Sentence Upheld

LEGAL DECISION

Jan 8, 2008 - A Wisconsin appeals court has upheld the prison sentence of Mitchell King, now 43, a Wausau girls basketball coach and teacher convicted of having sex with a 15-year-old female student.

King pleaded guilty to three counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child under 16 in 2005 as part of a plea bargain. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison and nine years of extended supervision. [Actually he was given concurrent sentences on the three charges.]

The Third District Court of Appeals rejected King's argument that the sentence was too harsh. The panel says a judge properly considered the effect a long sentence would have in deterring other teachers and coaches who might be tempted to exploit children.

King was a social studies teacher and coach at Wausau West High School for 13 years.

---

The story doesn't link to the decision. You can find it here. (HTML format) or PDF

It is interesting to note their views on general deterrence.

The sentencing court properly considered general deterrence among the factors that support the twenty-year sentence. Sentencing courts are required to consider the rights and interests of the public.

Imposing a sentence that might deter others from committing similar crimes reasonably promotes the public interest. Along with the seriousness of the offense, the numerous read-in offenses and King’s distorted view of Natalie’s role in their relationship, the court properly considered the deterrent effect on other teachers and coaches who might be tempted to exploit vulnerable children.

The prosecution called King "delusional" and the court decided that it wasn't a clinical assessment, but rather, the word conveys their assessment that K"ing exhibited a distorted view of the propriety of his sexual relationship with the child. King attempted to portray the child as an equal who pursued a sexual relationship with him. Because a child under the age of sixteen is not competent to consent to sexual contact or intercourse, the law protects children from others and from themselves."

As the trial court noted, King’s duty was to protect Natalie from her own self-destructive behavior. The fact that King misguidedly persists in arguing that Natalie’s reciprocal affection and voluntary acts are mitigating, confirm the sentencing court’s characterization of his thinking as an aggravating factor.