so that the outgoing judge can clear his or her calendar).

Through the whole saga, the thing everyone kept asking was, "What in the world is that man thinking? He's clearly got a soft spot for male sexual and violent offenders, and clearly has no idea what he's doing." He served a lot longer than he should have, because of the way the judicial appointment system works in this state. He also did his nasty deeds in secret for a long time, refusing to allow reporters in his court room, and threatening people with contempt of court if they talked to journalists or other people. When the word finally got out about him, it took ten long years for him to be removed from his position, and it got so bad a lot of people speculated openly about the possibility that some "accident" might befall him which would make it impossible for him to continue working. (We live in a state where a lot of people own guns, and hunting is extremely popular--he happened to serve in a rural area where gun racks, with guns in them, are practically standard equipment in farm trucks.)

Personally, the thing that disturbs me most is that he had to be at least reasonably intelligent to get through law school and pass the bar exam, yet he was completely unable to tell the difference between a little girl, and a fully grown, sexually mature woman. He also had no concept of what does and what does not constitute reasonable and appropriate behavior between the sexes. When I read about him, it seemed that he felt and truly believed that a terrible beating is really only about as bad as slapping someone's hand lightly in punishment. He had so many lapses in judgement that it quickly moved from being strange to being downright terrifying to read about his decisions. And I still worry about the long-term implications of his years on the bench. I worry that the men who cycled through his courtroom learned that their behavior is actually acceptable, and legal, if not in the law books, then on a higher, moral plane. I worry about the women and children who were victimized by him, and hope and pray that they know they were victimized twice, and that they didn't do anything wrong. I also worry because his is not an isolated case. I first started paying attention to judges when that was happening, but I pay a lot more attention now, and it continues to happen all over the US (and in the UK, as well, as far as I have read), and I wonder what it is that leads both men and women (sadly, women judges do it, too) to lose complete touch with reality once they don the black robes. I don't even have a clue about how widespread the problem really is, or what reasonable people can do about it.

Answer 2

Certainly this is not a good situation. I in no way want to stick up for the suspects but they obviously must have presented a very good case in court. Did the girl tell them she was 16, does she indeed look that old (apparently the judge thought so). If this was a true forcible rape (as opposed to statuatroy rape due to age) then they certainly should have been given a lot more time but if this was a statuatory rape charge due to age then it is a bit different. Not that I think that they shouldn't have been punished more but there is a big diffrence.

Lastly how about this girls parents responsibility I would not be letting any 10yo of mine wear a thong or be anywhere unattended where this sort of thing might happen.

Again not trying to stick up for them but there may be more to the story here. No matter what, what they did was wrong whether they thought the girl was 10 or 16 it just makes its so much worse if they didn't think she was 16.

Added:
After reading my post it kind of makes it seem like I dont think this is a big deal. That is not the case. The main point I am trying to make is that it is unclear from the post if this was a forcible rape or a statuatory rape charge in which age does play a factor. The reason why I was leaning toward it maybe be a stutuatory thing is because I could not imagine someone getting just 4 months for any forcible rape no matter what the age of the victim.

Answer 3

That's horrible and the judge should lose his job immediately! A judges job is to protect, not justify and so what if she does ... I'm not saying it's right but she is still only ten! The parents if they are around, should be questioned about how they are allowing her to dress but it is no excuse to give rapists a lighter sentence. Something horribly screwy is going on in that case. I'm guessing some bribery from the two men that raped her. It happens all the time sadly.

-Yeah, the if is a big IF. I've seen a few do it ... pretty scary. Nothing can justify any kind of true rape. A ten year old doesn't know what she wants anyway. The men should have known better if it was statutory rape.

Answer 4

It is pathetic.
What is wrong with the girls parents?!? allowing a 10yr old to dress that way! Did she have parents?
I read in an article that the girl claimed to be 16 and obviously appeared older to the rapist and judge.But what makes a 10yr old get those thoughts and feelings to want to act older and attract the attention of men. It is terrible that she be reffered to as a young woman. A 10 year old girl should go to parks to play, not go there to be intimate with men. Even if she was 16 it would still be wrong.
The judge also let another paedophile free and told them to buy the victim a bike!

Answer 5

Two crimes were committed here. Firstly, the girls mother was wrong in purchasing such provocative clothing for her child. The mother should have known where her child was and known what the child was wearing before leaving the house. A child dressed in such a way, is like bait for sicko paedophile types.
Then these rapists, they should get the maximum penalty. Saying the girl looked older is no excuse for their animalistic behavior. The Judge is very wrong, giving these two such a light sentence. They will do it again. What is stopping them?
I hope they are both raped with a broom handle while in Jail.
That is paedophile punishment and they deserve it.

Answer 6

The world is going to a doom. Very few people today can judge what is right and what is wrong. Very few people are interested in Truth and morality. I know cases where 7-year old girls were raped by young men.

But do not worry. If you pray God and follow the path of truth, you will be spared. Those who sincerely follow the path of Truth and morality will be saved. Those who have no malice towards innocent people will survive, by the will of God. The doom will not come suddenly by any bombing or any catastrophe. It will happen casually. In fact, it is happening every year in the form of natural calamities and all that.

Answer 7

In my opionion... that judge is sending the message it is ok to rape anyone and it isnt... that judge is basically saying i can have sex with someone older then 18... right now im only 14 almsot 15.. that judge should have been in prison.. because even if they look older it is still ilegal.. who cares if she wears a fricken thong .. god its just underwear...and some 10 year olds need to wear bras.. that just is freaking stupid..

Answer 8

It is so sad. Even with the Anna N. Smith news, when the one found out he was the father, he had like an "I told you so" type of attitude, like he won a contest. In this world, sin is no longer sin. Even if the girl was a woman of 30, rape is still rape. I believe rape should carry castration for the first offense, then worse later.

Answer 9

Absolutely disgusting! That judge should be removed from the bench and those two men put away for life for raping a girl or woman of any age!

Answer 10

Absolutely absurd....just as bad as the judge that let a kidnapper/killer go saying he wasn't a threat to society and within a month he kidnapped another child and hasn't been found since.