A rattled Susan Crawford repeatedly interrupted former Attorney General Brad Schimel when he called her out for giving a short sentence that freed a child rapist.
In the only Supreme Court debate on Wednesday, liberal Dane County Judge Susan Crawford defended her sentence that freed the rapist of a 5-year-old girl no less than THREE times. She said she stands by the weak sentence, that she doesn’t regret it, and, bizarrely, she said that the sentence was “successful.”
It was successful in accomplishing one thing: Freeing Curtis O’Brien.
O’Brien repeatedly raped a girl when she was ages 5 and 6. Crawford repeatedly allowed him to remain free in the community on a $500 signature bond. She let O’Brien live across from an elementary school and work out at Planet Fitness, court records show. Then, in 2022, she gave him only 4 years in prison. He could have received 60 years. The prosecutor wanted 10. Because he had served some time already, he’s already out and living in Madison.
During the debate, Susan Crawford also defended her sentence of another child molester, Kevin Welton, who was convicted of touching two girls in a Middleton pool. Today, he lives near a high school. He could have received 100 years in prison. The girls were ages 6 and 7. She gave him 4 years in prison as well.
We’ve taken the lead in scrutinizing Crawford’s record. She is running against former Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel, who is a Waukesha County judge and former DA, in the April 1 election, which will determine control of the court. In the debate, Crawford said she is most like extremely liberal retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.
SUSAN CRAWFORD DEFENDS HER SENTENCE FREEING CHILD RAPIST #1
“I don’t regret that sentence.”
She is talking about Curtis O’Brien, who had sexual intercourse with a 5-year-old girl. Read the victim’s haunting victim impact statement here.
Crawford also called the O’Brien sentence “successful.”
“Those have been successful sentences. They have kept the community safe.”
Here’s the longer version with those comments.
Crawford said that she “followed the law in that case.” However, that is misleading. The law allowed her to give O’Brien 60 years in prison. The prosecutor asked for 10. She gave him 4. She is trying to make it sound like she did not have discretion, but the fact is that Crawford made a judgment call on how to balance the criteria the law requires. She did not give as much weight to the need to protect the public as Schimel says he would have done.
SUSAN CRAWFORD DEFENDS HER SENTENCE FREEING CHILD RAPIST #2
“I’ll stand by the cases.”
She’s referring to O’Brien and Welton; those are the cases that have been highlighted the most in ads.
SUSAN CRAWFORD DEFENDS HER SENTENCE FREEING CHILD RAPIST #3
Crawford Repeatedly Interrupts Brad Schimel
Schimel said that Crawford revealed in the debate “the problem in her judgment that in weighing all the factors giving the minimum amount of time to a dangerous sex offender weighs higher than protecting the community.”
Crawford again misleadingly said that “the law requires you to order the sentence necessary to protect the community. And that’s what I have done. And that’s what those sentences did.”
Again, this is very misleading. The law would have allowed Crawford to give O’Brien 60 years and Welton, 100.
In addition, the liberal Crawford gave a Kamala Harris-esque word salad answer when asked if she would recuse herself on a challenge to Act 10, which has saved taxpayers billions of dollars. She is trying to obscure the fact that, by the end of the answer, it’s clear she won’t recuse. Crawford, as a private lawyer, filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn Act 10, which she bragged about. Watch:
Table of Contents
