Monday, August 4, 2008

Sentencing guidelines departed again

Adobe Flash player 9 is required to view this video
Get Adobe Flash player

Despite law, judge strays from sentencing guidelines

He gave a man three years of probation for a conviction that would legally warrant almost five years in prison, according to state guidelines.

Judge Jan Leunenberger gave a man three years of probation for a conviction that would legally warrant almost five years in prison, according to state guidelines. A new state law was supposed to keep that from happening.

"It's another example of judges not following guidelines and it's something we have to look into," said Representative Joe Patton, who fought for tougher sentencing guidelines.

Departing from the guidelines

Despite that new law, there are situations when judges can still depart from sentencing guidelines. Find out what those situations are here.

The full case report on Brandon Mason is available in Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

Patton helped pass a bill in the legislative session about judges giving probation to sexual violence cases.

We asked him about Brandon Mason, who received three years of probation for trying to solicit a child online.

"The judge was used as an excuse for probation that the investigators were very aggressive. I don't think that should be a defense. I think we should be in fact very aggressive in pursuing these investigations," said Patton.

This is a picture of Brandon Mason from www.uscyberwatch.com. The group joined up with local law enforcement agents in a sting operation in 2006.

photo

From www.uscyberwatch.com

The Web site claims Mason had multiple chats with their decoy Nikki, which were very graphic.

Brad Peterson, a Special Agent with the FBI, says law enforcement has to be careful during stings.

"We're taught various techniques on how to conduct ourselves properly so we can make sure that the person we're talking to has a genuine predisposition, to actually engage in this type of behavior, and that doesn't come from us. We're basically making sure that it comes from them," Peterson said. "They said the victim was not a victim. The reason why, of course, we put agents or detectives online is because we are not going to subject a child to basically going through what we're trying to protect them from in the first place."

Judge evaluations

Starting this month, you'll be able to read evaluations of some judges online. A Web site will give voters information about judges whose names are on the ballot this fall. The Commission on Judicial Performance reviews the judges. It believes the evaluations will improve the judiciary. Those evaluations will be available online August 29th.

Reader poll

Do you think judges who preside over cases where the defendant was caught as a result of a sex sting operation, where no child was involved, should give lesser sentences?

  • No. The effort behind these stings should be long-lasting. Punish the offenders to the full extent of the law. 25% 28 votes
  • No. Regardless of whether there is a real victim, people who prey on children over the Internet should be behind bars not in the community. 48% 54 votes
  • Yes. The judge would know the case the best. I trust his or her judgment. 10% 12 votes
  • Yes. Defendants of sex sting operations are not the same as those who cause real harm to someone. The judgment should be based on the consequence of the crime. 14% 16 votes
  • No opinion. 0% 1 vote

111 total votes.

Comments

parkay (anonymous) says...

If you think the information posted by this laughable commission will do anything besides whitewash judicial performance, or do anything to improve self-government or accountability to voters, then you're more gullible than a soft-on-predators judge listening to a child molester's sob story.

August 5, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Claudine_Dombrowski (Claudine Dombrowski) says...

The Commission on Judicial Performance - quiet simply put is - the "fox" guarding the chicken house.
As is the 'Code of Judicial Conduct' (that oath thingy) along with other 'laws' and ethics NOT to break (for judges) called the cannons.
http://www.kscourts.org/appellate-cle...

Actual complaints that do make it to the Supreme Court for 'violations' are rubber stamped with "No violation-complaint dismissed" - all behind 'closed' doors.

Making information available to the public would be a small start- at least not yet another highly financed 'look- good' commission[s] of 'protection' for the already "completely immune" from prosecution and accountability-Judiciary.

'We the people..." -though thanks to media, unity and plain ole common sense...we are all finding our voices... and "we are the power."
j;-)

Thank you KTKA- and Jessica Drew-

Keep up the Great work!!! We will get there from here, I have no doubt.

www.KansansForJudicialAccountability.com
www.JusticeForMothers.com
www.AngelFury.org

August 6, 2008 at 1:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )