I believe we can say that it has been confirmed that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was nominated to sit on the US Supreme Court by President Joe Biden‘s progressive handlers, has a history of going lenient on child sex perverts. Regardless of the gaslighting excuses given by Brown and the misinformation news media, it is what it is.
A registered sex offender who was given three months in prison by Judge Jackson is speaking out and thanking the judge for her lenient sentencing in his case. I don’t know how he thought this would help her in the confirmation hearings. Are we supposed to look at this man now as some productive member of society and forget that he had in his possession child pornography?
Jackson sentenced 19-year-old Wesley Hawkins in 2013 to 3 months in prison, 3 months of home confinement, and 6 years supervision for his conviction of possessing child pornography of young boys ages 8 through 12 who were posed in sexual acts. Hawkins was caught with 17 videos and 16 images of kiddie porn.
According to federal sentencing guidelines, Judge Jackson should have given Hawkins between 8 and 10 years in prison. Because Hawkins had no prior criminal history, prosecutors requested two years of prison time. Jackson sentenced him to 3 months, far less than even the lighter sentence prosecutors requested.
After he completed his sentence in 2019, Judge Jackson ordered Hawkins to complete his supervised release at a halfway house because according to the Washington Post, Hawkins had been searching “sexually arousing, non-pornographic material and images of males 13 to 16-years-old” and according to statistics, was very likely to recidivate. Jackson was worried he might re-offend, but she only divvied out 3 months of prison time?
The WaPo interviewed Hawkins, and he appeared to be thanking Judge Jackson for giving him a lighter sentence. He also conceded that he got a lot less prison time than many other child sex offenders who were convicted for child porn possession.
From the WaPo:
Perhaps most surprising, Hawkins said, was that he found himself feeling sympathy for the judge he had once been angry with for sending him to prison.
“I wasn’t very happy that she gave me three months, though after reflection when I was in jail, I was hearing from other people who said it was their first time arrested and they got five years, six years.
“I feel that she chose to take into consideration the fact that I was just getting started [in life] and she knew this was going to hold me back for years to come regardless,” he said, “so she didn’t really want to add on to that.” [Emphasis added]
After being asked during her confirmation hearing if she had any regrets for sentencing Hawkins to just 3 months in prison, Jackson never said she had any regrets about it. In fact, she appeared indignant.
“What I regret is that in a hearing about my qualifications to be a justice on the Supreme Court, we’ve spent a lot of time focusing on this small subset of my sentences and I’ve tried to explain,” Jackson said.
The Hawkins case seems to have touched a nerve with many senators, all Republicans, by the way. So much so that they wrote a letter to Judge Jackson demanding she provide documents for more information on the Hawkins case.
“Your lenient sentencing in the Hawkins case was the subject of significant interest in the Committee’s review of your judicial record,” the Senators wrote. “Our review of your nomination requires that the Committee fully understand the circumstances that informed your actions in this case.”
The letter was signed by the following senators: Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Josh Hawley (R-MO), John Kennedy (R-LA), Mike Lee (R-UT), Ben Sasse (R-NE), and Thom Tillis (R-NC)
Judge Jackson has more problems in that she believes critical race theory should be melded with Constitutional law. A judge who believes our Constitution is racist cannot uphold and defend it and for that reason alone Jackson should not be confirmed to the highest Court in the land.
