A judge in Washington state came under fire for warning a serial offender that if he didn’t change his ways, he would be sent to prison and raped by an inmate named “Bubba.”
After informing the unnamed domestic abuse suspect in August of last year that he was likely to become “Bubba’s new best girlfriend in the state penitentiary,” Judge Virginia Amato received an official reprimand.
“Hopefully, that will give you a disturbing image to consider… According to a complaint, the judge allegedly said, “And if you think I’m kidding, I’m not.”
Amato continued to impart her judge’s wisdom once the man indicated that he understood:
She forewarned, “The people in the penitentiary will take that out on you, at the penitentiary.
They have mothers and sisters, nephews, and cousins whom they do not want someone out there abusing. Consider that because you are currently accruing felonies.
At the time of the alleged misdemeanour violence incident, the man was on probation. Amado made the contentious statement during the man’s arraignment hearing.
The conclusion of the case is not yet apparent, and no other information has been provided about that incident or his criminal history.
According to the Seattle Times, even if the guy had been found guilty of the most recent minor incident, Amato would not have been allowed to imprison him because he had no prior felonies.
In October, a complaint was made against Amato to the Washington Commission on Judicial Conduct; in December, she received the accusations.
Unknown individuals objected to Amato’s comments.
Even though the judge acknowledged that her remarks in the complaint were untrue and that they broke the Code of Judicial Conduct, she argued that she only said what she did out of concern for the defendant and in an effort to persuade him to alter his behaviour.
Although insensitive and careless, they weren’t motivated by prejudice or hostility toward the defendant, she claimed.
Regardless of her claimed motivation, the Conduct Commission found that Amato broke Washington law by failing to uphold the “integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary,” as well as her need to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”
The commission issued her an official reprimand, which is the least severe form of punishment it can impose, but it nonetheless emphasized how serious her acts were.
The commission stated in the reprimand order that “the words and images chosen were improper, discourteous, and unbecoming a judicial officer.”
“They were degrading to the defendant and other prisoners, playing on stereotypes and exploiting fears of the criminal justice system,” the commission wrote.
Amato’s actions, according to the panel, were particularly improper given that the defendant was given a presumption of innocence before the arraignment.
It also stated that Amato’s errors were not indicative of her conduct as a judge, noting that they seemed to be a unique incident and that she did not seem to have spoken to the defendant with malice in her heart.
According to the judgment, Amato sought advice from more senior judges and consented to take part in a one-hour ethics training regarding proper courtroom behaviour.