Judge Adrian, who caused controversy last week after overturning the verdict of a young man accused of rape, has been sanctioned by the American administration.
Last week, Judge Robert Adrian caused controversy when he overturned the verdict handed down in October against a young man accused of rape. Following his decision, many voices were raised to denounce what was described as a “chilling message sent to the victims”. The administration therefore decided to reassign him. While he handled criminal cases, he will now try small claims, legal cases and probate records, as well as other civil cases, the ‘Herald-Whig’ reported. This announcement takes effect immediately. All the cases he had been dealing with until then have been reassigned to other judges. It was Frank McCartney, Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Illinois, who filed this request for reassignment after being informed of the situation. “There are going to be things that are going to be done over the next few days and weeks that will hopefully alleviate some of the issues,” he told the Muddy River News on Wednesday afternoon.
The scandalous case concerns 18-year-old Drew Clinton, accused of rape. He allegedly put a pillow over a 16-year-old girl’s face in order to rape her at a party last May. He had been found guilty last October but Judge Adrian finally chose to overturn this verdict, explaining that the young man had no criminal record and that he had already endured “a pretty strong punishment” by spending 148 days in prison. detention in a county jail. “According to the law, the Court is supposed to send this young man to the department of correction. But this Court will not do that. It is not fair. There is no reason what happened in this case should send this teenager to the department of correction. I’m not going to do that,” he said. The “Daily Beast” recalls that Illinois nevertheless requires a mandatory minimum sentence of four years in prison in the event of a conviction for sexual assault. But the judge considered that the five months spent in detention represented a “just sentence”. Determined to lighten the sentence he should have served, the judge therefore changed his verdict, finding him not guilty, indicating that the prosecutors had “failed to prove their case”.
“This is what happens when girls are allowed to swim in their underwear in a pool”
According to Judge Adrian, it is above all the adults who are responsible for this aggression. He explained that the parents had given up on their role and that the assaults happen when you “have parties for teenagers in which girls are allowed to swim in their underwear in a pool”. A reference to the course of the evening during which the young girl drank alcohol and then swam in the pool before falling asleep on the sofa. “No, underwear is not bathing suits. Parents allowed 16-year-olds to bring alcohol to a party. They gave alcohol to minors, and you wonder why this stuff happens. Well, that’s how these things happen. The court is deeply disgusted by all this, ”launched the judge again.
All these controversies have obviously provoked strong reactions. Cameron Vaughan’s father told the ‘Herald-Whig’ that his daughter felt like she was ‘talking for nothing’. “Now she almost wishes she had said nothing at all,” he lamented. Last Tuesday, the Quincy Area Network Against Domestic Abuse posted a statement on Facebook saying the judge was “obviously more sorry for Clinton than for the victim.” “He blamed everyone but Clinton,” Adrian’s verdict and comments send a chilling message to other rape victims that their behavior, not that of the rapists, will be judged. It’s about shaming the victims and setting the rapists free. This judgment reinforces the fact that the standards for women have always been incredibly high while they are incredibly low for men”. A petition that has already collected more than 26,000 signatures has been launched on Change.org. She demands the suspension or dismissal of the judge. The page then denounces the change in the judge’s decision and recalls that he “does not have the authority to change the law just because he wants to. His job is to defend and enforce the law. “There is no doubt that the victim was 16 at the time and this information alone indicates that she was legally incapable of giving consent under any circumstances. In addition to this, a person under the influence of alcohol is not capable of consent”, it is written.
Any reproduction prohibited