Another Rapist Escapes Prison Time. Here’s Why His Judge Hasn’t Faced a Backlash.

How the recent University of Colorado rape case differs from the Stanford case.

<a href="http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/judge-holding-documents-gm489544923-39565112">AndreyPopov</a>/iStock

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


Last week, Judge Patrick Butler had to decide the sentence for Austin Wilkerson, a former University of Colorado-Boulder student convicted of sexual assault. Prosecutors requested prison time. In the courtroom, across from her attacker, the survivor read aloud from a raw, emotional statement about how being raped had affected her life. “Have as much mercy for the rapist as he did for me,” she said to Butler. But the judge sentenced Wilkerson to two years in the county jail, with the option to leave for work or school during the daytime, and 20 years to life on probation.

“I’ve struggled, to be quite frank, with the idea of, ‘Do I put him in prison?'” Butler said at the sentencing. “I don’t know that there is any great result for anybody.”

The scene was nearly identical to the drama that played out in the Santa Clara County Superior Court in June in California, after Judge Aaron Persky sentenced another young white man, former Stanford swimmer Brock Turner, to six months in county jail for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. But while Persky now faces a serious and well-funded recall campaign after a petition to remove him from the bench rapidly gained more than a million signatures, Butler hasn’t faced nearly that sort of backlash.

A petition to recall the Colorado judge has lost steam at around 70,000 signatures. Among sexual-assault victim advocates in the state, there’s word of, perhaps, a rally. And the strongest official statement came in the form of a tweet from the Colorado attorney general’s office:

Although the Colorado case closely resembles the Brock Turner verdict and sentence, its fallout has been much more muted, largely due to Colorado’s policies on removing judges from office and its sentencing laws.

Unlike in California, where judicial recall campaigns are uncommon but not unheard of, Colorado does not have a clear precedent of recalling district court judges. According to Nancy Leong, a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver, a 2014 state Supreme Court decision outlawing a judicial recall ballot initiative left the core question of judicial recall open, and many believe judges can’t be recalled. “I’m a Colorado native, and I cannot think of a time this has happened,” Leong said.

After the governor appoints a district court judge, voters decide whether to retain that judge every six years. Butler was appointed in 2011, and Boulder County voted to retain him in 2014. He will be up for retention in 2020.

“More often than not, we don’t see prison imposed, particularly for young, male college students.”

Differences between the two states’ sentencing laws also make it clear that Butler’s decision was not so unusual by Colorado standards. In California, the criminal code required a mandatory minimum of two years in state prison for intent to commit rape, one of the charges of which Turner was convicted. In order to give him a lesser sentence, Persky cited a special exemption in the law that allows judges to substitute probation for a mandatory prison sentence under “unusual” circumstances—which, according to the judge, included Turner’s youth and intoxication.

Butler, on the other hand, did not stray far beyond the constrains of his state’s sexual-assault statute. Wilkerson could have received 4 to 12 years in state prison, but the law also allowed for him to receive a probationary sentence of 20 years to life, said Deputy District Attorney Caryn Datz, who prosecuted the case. While prosecutors and the victim hoped he would get prison time, she said, “It’s important just to acknowledge that this judge has discretion.”

“This isn’t about pointing a finger,” she added.

Still, Datz said, the Wilkerson case is part of a larger trend in Boulder County. “More often than not, we don’t see prison imposed, particularly for young, male college students.”

Part of the blame for that trend may fall on Colorado’s Lifetime Supervision Act, according to Janine D’Anniballe, executive director of Moving to End Sexual Assault, a Boulder County group. The law, known as indeterminate sentencing, requires offenders who are sent to prison for certain sex offenses—including sexual assault—to remain in prison until they complete treatment and apply for parole. In effect, any prison sentence for these offenders becomes life with parole.

For years after the act was passed, Datz said, “it used to be the case that if convicted and sentenced in this category, life did essentially mean that.” But Datz added that for the past five years, the state’s department of corrections has tended to release those prisoners early, correcting the trend. According to the Boulder Daily Camera, judges deciding whether to send sex offenders to prison weigh the possibility that any prison sentence will keep an offender locked away for life. If Wilkerson had been sent to prison, he would have been kept there on an indeterminate sentence.

D’Anniballe says that while she believes Wilkerson deserved a longer sentence, calling it a “slap on the wrist” could be harmful to survivors. “Victims then see that or hear that and conclude that these crimes aren’t taken seriously,” D’Anniballe said. “It might impact their ability to report the crime and follow it through the criminal justice system.”

Even if Butler doesn’t face any serious blowback, the Wilkerson case could affect future sentences in the county. “You bet any Boulder County judge now that’s going to do a sentence on a sex offender is going to be scrutinized,” D’Anniballe said. “I think that’s a good thing.”

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