IL: Judge Throws Book At Serial Offender After 2 Investigators Report

A stunning about face: A Cook County judge on Thursday who had found a defendant not guilty of a sex crime has now ordered him to register as a sex offender as part of a stiff, 30-year sentence. …

“Though insufficient to establish guilt,” Judge Hill said, “the evidence is sufficient to meet the lower threshold of proof for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act.” Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Perhaps he deserves it, but I’m not sure the judge is right that he can increase the sentence by adding sex offender registration.

The judge says:

“Though insufficient to establish guilt,” Judge Hill said, “the evidence is sufficient to meet the lower threshold of proof for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration Act.”

While case law appears to say he can’t, unless something has replaced this:

Beginning in Apprendi,
60 the Supreme Court held that, under the Sixth Amendment,
“[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond
the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.”61 In Blakely v. Washington,
62 the Supreme Court applied Apprendi to a state sentencing
procedure that, like the federal sentencing guidelines, called for judges to find certain facts and,
based on those judge-found facts, to impose a sentence within a prescribed mandatory range.
As the Court explained, “the ‘statutory maximum’ for Apprendi purposes is the maximum
sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or
admitted by the defendant. In other words, the relevant ‘statutory maximum’ is not the
maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may
impose without any additional findings.”64 The Court held that the state sentencing procedure
violated the Sixth Amendment because it required the sentencing court to impose a sentence that
it could not have imposed based on the jury’s findings alone.65

So the bar for proof is lower to force someone to register, than the proof that is needed to find a person guilty? DId I understand that right?

We already live in country that a simple accusation of a sex crime causes a person to completely lose the ability to foster a child forever. What’s next?

Needless to say there is nothing pretty about what the guy did! That said–I just dont understand where these incredibly long prison sentences come from!! I saw nothing anyone couldn’t get over.I’m not trying to minimize his disgusting behavior, but honestly 30 years???