am writing in response to Liz Randol’s November 12, 2000, op-ed piece entitled, “Hawaii’s age of consent law is backwoodsy.” Ms. Randol wrote that Judge Clifford Nakea recently let two “older men preying on girls in their early teens” off
am writing in response to Liz Randol’s November 12, 2000, op-ed piece entitled,
“Hawaii’s age of consent law is backwoodsy.” Ms. Randol wrote that Judge
Clifford Nakea recently let two “older men preying on girls in their early
teens” off the hook with only “a slap on the wrist.”In the case of
69-year-old Alfred Asuncion, who was convicted of two counts of sexual assault
in the third degree, Judge Nakea imposed the maximum term of imprisonment of
five years for each of the two counts, to be served concurrently. It is
difficult to understand how a five-year prison sentence that is the maximum
allowed by law for this particular crime can be regarded by anyone as “a slap
on the wrist.”
Ms. Randol may be disappointed that the prison terms are
being served concurrently instead of consecutively. Judge Nakea concluded
consecutive sentences were not justified after the prosecuting attorney’s
office evaluated the case and arrived at the same conclusion.
In the second
case cited by Ms. Randol, Wade Asing voluntarily plead guilty to three counts
of sexual assault in the second degree. Judge Nakea sentenced Asing to serve
one-year in jail and five years of probation.
In determining an appropriate
sentence, judges are required to consider several factors, including the safety
of the community. At his own expense, Asing submitted to a psychosexual
assessment that involved several tests conducted by experts. The tests included
a clinical interview, a plethysmograph, and a polygraph test. Such assessments
are ordered by judges to determine whether the defendant poses a threat to the
community and whether the defendant can comply with the terms of probation. On
the basis of the assessment and the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise,
Judge Nakea found that Asing’s risk of danger to other persons is virtually
negligible and that the risk of non-compliance with probation is
minimal.
Other factors that judges must consider are the nature and
circumstances of the offense. In this case, while the negative psychological
and emotional effects on the young victim may have been significant, the
offenses for all three counts were neither physically dangerous nor violent in
nature.
Judges must also consider the history and character of the
defendant. Asing had no prior criminal record and had a stable work
history.
Judge Nakea imposed several conditions that Asing is required to
meet while on probation, including participation in a sex offender treatment
program at his own expense and until clinically discharged with the approval of
the probation officer; participation in rehabilitation programs such as
substance abuse treatments, AA meetings, and individual or family counseling
recommended by the probation officer; payment of all costs for therapy that are
required by the victim of the offenses; and submission to searches with or
without a warrant whenever there is a reasonable suspicion that the defendant
is concealing contraband.
Ms. Randol wrote that judges consider statutory
rape laws a joke. I hope The Garden Island readers know that this statement is
untrue and unfair. On October 4, 2000, a headline in The Garden I-viand read,
“One convicted sex offender sentenced, another sought. ‘Society looks upon this
type of offense as the worst possible violation of the law.”‘ The quote in the
headline was Judge Nakea’s, who uttered those words and more before sentencing
a sex offender to 20 years in jail. Judge Nakea, and all judges of the Hawai’i
State Judiciary, regard enforcement of the law as a very, very serious matter.
Judges understand, as well, that they are required to abide by the law when
imposing sentence, even if they might personally think the law should be more
harsh or more lenient.
Marsha E. Kitagawa
Public Affairs
Director
The Judiciary, State of Hawaii
