To the editor:

The article “Lawyers stand up for judge” (Journal-World, Sept. 30) cites several lawyers speaking in defense of Judge Paula Martin. One of these contends that Martin’s opponents “are criticizing her without knowing all the facts of the case or of criminal law.”

The “case” at issue is a case of statutory rape. Statutory rape precludes consideration of consent. To justify Martin’s sentencing deviation by claiming the victim was an “active participant” is a claim of consent. This claim contradicts the law.

According to the same article, one of the defendants “entered a plea of aggravated indecent liberties with a child.” Now, if she was a child, what is the significance of consent? If she wasn’t, explain the plea.

Judge Martin’s sentencing is a contradiction of law and common sense. Perhaps that is why ordinary people have difficulty understanding it. One thing I do understand: Changing the law is not the prerogative of the judiciary.

Michael Riley,

Lawrence