Man to Serve Probation for Sexual Assault (on a Child)

[CanonRay]

Source: Canon City Daily Record

A local man will serve eight years of probation after pleading guilty to a felony and two misdemeanor sexual offences.
William Schlottach originally was charged with sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust and sexual assault on a child, pattern of abuse.

He pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault on a child, a felony, and two counts of misdemeanor unlawful sexual contact.

For the felony, the plea agreement calls for a four-year deferred sentence. For the misdemeanors, Schlottach will receive four years probation to be served consecutively


Read more: http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=12473

---

This, I simply do not understand.

[DrDan]

1. prosecutors must not have had much confidence in their case

[WriteDown]

2. Looks like we have Bill Owens to thank for this clown of a judge

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/File/Media/Judge_Appointments/2004/JD11_-_Thorson_-_8-4-2004.pdf

[No Elephants]

11. Owens undoubtedly went out of his way to appoint a judge who would give all sexual predators

probation.

:sarcasm:

[WriteDown]

13. Does not negate the fact that he brought him to power.

Does it?

[No Elephants]

16. Why smear Owens for no reason?

Besides the fact that you don't seem to like Democrats.

[WriteDown]

17. Is Bill Owens a Dem?

I thought he was a repub, seriously. I should keep better track of CO politics, since my youngest sister is moving there in a month. Doesn't matter, plenty of guilt to go around.

[No Elephants]

19. Don't know.

[MH1]

20. Sure you did.

[WriteDown]

21. Yeah, because its included in that link I supplied right?

:eyes:

Its fairly common on DU to find out who appointed a judge after an egregious decision is made. Maybe that has slipped past you.

[sui generis]

3. you don't understand?

The guy will be under house arrest, on a watch list, unable to travel internationally, possibly on an ankle transmitter, and still able to earn money at a job and pay taxes.

I don't like it, but he's pretty much "in prison" anyway. The downer is that the judge likely realizes that some vigilante yahoo is going to be outraged enough to go all Dexter on him if he's not in prison, so this may actually have been a death penalty.

I'm not defending anything about this but the law is the law, and if it's applied unequally because we've suddenly decided that the blanket phrase "unlawful sexual contact" is equivalent to murder, then the law loses meaning in every case.

[CanonRay]

4. Sorry, but Unlawful Sexual Contact

is the lesser charge to which he pled down to. Look at the original charges: "Pattern of Abuse". That means repeated assaults by a person in a position of trust. Not "unlawful sexual contact". I don't think YOU understand.

[sui generis]

5. yep. I stand by what I said.

Begone pitchfork and torch carrying villager.

I do understand a call to the mob when I hear it. I'm not outraged at the decision for every reason I stated.

[Devil_Fish]

28. he would probably be killed in prison too. Raped first. then killed.NT

[hlthe2b]

6. How old was the child? Damned poor reporting...

It would certainly seem important to consider if this were a 17 year old "consenting" minor versus a young child.... :shrug:

[No Elephants]

12. What was the "position of trust?" Why did the judge rule as he did?

Agree. The story is lacking, to say the least.

[dysfunctional press]

7. and i thought this was going to be a roman polanski thread...

:shrug:

[rfranklin]

8. He will do it again...there is no cure or prevention...

once the predilection becomes overt.

[rox63]

9. How do you keep this guy away from children if he is allowed out and about?

:banghead:

[Rebubula]

10. Need more facts...

...how old was the child? What was the extent of the sexual contact - did he actually have physical contact or was it exposing himself? What is his relation to the victim?

There are many questions here. I will hold judgment until I know facts.

[izquierdista]

15. No, no

You must grab your torch and pitchfork! Time's a wastin'. Aren't the words "sexual assault" and "child" all you need to hear?

[Garam_Masala]

14. May be the Judge himself is a child molester and therefore

sympathetic to his comrades in crime. He/she should be removed.

[No Elephants]

18. Good Lord. Talk about jumping to conclusions.

The prosecutor would have requested this, and probably bc he was not sure of getting a conviction.

[Codeine]

22. You should be ashamed

throwing out shit like that.

[Silent3]

23. I think that post is a good example of how punishment escalation occurs.

There definitely seems to be a fear in some people that if you hear the words "sex offender", and don't immediately advocate boiling said "sex offender" alive in oil (after, perhaps, cutting off his balls and stuffing them in his mouth for good measure), or if you think you need to know details of the offense in order to determine an appropriate punishment, then you might be seen as far too sympathetic, even as "one of them".

I wouldn't be surprised, however, if the opposite doesn't often apply: I imagine some (certainly not all, maybe not even many, but at least a sizable "some") of the loudest voices calling most impatiently for the harshest punishments based on the least information are coming from people who have something to hide, something about themselves that they're ashamed of and want to mask or fiercely deny.

[Cronus Protagonist]

24. +10

You're correct. That is called Jungian projection, and no one is immune from it.

[proteus_lives]

25. Disgusting.

:puke:

There should never be probation for child molesters. They should spend the rest of their lives in prison or worse.

[Odin2005]

26. WTF? that waste of oxygen deserves to rot in a jail cell and left to starve.

[happyslug]

27. Probably the father of the Child, and the Judge did NOT want to punish the child more then the prep

Lets remember, we must make sure the person being punished is punished more then the Victim. In a case where a parent abuses a child (Which tends to be the norm in abuse cases, including sexual abuse cases, NOT the exception) if the father (Generally the person who did the abuse) is sent to prison, he loses his job, his ability to earn a living AND THE ABILITY TO SUPPORT HIS CHILD (The Victim). The State WILL not step in a provide the support the child IF THE FATHER CAN NOT DO SO, thus you enter an area of the law we are uncomfortable with (The State will provide Welfare, in my home state of Pennsylvania that is $265 per month for a family of two).

Remember when we putt the Father in jail we are also denying him the ability to support the child (the Victim). The Child will more likely then not, have to move from the Child's present home and school for the Mother of the Child will NO LONGER BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT HOUSE while the father is in jail and can not provide support. The Child may even become homeless, if the Mother can NOT find a house she can support on her income alone (and thus the child may even lose contact with the Child's mother do to the jailing of the child's father).

On the other hand if the Father is NOT sent to Jail, he can obtain employment AND PAY SUPPORT. With that support the Mother can maintain the house the child is presently living in, the child does NOT have to change homes and school for she still has access to her father's support. The problem is one of the cost of such support is he MUST NOT be in Jail. Thus often the only way to make sure the Victim is NOT punished more then the Perpetrator is NOT to jail the Perpetrator, but to put him on probation so he can work and provide support. Thus what the Judge did is perfectly understandable and I support the decision (I am NOT familiar with this case but I have seen similar cases and you have to have similar results so that the Child is NOT punished more then the person who did the child harm).