I try to avoid politics on my knitting blog, but this is just too much.
Child molester sentenced to crochet.
From KGBT4:
GRACE: OK. Robert Wayne Thompson, 46, pleads nolo to aggravated sexual assault of a child. He has a felony child molestation record. And he was sentenced to 320 hours of knitting, needlepoint. Right. He’s walking free, and the judge that gave that sentence is Judge Rose Guerra Reyna in Texas, last name spelled R-E-Y-N-A.
Since this is a knitting blog, I do need to point out that, in fact, he was sentenced to crochet blankets for the needy. Bear in mind, the man already knows how to crochet. He enjoys crochet; it’s his hobby.
I guess that’s nice to know the needy will get afghans, but as Grace points out:
GRACE: Yes, well, he could do that behind bars.
Yes. He could crochet behind bars. As we all know, the infamous “Martha’ poncho was crocheted by an incarcerated prison inmate.
Notes added later:
- According to The monitor” the molested child is 7 years old and Thompson, had priors. He was convicted of sexual assault in Virginia, where he served 5 years during the ’80s.
- Recently, on knitflame, two knitters suggested the fact the man plead “No Lo” means he was not found guilty. I am not a lawyer, but I know this is incorrect; the judge found him guilty. The plea of “no lo” is a plea, not a verdict; this plea means suspect does not dispute the facts of the case. The jusdge then compared the undisputed facts to the law, and determines guilt or innocence. In this case, the judge found the man guilty as charged and sentenced him. However, she seems to believe this is the correct sentence for aggravated sexual assault committed against the man’s 7 year old daughter. (Explanations of “no lo” can be found at: Legal explanations.com, and Student Legal Rights.org
Please leave comments! 4 Comments
Stumble it (and place in Knitting/crochet!)4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Previous posts: ( Seaming Panels Together | Home | Stockinette ad nauseam: Part I)
Lucia Liljegren: Copyright 2005-2007 Rights to all site content including knitting patterns, generators and haikus reserved.
Unbelievable!!!! One more reason to hate george bush’s state! That’s absolutely disgusting!
Comment by christine — 8/5/2005 @ 6:38 am
Common decency and common sense are not political.
Comment by Sonja — 8/5/2005 @ 11:16 am
The mans was not sentenced by a judge this was a plea form the prosecuters office. They were ready to drop the case due to lack of evidence. The daughter told them her mother told her to say she was assuletd do to a custody battle. Who knows maby the man never touched his daughter.
Comment by Denise — 8/23/2005 @ 8:47 am
I could accept your point of view if the judges actions weren’t wildly inconsistent.
The man was, indeed, sentenced by the judge. The fact that she accepted a plea agreement suggested by the prosecutor doesn’t change the fact that the judged sentenced him. Judges often accept prosecutors plea bargains, but they are not required to do so. If they think the man is innocent, as you suggest, they should find not guilty; in that case, no one is sentenced to anything– not even crochet.
If the judges thinks the man is guilty , they should convict and lay down a sentence comensurate with his guilt.
As to the prosecutors actions: If the prosecutor can drop cases whenever they wish; they did not drop this one.
In fact, the prosecutor did not drop the charges, and the judge the man guilty of a serious crime but gave the man a ridiculously light sentences.
Notwithstanding any plea agreement, either the judge should have:
a)cleared the man because she believed the evidence was not sufficient to convict. In that case there should be no sentence, community service or anything, or
b) she should have found him guilty and then given him a reasonable sentence for the crime.
No matter how I see this, there is something wildly wrong with the outcome.
I also think it is a tragedy that a judge would accept an extremely unusual sentence that will certainly be discussed widely in a case where, one would think, she might be concerned with a child’s privacy.
This judge used extremely bad judgement all around.
Comment by lucia — 8/23/2005 @ 9:04 am