Judge Sets Aside Mandatory Minimum for Child Molester

Since the child molester didn’t “intend to harm” the three-year-old girl, he doesn’t deserve the 25-to-life sentence for the crime?

What exactly are we becoming?

Perhaps you remember my post in February about a judge who gave a man essentially a life sentence because “the system forced me to do it” (my paraphrase). The judge believed he had no choice but to obey the law and put a non-violent drug offender away for a longer time than an airline hijacker or terrorist would receive.

Well, now we have a judge who did decide to simply disobey the sentencing guidelines. The results seem vomitous to me. What do you think?

First, let’s review the crime, as described by the Washington Post.

As the judge noted, the girl wandered into a garage where Rojano-Nieto was playing video games on June 4, 2014. Rojano-Nieto — to whom the girl is related, according to City News Service — became sexually aroused, pulled down the girl’s pants and began sodomizing her.

Her mother tried to get into the garage looking for her daughter, but Rojano-Nieto had locked the door. Rojano-Nieto had also put his hand over the child’s mouth to prevent her from calling out for help, prosecutors say.

When the child’s mother left to look for her daughter at a neighbor’s house, Rojano-Nieto made the girl fondle him. He then unlocked the door, and the child went back into the house. It wasn’t until she started complaining of pain that her mother realized that something terrible had occurred.

So, girl wanders in (niece? sister? step-sister? We aren’t permitted to know) and this young adult male gets turned on, locks the door, and does stuff to her, covers her mouth when her mother tries to enter, and then resumes the abuse).

Judge M. Marc Kelly refused to impose even the twenty-five-year minimum. He sentenced him to a ten-year-sentence. Here is how he explained himself, according to the Orange County Register:

Kelly agreed that under most circumstances the sentence would be appropriate.

However, in looking at the facts of Mr. Rojano’s case, the manner in which this offense was committed is not typical of a predatory, violent brutal sodomy of a child case,” Kelly said. “Mr. Roiano did not seek out or stalk (the victim). He was playing video games and she wandered into the garage. He inexplicably became sexually aroused but did not appear to consciously intend to harm (the victim) when he sexually assaulted her.”

The defendant “almost immediately” stopped and “realized the wrongfulness of his act,” Kelly said.

“Although serious and despicable, this does not compare to a situation where a pedophilic child predator preys on an innocent child,” Kelly said. “There was no violence or callous disregard for (the victim’s) well-being.”

The judge also noted the defendant “has shown extreme remorse for his actions and has been willing to accept the consequences,” Kelly said. “Mr. Rojano was born into and raised in a dysfunctional familiar environment.”

Pointing to a doctor’s report, the judge said that while growing up the defendant suffered “a great deal of family disruption and abuse, making him an insecure, socially withdrawn, timid, and extremely immature young man with limited self-esteem.”

I’m at a loss to understand, why after all the penalties we see imposed on non-violent offenses, that this is the time we hear of a judge setting aside the law to impose a lesser penalty. It seems clear from what the judge has said, that he actually wants to view the perpetrator as a juvenile. But this was a violent attack, whether or not the perpetrator started his day prowling for a victim. And the judge has now said things that are depraved: like covering the mouth of an abused child to stifle her cries for her mother shows “no violence of callous disregard for well-being.” In what world?

And I can’t help but wonder if the judge was affected by the “orientation” myths of sexuality that are so common these days. The man became “inexplicably” aroused? It sounds like the judge assumes that a sexual attraction is beyond the responsibility of a human being and cannot be regarded as criminal.

After all, a child molester who belonged to NAMBLA and believed that adult-child relationships were totally healthy would also not “intend harm.” Is that where we’re going?

If so, we are going to see more such sentencing and many other worse things.