I am confused about this article that I came across only recently. Someone is
accused of an alleged crime said to have happened years ago. He denies guilt.
He is accused of "inappropriate touching". What does that mean? One
of the plaintiffs says she refuses to talk to anyone about it. There is a
massive sentence applied to the alleged offender, more than to most
murderers.Am I really the only one to think the man may well be
What this judge did was outrageous. Extraordinarily good men do not get
sentenced to 15 years in jail for object rape (look it up) etc., like Keith
Vallejo did. The main problem with the judge's statement is
that, like most people, we tend to label other people as "good" or
"bad". No one is strictly good or bad. Even Jesus said, "Why callest
thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God". Vallejo may have done extraordinarily good works in his life, but we're
not judged exclusively by our good works, ignoring our wicked deeds. We're
'weighed in the balance' to see if qualify for the Lord's grace.
Jesus explained, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not
done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never
knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity". The Lord will not say in
sentencing, on judgement day, depart from me, even though you were an
extraordinarily good man". The judge shouldn't have in this case
When I was in a stake leadership position we met with Bishops on a regular
basis. This conviction has me a little confused.If they were meeting
with him like they should, certainly the gift of discernment would have told
them something was wrong?
The sentence seemed appropriate, but the judge worded it horribly. It made me
think of the neighbor or mother that is always on the news saying , "He was
such a good boy". I'm sure everything he did in his life wasn't
horrible, but what he did cancels out most everything he did previously. And he
deserves a long stay in prison.
The claims that this case illustrates a problem with Utah or discourage victims
are not wash.The accused was convicted and will serve many years in
prison. True the prosecutors want longer sentences but that is the case on all
sorts of cases. The judge phrased his words horribly, but that is
not the point. The accused was brought to trial which takes too long on some
cases. In my school district in Michigan we had a teacher who was
allowed to retire to their classroom and then expunge their record after being
aquitted making the next accused look like the first against a long career
teacher. Zero tolerance and removal of credibly accused policies on
some positions and professions that are not as hard to get as convictions are
needed all over. Their existence and implementation is still a work in progress,
but Utah is by no means the place in the US most in need of such.
I thinkit is a signof hubris on the part of some to clain they know Vallejo is
an inherently bad person. On the other hand sexual predators and
those who sexually abuse people much younger than them tend to be very good at
making people in general like them and getting to be popular. How much of this
is deception and how much is trying to make up for their sins is hard to say.This is well known by people who have put even a little time into
studying the issue. Which makes me wonder if Judge Low has ever read any
literature on the practives of sexual abusers and if he has not makes me
question if he is qualifyied to rule in this case.That said I think
we need to avoid a false notion of how far we are from Sun even criminal sin.
People do not generally reach criminal sexual conduct in a vacuum they get there
through multiple unwise steps many being sinful but not yet criminal.I also have to say I think we need to emphasize 1st all points that Vallejo
was criminally forcing sexual encounters on others. We need to avoid rhetoric
that in any way makes this equivalent to those who seek sex outside their
marriage but obtain it from willing givers.
Oh, goodness: someone who committed a crime can't have done anything good,
ever--and by all means, never mention it if they ever might have; otherwise,
you're supporting the crime. That's the thinking here. By the way, judges are positioned and empowered to say what they want without
worrying about being politically sensitive or the public's opinion.
That's important for the justice process.
Sorry, but good people do not do these kinds of things. Especially a Bishop.
The defendant was/is not a good man who did bad things - he was/is a bad man who
has occasionally done good things.
Like JWB from Kaysville, I heard the judge kind of quoting the many people who
advocated for the now-convicted perpetrator in his unfortunate statement. At
the same time, I understand how a rape victim would--and perhaps needs to--think
in simple terms about someone who raped her/him: someone who rapes is a rapist,
a rapist is evil, etc. Someone who is raped is raped over and over again in
their minds and memories; rape is a horrid, pernicious gift that keeps on
giving.But for very good reasons we don't let judges render
absolute moral judgments about the relationship between a person's actions
and character, doing and being. I don't imagine that any of us, having
stolen something or told a lie, is eager spend the rest of life with the title
"thief" or "liar" next to her/his name as assigned by a judge.
And we shouldn't expect our jurist neighbors, who spend their day every day
encountering and engaging the inherent moral complexity of being human, to be
able to avoid the pits that we dig for them when we listen for moral simplicity
in statements that concern, again, inherently complex moral matters and people.
Imperfect I am, even below the dust of the earth.3rd Nephi 11:30Behold this is not my doctrine to stir up the hearts of men with anger one
against another, but this is my doctrine that such things should be done
away.first let me testify that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the
Living God and my Savior and redeemer and the savior and redeemer of mankind and
rules in all perfect just righteous judgment in mercy, justice, and vengeance
and in all things forever and ever. I have two children that were sexually
molested in elementary school in Washington Michigan. And exactly what the
terribly tragic details are like for both sides of the problem is something that
most do not come close to understanding. on 911 terribly tragic condition
occurred in the United States of america and blood all over the ground. though
president Hinckley stated in liked the Captain Moroni freedom fighter still he
Came back and said God said prey for peace.there are no bloody bodies all
over the ground there is no burning buildings. A great and terrible tragedy as
occurred it is time to get it out of the political arena that the reproach and
healing that is necessary can occur.
The judge owes the victims an "extraordinarily good" apology...
I wrote a letter which garnered 10 Likes--and then was denied because I
"speculated". The only speculation in my letter was
"Perhaps these victims would withdraw any possibility for this criminal to
be rehabilitated or forgiven in the future? " But those weren't my
words. I was quoting (and, following his quote, replying to) Jacobiuntherus!
There is good and evil in all of us. Even Nazi's would do horrendous
things during the day and then go home to wife and kids, pet the dog...have a
normal good life. Really we should be asking ourselves...what do I need to
change within myself?Having said that, I agree that the Judges'
statement is a reflection of a cultural problem in Utah.
I'm sure we could find people to tell us that Brian David Mitchell, Mark
Hoffman, and even Ted Bundy were good people. Would you all be as understanding
if their judges had pointed this out?
...Brass said. "A message is sent when you send someone to prison, you
don't have to spit on them on their way out the door."That
didn't happen. What the judge said spit on the victims.
what the judge said is much less troublesome to me than the fact that the guilty
party was released after the guilty verdict. that is highly unusual in this
type to case and almost never occurs. thought that was highly irresponsible on
the judge's part.someone commented on the concept that good men
fall into sexual traps like pornography. isn't that rationalization of the
worst kind, as one seeks out pornography with conscious decision making? it
doesn't not suddenly appear on your computer, your television or smart
phone, and porno magazines don't majestically make their way into
one's possession.a judge looks at mitigating and aggravating
circumstances surrounding the guilty person. that is part of his job in
sentencing. commenting on those circumstance in a very public manner really
isn't part of the job or necessary. ultimately the sentence was
appropriate.what would have happened if this had turned into a honor
code investigation because the one girl was enrolled at byu? he said-she
said but he was bishop. curious how that would have played out.
There are many good posts here. There are those who feel that the judge
overstepped his bounds in pronouncing this man an "extraordinarily good
man," and those who feel that we should all forgive and should not post
anything that might imply that we are judging.What this man
"allegedly" did was heinous. His continual crimes against his victims
was, and is, reprehensible. This case came down to the brave victims coming
forth to testify against a man who, in a position of trust, took advantage of
them. If these allegations are true (and the court found in favor of the
victims), then he is guilty of one of the most serious crimes we have in our
society. The judge committed a major error in judgement by calling this man an
"extraordinarily good man" who did something bad. No, he
is not an extraordinarily good man. Extraordinarily good men do not do the
things that he was convicted of. Neither is he a "great man...who did bad
things." Judge Low showed extreme naivety in making these
pronouncements.Finally, I see no remorse on the part of the accused
man. If he were an extraordinarily good man, he would begin the repentance
process by apologizing and paying his debt.
This judge is not perfect. Christ is the one that was able to say that the
person without sin should cast the first stone. As such, Christ chose not to
cast the first stone as he was and is the perfect judge for us. If
this judge was paraphrasing what people said, it should have been put in a
different context. If so, the judge was speaking for the 50 people that said
the convicted was a good man. In this court case, the offenses were not of a
good man. When he chose to commit those crimes he was not good. If this was
not a very public trial in the newspapers, that means the Provo and Salt Lake
papers didn't do a good job of letting others know of the potential problem
with what happened with vulnerable people who trusted this man.Men
and women should know about these types of cases to help them be more conscious
of what may happen to their family members.
When a man of trust commits those types of crimes as validated by the jury and
judge. The vulnerability of the abused with a man they should have comfort and
not be susceptible to his position.Having had two sisters and a son
abused by physicians and a teacher with positions of trust, the use their
ability to manipulate and threaten those that are vulnerable. Good
people avoid those situations with those that put trust in their position. Men
and women with positions of trust can be designing their actions. They usually
strike more than once.When the abused eventually bring their abuse
to authorities they face years of reliving their abuse. Those that abuse with
power and authority deny and push guilt on their victims.The judge
should have structured his words with better phrasing and not say he was a good
man. He has to pay for his actions. You just don't fall into that with
one action or thought, especially with two victims.
@Uteofferouus A little grammar lesson:Extraordinary -
exceptional in character, amount, extent, degree, etc.; noteworthy;
remarkableThe judge did err in calling the defendant an
"extraordinarily good man". A more apt (and accurate) description would
have been "you appeared to be a good man, but obviously you were not. You
deceived many, including those who wrote letters on your behalf. Your
cleverness, however, does not mitigate the evil you committed."By heaping even a little praise on the defendant, the judge attempted to
minimize the crime committed.
The story mentions that he was released as a bishop. I assume that following
his conviction, he has also forefeited his membership in the Church. (I believe
that's standard procedure, for people convicted of a felony in the courts.)
In addition, he has probably seriously compromised his relationships with his
family.As soon as I saw the judge's statement (out of context),
I was confident it would result in a firestorm, and rightly so.Time
will tell, whether Mr. Vallejo is "an extraordinarily good man." 15
years in prison is an appropriate sentence... if he completes it, and goes on to
live a good life, perhaps he can still be deemed an extraordinarily good man.My 2 cents.
Taken in the full context of what he said, I don't see what the controversy
is. He didn't give the guy a lesser sentence. I guess he could have
worded it a little differently to something like, "seemingly in all other
aspects of life, he is a great man, but sometimes these great men still do
"Extraordinarily good men" don't sexually assault women.Sorry. Use another term than "extraordinarily".
It is rare to find a person who is pure evil. I suppose drug dealers can be
generous and kind to their friends. Some criminals might express great
compassion to the homeless, for example. (Heaven knows, we've made very
judgmental comments to one another on these boards.)I suppose you
may witness all sorts of "goodness" gone bad in crimes of passion.But the role of a judge is never to console a defendant or convey even a
inkling sympathy. Such character-bolstering is the purview of the defense
attorney and his witness list...or perhaps a therapist.His comments
were way out-of-line from the bench.Perhaps he needs a new career.
Maybe he could go to work for the Innocence Project...or the ACLU.
chickenlittle- the pain also cut very deep for his wife, children and family.
Yes, the judge was trying to honor and acknowledge their deep pain
before pronouncing the sentence.
Yes, the judges words were taken out of context. But yes, he could have said
He was in a position of trust for his congregation. As he is a father he was in
a high position of trust for his family.He violated that trust on
quite a few occasions as he interviewed others while acting officially for his
church and congregation. I would even think he was even interviewed by his
leaders during that time. Truth is truth but only the facts change.
As long as we are talking scripture, was King David an extraordinarily good man
who did some really bad things or was he a really bad man who did some good
things early in life?
Someone who did what he has been convicted of has forfeit the right to be called
an extraordinarily good man, no matter what else he's done with his life.
The actions speak for themselves, and the consequences include more than a
loss of freedom.
I perhaps don't read correctly but wasn't it the defendant's
supporters the judge was quoting. Talk about twisting the Judge's words.
Saying that he is a nice guy and then sending him to prison for 15 years seems
Call me crazy, but an "extraordinarily good man" doesn't normally
assault women. Sorry gang, you can't have it both ways.
Why say " Extraordinary good people do bad things" ? Did he really need
to soften the blow to facing years in prison? What the victims face for his
selfish horrific crimes will be most likely long years of therapy to trust ever
again. The pain cuts deep.
Misty Mountain - Kent, WAApril 18, 2017 3:26 a.m.@Jacobiuntherus
wrote, ...As far as rehabilitation, the statistics for adult sex
offenders are dismal.Of those who complete treatment successfully,
90% never reoffend, according to the Justice Department of the US.
From personal experience, I have known some extraordinarily good LDS men who
have been caught up in porn which has made them 'not themselves'. Not to the degree of this Bishop. But certainly acting as though someone
besides themselves were in charge of their thoughts and actions. While others may not get or understand this, I do.LDS Ezra Taft
Benson once said "The plaguing sin of this generation is sexual immorality.
This, the Prophet Joseph said, would be the source of more temptations, more
buffetings, and more difficulties for the elders of Israel than any
other."While this does not excuse, it verifies that
extraordinarily good men can get caught up in sexual traps.
Talk about a case of twisting and Misconstruing what the judge said!
@Utah Girl Chronicles:Wow - what a misplaced characterization of the
what the Judge said. You assert: "Men who assault women should
not have their sentencing judge compliment the fabulousness of their
character". The judge did not in any stretch of the imagination
"compliment the fabulousness of their character". For you or anyone
else to take such liberties with what actually was said calls into question the
objectivity and integrity of your comment.
The judge should NOT resign. He meted out justice to the victims to
the extent of the law. The fact that he identified that even good people can do
bad things does not diminish the performance of the judge.
Yes, good people sometimes do bad things. Likewise, bad people sometimes do good
things. Whether somebody like Mr. Vallejo is one or the other is a gray,
subjective judgment.I can understand why a judge trying to exercise
the wisdom of Solomon might want to comment about such things as he is
sentencing somebody to prison. But a judge calling a convicted felon
sex-offender an "extraordinarily good man" is an extraordinarily
inappropriate hyperbole and an extraordinarily offensive slap in the face not
only to Mr. Vallejo's victims, but also to all basically good men who go
about their lives without ever being guilty of anything like what Mr. Vallejo
No one seems capable of realizing that when a judge heaps profuse praise upon a
convicted sexual assault offender, it makes other sexual assault victims even
more reluctant to step forward. Women who have been assaulted shouldn't
have to hide in the darkest corners of society. Men who assault women should not
have their sentencing judge compliment the fabulousness of their character.Utah County is really messed up sometimes.
It's easy to criticize a judge, especially when all you know about the case
is what you read in the newspapers. Judges make tough decisions every day. Let
them do their job.
There are thousands of really callous and hurtful things done and said just
about every day in this world. This judges statements do not fall in that
category. It was a humane and concerned jurist sending someone to prison for at
least 15 years, before a courtroom filled in part with his family and friends. I
think the judge got it exactly right. Good people do sometimes do terrible
things, this person, and the many others involved, will pay for those actions
for the rest of their lives, isn't that enough?
The rest of the country is seeing what we see on a regular basis. Influential
people of the dominant faith covering for their fellow member. It's not
good, it's not Christlike and it's disgusting to decent people.
The Judge should resign, if he chooses not to resign the people should remove
him the next time he stands for retention on the ballot.
The judge said something nice about the defendant and then sentenced him to 15
years to life. Sounds like he did a really bad thing doesn't it? The
sentence speaks volumes. I don't think any one is diminished by what he
said, however ill considered. The dude to the maximum sentence under the law.
Everyone needs to grow up.
Praising a convicted sex criminal is not is any way acceptable from the bench,
prior to incarceration. This "so-called judge" should be removed. If
your daughter was one of the victims, I doubt you would make comments like the
To victims still struggling to recover:I speak from experience.
Yes, you are hypersensitive right now. Just as the skin of burn victims is
hypersensitive to the elements in the early stages of recovery, so is your
emotional and psychological self. Everything hurts, including other
people's failure to understand.So when others' ignorance
brushes up against you and they criticize you for being too sensitive,
don't let them make you doubt the validity of your pain. It is exactly as
you're experiencing it and it's like that because of what has happened
to you. Human beings respond to such things just as you are responding.
It's normal, expected. And it's a process.So be patient
with yourself. Protect yourself as best you can from painful ignorance and
surround yourself with kindness - from yourself and others. It does get
better.To those who have the strength to fight back even as
you're in pain: You're the ones who deserve to be called
"extraordinary." You rock!!
@cjb "To the mob .. Why don't we just crucify the convicted, and be
done with it."This is an extraordinarily inappropriate
statement. The victims and their advocates are not a mob. And they are in no
way to be compared to the Pharisees and Romans who crucified Christ.Many sexual assault victims do not make charges against perpetrators because
they, the victims, go on trial also, and in fact are tried first. We don't take sexual assault seriously. Most rape kits are never
processed. We just don't care.
Yes sexual abuse happens here in Utah. I agree that the man was called good by
50 people; however this story only confirms our comments by our attorney
general Sean Reyes. Keith Vallejo was never brought up by this paper until this
incident was written up in the AP 3 days ago. Now it defends the judge who
The judge said it just right: "sometimes extraordinarily good men do bad
things". In many ways the defendant was a good man - but he apparently did
some horrendous things that caused harm to others. Does that mean all the good
deeds he did before he went over the deep end mean nothing? All the people
whose lives he affected for good are part of who he is too. It is sad when good
people do seriously bad things - but the judge merely identified that there is
also some good down deep inside this man - and all men and women who have made
bad mistakes. Hopefully he can pay his price to society, repent, and become
rehabilitated somehow. So lets get off the hypersensitive PC
rhetoric and move on. For heaven sakes, the criminal is going to prison for a
long time - so the judge did absolutely nothing wrong. Perhaps
these victims would withdraw any possibility for this criminal to be
rehabilitated or forgiven in the future? The guy did horrible things - but
those are not the only things that define him - or would those of us who have
"never sinned" cast the first stone?
To the mob .. Why don't we just crucify the convicted, and be done with