Wisconsin Judge Calls13-Year-Old Sexual Assault Victim ‘So-Called Victim’
A Wisconsin judge will serve a seven day suspension after admitting to misconduct. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, who handed down the suspension, said his behavior had a significant detrimental impact on the public's view of the judiciary.
According to the Post Crescent,
"Winnebago County Judge Scott Woldt used "undignified, discourteous and disrespectful language unbecoming of a judge" and showed "an open disregard of (his) obligation to observe the public in a fair, reasoned, impartial and courteous way," the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a decision released Tuesday morning."
What Did Judge Scott Woldt Do?
In June 2020, the Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed a complaint with issues from 2009 - 2016 (interesting the latest one is from 2016).
a) High school students visiting his courtroom asked him about security at the courthouse and Wold showed them his gun. Apparently the question didn't ask if he carried a gun and didn't ask him to show a gun.
b) Another complaint was with crime victims in his courtroom." In one case he said, "I'm just sick and tired of victims coming in here and they call the cops when they need 'em but then later they come and say, 'Oh, no, this person's an angel.' I'm sick and tired of hearing it."
c) He referred to "a 13-year-old victim of sexual assault as a 'so-called victim.'
d) He held up a handgun at a sentencing for a convicted stalker and said, ""You're lucky you're not dead because if you would have come into my house, I keep my gun with me and you'd be dead, plain and simple." The gun was not loaded in this case, but only he knew that.
Again from the Post Crescent,
Woldt admitted to the facts of each of the incidents in question, but disagreed with the way the incidents were characterized and questioned why these issues were being raised now, years after the fact..
Justice Patience Roggensack agreed with Justice Rebecca Bradley's dissent: "I dissent from the majority insofar as it disciplines (Woldt) for his displays of a firearm and innocuous statements, which may have offended the sensibilities of three justices, but undoubtedly did not violate the Wisconsin Judicial Code Conduct"
1: producing no injury : HARMLESS
2: not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility : INOFFENSIVE, INSIPID
So what do you think? Is the punishment just? All the justices at the hearing agreed to it, even the dissenters.
As always, if you have a comment, complaint, or concern about something I wrote here, please let me know: firstname.lastname@example.org