DescentBB

Three Muslim refugee boys who plead guilty in the heinous sexual attack of a five-year-old girl in Idaho were sentenced yesterday. No jail time. The judge barred everyone in the courtroom, including the victim’s own parents, from speaking about the case and threatened anyone with serious consequences if they violated his edict. Unheard of.

The sexual assault occurred at Fawnbrook Apartments, in Twin Falls, when a 5-year-old was lured into a laundry room, stripped of her clothing, urinated on, and orally and anally raped while the oldest boy filmed the entire incident.

Now, following a sentencing hearing Monday at the Snake River Juvenile Detention Center in Twin Falls, Judge Thomas Borresen of Idaho’s 5th Judicial District issued a gag order barring everyone in the courtroom from talking about it.

The victim’s lawyer is facing contempt charges because of a benign comment he made to the Idaho Statesman about the parents’ unhappiness with the verdict.

Mathew Staver, chairman and co-founder of the nonprofit legal assistance agency Liberty Counsel, told WND that Judge Borresen was completely out of line in issuing a gag order after the fact in a criminal case.

“It’s unconstitutional for the judge to do that. There are gag orders that can be put on people during a jury trial, or if it’s a minor they can prohibit you from mentioning the name of the minor, but they can’t gag you after the fact,” Staver said. “This is public at this point. This judge, it just seems like he’s forgotten about the First Amendment in this case. He has no authority to do this, he can’t hold someone in contempt to keep them from speaking out about their displeasure with the case after the fact.”

Staver said case law is clear on the subject of gag orders.

Vander wrote:I don't understand where you're getting "no jail time." As far as I can see, the records are sealed so the public doesn't know. Also of note, the guilty are ages 7, 10, and 14, which begs an answer to "what is a proper sentence?"

Vander wrote:I don't understand where you're getting "no jail time." As far as I can see, the records are sealed so the public doesn't know. Also of note, the guilty are ages 7, 10, and 14, which begs an answer to "what is a proper sentence?"

Ferno wrote:While you guys were commenting, I did a bit of digging.

Turns out the story is wrong, and fueled by rumours

Not surprising, given the fact the OP is trying, yet again, to spread bull★■◆●.

Nightshade wrote:but those three don't seem to have had any applied.

Vander wrote:edit - btw, I think we discussed this last year, which is what Ferno's link pulled up. There are a couple recent articles about the sentencing. (though they don't say what the sentences actually were, because it's sealed)