Answers, please

Dear editor,

In May 2016, Judge Roger Prokes sentenced Garrett Warfield, a man convicted of having child pornography, to a five-year probation. He also gave Warfield a suspended 30-year prison sentence. Suspended means he doesn’t have to serve one day in prison.

Prokes was quoted in the Trenton, Missouri, newspaper as saying, “I’m taking a risk nothing’s going to happen.” Well, that certainly makes me feel better, Mr. Prokes. Nothing makes a parent feel safer than knowing a judge is taking risks with child safety.

There’s more. Just last week, Prokes heard the case of another man, Derek J. Oberhauser, who was found guilty of having child pornography. Prokes sentenced Oberhauser to serve four, seven-year periods in prison — concurrently.

Concurrently means, “at the same time.” So what would have been 28 years in prison is only seven. But, wait. Prokes said Oberhauser doesn’t even have to serve that seven years if he completes some therapy first. Prokes sentenced Oberhauser to another 15 years in prison – suspended execution. That means he doesn’t have to serve one day unless he violates his parole.

Well, thank goodness. It’s good to know this guy will be behind bars if he violates a child AGAIN! Really?

I can’t believe I have to write this. Why, Prokes? Why would you sentence a child sex offender to anything but the maximum sentence? And why would you suspend a sentence or make it concurrent, thereby rendering the entire thing pointless?

I don’t get it. I’m glad you’re retiring in 2018. But that gives us two more years for you to add to your record of light to basically no sentencing for child sex offenders.

I addressed you in a letter to the editor before the 2012 election. I directly asked you why you do this. I never got an answer. Maybe you don’t think you owe me an answer, but I think you do. I think you owe everyone in this community an answer.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Offutt, Maryville