• Child Molester On Probation: The Screwed-Up Ethics of Judge Maria Lopez

    Email Print
    Share

    If
    this world were perfect, there would be perfect justice. Bad deeds
    — if there ever were any — would be accordingly punished
    with a fit sentence and everybody would look out for the best interests
    of his fellow man. (If this life were perfect, there wouldn’t be
    people reading that last sentence and thinking “She should have
    written “Everybody would look out for the best interests of his
    or her fellow human beings.”)

    The innocence of children would be cherished and protected, and
    Judge Maria Lopez would be working in a Dairy Queen, if this world
    were perfect. That way, the worst harm she could inflict would be
    to put peanuts on someone’s ice cream cone instead of sprinkles.

    Since this world isn’t perfect, “transgendered” Boston-area resident
    Charles Horton was undeterred by whatever remains of his conscience
    on November 20, 1999 when he — in his female persona —
    lured a twelve year old boy into his car under the pretense of needing
    help in looking for a “lost child.” The boy was forced into the
    car and driven off.

    Horton took the boy to a deserted parking lot where he forced the
    boy to suck on one of his fingers. When the boy resisted, Horton
    intimidated him by holding a screwdriver at his neck until he complied.
    According to an account in the Boston Globe, the child was rescued
    by patrolling police officers, who “noticed a head bobbing in the
    car.”

    “In
    a statement he gave police after being read his Miranda rights,
    Horton allegedly admitted kissing the child and said that he had
    used the lot as a place to perform oral sex on teenagers,” stated
    Globe reporter John Ellement.

    Horton was charged with kidnapping, indecent assault and battery,
    and assault with intent to rape. His case proceeded to trial and
    that was where he unfortunately met up with Superior Court Judge
    Maria I. Lopez.

    After hearing all the evidence, Judge Lopez chose to reward evil.
    She was apparently very concerned about Horton’s status as a sexually
    confused person and asked Assistant District Attorney David Deakin
    what kind of prison Horton would be sent to — male or female.
    When Mr. Deakin replied that either type of prison could keep Horton
    in protective custody, Lopez snapped at Deakin, asking if Horton
    would be “locked up for 23 hours a day.” That’s evidently a problem,
    right?

    On Wednesday, September 6, 2000, Lopez denied David Deakin’s request
    that Horton be sent to prison for 8-10 years and sentenced him to
    a probation of five years. Horton will be monitored by wearing an
    electronic ankle bracelet only for the first year of his sentence.
    He will be permitted to go to church and attend counseling sessions
    and university classes. You might be interested to know that Judge
    Lopez handed down this sentence knowing that Horton lives in a housing
    project that some six hundred children also call home.

    (Incidentally, the child Horton molested is now serving a life sentence
    of painful and terrifying memories, but who cares about him?)

    Lopez’s decision to not jail Horton was based upon the psychological
    evaluation which determined that he is not a predator. Huh?!? I
    find this inexcusable, since the crime Horton was being tried for
    was predatory in nature: he kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and threatened
    a child with bodily harm. What more could it possibly take to prove
    that a person is willing to prey upon a child? I suppose we should
    feel grateful that the psychological assessment did admit that Horton
    has “impulses.” Don’t we all? For example, my own personal impulse
    at this point is to move to Massachusetts and lobby long and loud
    from Governor Paul Cellucci’s office to make sure that this woman
    and her job are soon parted.

    Writes Globe staff reporter Frank Phillips: “Lopez appeared to reject
    prison for the transgender Horton not because of any doubts about
    his guilt, but because she feared for his safety and emotional well-being
    behind bars.” She also referred to this crime as a “low-scale” matter.
    Since Horton expressed regret for what he had done to the boy, that
    made everything just peachy again. All of you who disagree just
    need to get over yourselves and stop being so judgmental.

    When judges are on the bench in order to assist the villains rather
    than support the victims, where does that leave us? As long as judges
    like Maria Lopez are dispensing their peculiar form of “justice,”
    we’re left with a deep moral quicksand that threatens to suck the
    innocent under and denies them what they deserve: This twelve-year-old
    boy deserves to know that Charles Horton is behind bars for a long,
    long time. What he did was wrong and evil and there are times when
    saying “Gee, I’m sure sorry” just doesn’t cut it. This is one of
    them.

    Since Lopez couldn’t bring herself to make Horton face the consequences
    of his actions, she has become his accessory after the fact. If
    he has another “impulse” and violates his probation by molesting
    another child, maybe these two girlfriends could share a cozy little
    cell together. Twenty to thirty years ought to do it.

    That’s what would happen if this world were perfect.

    September
    19, 2000

    Shelley
    McKinney is a political writer whose work regularly appears in several
    Internet journals. She takes great pleasure in exposing the politically
    correct for their lack of logical thought.

    Email Print
    Share