Judges’ personal bias can’t influence decision.
Words matter
Ghastly. Abhorrent. Sick. Perverted. Despicable.
Words any of us might use without a second thought when describing a person who sexually abuses children.
But when a judge uses those words while sentencing a sex offender, it’s another matter altogether.
That’s what a state appeals court ruled last week when it ordered a new sentencing hearing — and a new judge — for an Elk Grove Village man convicted of abusing two Addison girls in 2011, when they were 9 and 5 years old.
The ruling stems from the 46-year prison sentence Scott J. Gates received in 2015 after a DuPage County jury convicted him of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a child. In handing down the sentence, Judge John J. Kinsella blasted not only Gates but child abusers in general, labeling them “ghastly,” “abhorrent,” and guilty of “shameful and despicable conduct.”
In a unanimous decision, the appellate court ruled Kinsella crossed the line between commenting on an individual defendant before him and expressing personal opinions.
“The trial court’s comments suggest that it may have based defendant’s sentence on its own opinion of child abuse offenders,” Justice Robert Spence wrote. “Therefore, we must remand the case for resentencing before a different circuit court judge to ensure that defendant’s sentence is based only upon proper factors and not upon the trial court’s subjective feelings.”
A new sentencing hearing for Gates has not yet been scheduled.