This Judge Said Coming from a “Good Family” Means a 16-Year-Old Couldn’t Be a Rapist

Another example of why rape victims have a hard time getting justice.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

When a 16-year-old boy appeared in a New Jersey court, the question was whether he would be tried as an adult for having allegedly raped a 16-year-old girl. A New Jersey judge denied the waiver, but his rationale has launched an outpouring of online outrage.

The boy, who was drunk, filmed himself penetrating an intoxicated girl at a party, the New York Times reported Tuesday. He then sent the video to his friends with the caption, “When your first time having sex was rape.”

Judge James Troiano, however, said that the boy’s actions did not constitute a “traditional case of rape,” according to a document from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Troiano explained that in the typical case of rape in which children were tried as adults, “There were generally two or more generally males involved, either at gunpoint or weapon, clearly manhandling a person…and just simply taking advantage of the person as well as beating the person, threatening the person.”

But what was most appalling was how Troiano explicitly connected the boy’s good social standing to his decision not to try him in adult court. “This young man comes from a good family who put him into an excellent school where he was doing extremely well,” he said. “He is clearly a candidate for not just college but probably for a good college. His scores for college entry were very high.”

Troiano is not the only judge whose outdated opinions about sexual assault have created controversy. In 2016, Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky issued a six-month jail sentence to Brock Turner, a Stanford University student accused of sexual assault. Persky eventually lost his job as a result.

Some people have noted that the 16-year-old defendant is not legally an adult and should not be charged as such, but the general focus was the judge’s egregious remarks as justification for this decision, especially given the clear evidence of the boy’s actions.

Politicians also weighed in. 

An appeals court rebuked the judge and cleared the way for the boy to appear before a grand jury, which will treat him as an adult and decide whether to indict him for sexual assault, the New York Times reported.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate