Tough judge? One predator, 4 dead

Rambix has previously posted on the story of child molester/predator Joseph Edward Duncan III of Fargo, ND (see here), a story which, if nothing else, has served to expose an egregious breach of duty by the public institutions that exist to protect us.

A 7/22/05 AP story, via KSTP News follows up on the judge who let the sewer rat Duncan go free on $15,000 bail following the molestation of a 6 year old boy in Detroit Lakes, MN. The judge is embattled for his decision, and is likely feeling significant heat. Paradoxically, he's universally described as one of the toughest judges in the 7th District:

"A judge who's under fire for allowing sex offender Joseph Edward Duncan III to go free on bail is regarded locally as so tough that defendants try to avoid him, defense attorneys say.

Judge Thomas Schroeder has been removed from 98 court cases in the past year, more than any other judge on a list compiled by Minnesota's 7th Judicial District."

Is the judge's tough reputation warranted? Let's examine the setting of bail.

"The transcript shows that Schroeder was told during the hearing that Duncan, 42, of Fargo, N.D., was a convicted sex offender. But no one at the hearing described Duncan specifically as a Level 3 sex offender - the type considered most likely to reoffend - and Schroeder has said he didn't know then that Duncan was a Level 3."

According to media reports, the judge knew that Duncan was a convicted sex criminal (Rambix prefers the word "criminal" to the word "offender"), albiet not a Level 3, the highest level, meaning he has a high potential to "re-offend". The judge also knew the instant charge - alleged molestation of a 6 year old boy.

What the judge professes not to have known is the history of homosexual rape, including 17 years in prison for raping a 14 year old boy at gunpoint. Here's a narrative from the North Dakota Sex Offender web site:

"1ST DEGREE RAPE - DUNCAN RAPED A 14 YEAR OLD BOY AT GUNPOINT. HE BURNED THE VICTIM WITH A CIGARETTE AND MADE THE VICTIM BELIEVE HE WAS GOING TO BE KILLED BY FIRING THE GUN TWICE ON EMPTY CHAMBERS. DUNCAN WAS TERMINATED FROM TREATMENT, SERVED A LENGTHY PRISON SENTENCE, WAS PAROLED, AND THEN ABSCONDED. DUNCAN HAD A LONG HISTORY OF SEXUAL AGGRESSION AS A YOUTH."

Let's assume the judge didn't have all the facts, and for some reason could not have accessed the history, had he inquired. Is $15,000 bail sufficient based on the alleged molestation of a 6 year old boy? Typically with bail, one can pay 10% to a bail bondsman, who fronts the balance on the agreement that the defendant will show up in court. In this case it would be $1500, with the bail bondsman making up the $13,500 difference. Bail is supposed to be set so that it would be financially painful for the defendant to abscond.

Duncan not only met the bail, he paid the entire $15,000 by personal check, then promptly fled, and was free to allegedly do the following:

"Duncan then left the area and is now charged with killing three people at an Idaho home. Authorities also allege he kidnapped 8-year-old Shasta Groene and her brother, 9-year-old Dylan and sexually assaulted them. Shasta was discovered with Duncan July 2. Dylan's body was found a few days later."

The prosecutors requested $25,000 bail. Rambix submits that $15,000 bail is a slap in the face of the victims, and is an egregious error in judgement on Judge Schroeder's part. The $25,000 requested by the prosecutors was also too low. Even with only the charge at hand known, bail should have been set 10-20 times higher. Tough judge or not, Schroeder really fouled this one up.

If the judge and the prosecutors had known the full history of sewer rat Duncan, obviously no bail should have been offered. And why didn't they know the history? If Duncan had gone to apply for credit, or a job, it would be tough to hide 17 years in prison. Why didn't the criminal justice system have access to that information?

There was an egregious breach of public trust which resulted in the murder and rape of innocents. Rambix understands it's a tough business for the judge and court to do the right thing, and get it right every time. But when in doubt, do we not need to err on the side of the victim and the general public? Do the judge and the prosecutors have blood on their hands? Rambix leaves that to the reader to decide.