A 67-year-old man solicited a 13-year-old girl for sex. The judge called her 'an aggressor.'

A 67-year-old man solicited a 13 and 14-year-old to sexually abuse them. Then the judge called the girls "an aggressor."

In a normal world, when a 67-year-old man molests underage girls, he's 100% at fault. In a normal world, when a 67-year-old man pays money to underage girls in order to molest them, he's 100% at fault. He's the adult. He's the one who knows better. He's the one breaking the law and all standards of human decency by soliciting sex with girls who cannot legally consent to it.

But apparently we don't live in a normal world. At least not in the Kansas courtroom where a judge decided that 13- and 14-year-old girls are "aggressors" in the above scenario. That's right. Aggressors.


Raymond Soden pleaded no contest to soliciting a 13-year-old for nude photos and sexual acts through Facebook. He admitted to knowing her age at the time. No contest. He did it.

But Leavenworth County District Judge Michael Gibbens decided that Soden couldn't totally be blamed for being a disgusting perv.

“I do find that the victims in this case, in particular, were more an aggressor than a participant in the criminal conduct,” Gibbens said before Soden's sentencing. “They were certainly selling things monetarily that it’s against the law for even an adult to sell.”

“I think that a 13-year-old who offered what she offered for money is certainly an aggressor," the judge said, per the Kansas City Star, "particularly since she’s the one that had to travel to Mr. Soden.”

I see. So Soden didn't go to the girl's house and force her to perform sexual acts; she traveled to him and he paid her money. Surely that means the 13-year-old minor was basically forcing this 67-year-old man into being a pervy sexual criminal. Got it.

The perpetrator's sentence was reduced to less than half of the state's sentencing guidelines.

Judge Gibbens sentenced Soden to five years and 10 months, almost eight years less than the 13-plus years prosecutors were seeking based on Soden's criminal history. The Star reported that Soden had two prior criminal convictions for battery and sexual battery.

According to Kansas law, a judge has to have “substantial and compelling reasons” to depart from sentencing guidelines. In this case, the judge cited evidence that the young teens had voluntarily gone to Soden's house and taken money for what they did.

The mental gymnastics this judge had to go through to try to justify a 67-year-old's criminal child sex abuse must have pulled a muscle in his brain. That's the only explanation.

The judge is facing harsh criticism for his comments, because there's no other reasonable reaction to have in this case.

The fact that a judge seems oblivious to consent laws in his own state is baffling enough. The age of consent for sex in Kansas is 16, which means that any adult sexual contact with someone under age 16 is sexual abuse or rape.

But beyond the law, isn't this just common sense?

How can a 13-year-old child possibly be considered an "aggressor" when a 67-year-old solicits her for sex?. I don't care if she showed up at his door stark raving naked. I don't care if she suggested it. She is a child. He is an adult. He is the aggressor if any sexual acts take place. Full stop. End of story.

But the judge appears to be convinced that these girls deserve some blame. According to the Star, the judge questioned one girl's statement that she was "uncomfortable" with the sexual contact and doubted that the experience was traumatic for her.

“And so she’s uncomfortable for something she voluntarily went to, voluntarily took her top off of, and was paid for?” Judge Gibbens asked the prosecutor.

“Yes, judge," the prosecutor responded. "She was also a 13-year-old who under our laws can’t consent to anything.”

Judge Gibbens said he understood that, but then added, “I wonder what kind of trauma there really was to this victim under those peculiar circumstances.”

Good gracious. She's a child. He's an adult. She cannot consent. You cannot judge her trauma, Judge Gibbens. You should know better, and the fact that you don't puts a damning stain on our justice system.

More
via James Anderson

Two years ago, a tweet featuring the invoice for a fixed boiler went viral because the customer, a 91-year-old woman with leukemia, received the services for free.

"No charge for this lady under any circumstances," the invoice read. "We will be available 24 hours to help her and keep her as comfortable as possible."

The repair was done by James Anderson, 52, a father-of-five from Burnley, England. "James is an absolute star, it was overwhelming to see that it cost nothing," the woman's daughter told CNN.

Keep Reading Show less
Heroes

I live in a family with various food intolerances. Thankfully, none of them are super serious, but we are familiar with the challenges of finding alternatives to certain foods, constantly checking labels, and asking restaurants about their ingredients.

In our family, if someone accidentally eats something they shouldn't, it's mainly a bit of inconvenient discomfort. For those with truly life-threatening food allergies, the stakes are much higher.

I can't imagine the ongoing stress of deadly allergy, especially for parents trying to keep their little ones safe.

Keep Reading Show less
LUSH

Handmade cosmetics company Lush is putting its money where its mouth is and taking a bold step for climate change action.

On September 20 in the U.S. and September 27 in Canada, Lush will shut the doors of its 250 shops, e-commerce sites, manufacturing facilities, and headquarters for a day, in solidarity with the Global Climate Strike taking place around the world. Lush is encouraging its 5000+ employees "to join this critical movement and take a stand until global leaders are forced to face the climate crisis and enact change."

Keep Reading Show less
Planet
Photo by Annie Bolin on Unsplash

Recent tragic mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton have sparked a lot of conversation and action on the state level over the issue of gun control. But none may be as encouraging as the most recent one, in which 145 CEOs signed a letter urging the U.S. Senate to take action at their level.

Keep Reading Show less
popular