An Example of Inequity, Disproportionate Punishment, and Prosecutorial Discretion Weaponized Against the Easiest Targets
Wisconsin’s mandatory minimum sentencing structure for sexual offenses, like similar laws nationwide, is rigid where justice requires discernment. Judges are elected to weigh evidence, culpability, risk, rehabilitation, and mitigation. Mandatory minimums often prevent them from doing so. A “one size fits all” statute cannot deliver individualized justice.
That rigidity becomes more troubling when prosecutorial discretion is applied unevenly: harshly against young defendants whose conduct reflects immaturity and low risk, yet flexibly for adult authority figures accused of similar conduct and of hands‑on conduct.
Developmental neuroscience has long established that the prefrontal cortex, the region governing judgment, impulse control, and long‑term planning, continues developing into the mid‑twenties. This science does not excuse unlawful behavior, but it is directly relevant to mitigation. Public policy acknowledges this reality in juvenile justice reform and emerging‑adult sentencing. A system that claims to value individualized justice cannot ignore developmental science when assessing young adults who are more prone to impulsive digital behavior, curiosity, peer influence, and immature risk assessment.
The purpose of criminal law should be public safety, proportional accountability, and individualized justice, not the mechanical pursuit of the harshest charge that is easiest to prove. Mandatory minimums and registry requirements do not automatically make communities safer. In many cases, they impose life‑altering consequences without distinguishing between impulsive, non‑contact online conduct by young adults and predatory hands‑on conduct by adults in positions of trust.
The Disparity: Ozaukee County, Wisconsin: Same Prosecutor, Same Judge, Not the Same Justice
Defendant A: 22-Year-Old College Student, Non‑Contact, Mitigated, Mandatory Minimum
In Ozaukee County, Defendant A was accused of possessing child sexual abuse material. The case included significant mitigating factors: stable employment, a supportive household, academic and athletic achievements, a long‑term relationship, no prior legal trouble, and a dozen character letters. A professional psychosexual evaluation found “no deviant sexual interest and no risk to society.”
Despite this, prosecutors charged him with five counts (Class D felonies) of possession of child pornography under Wis. Stat. § 948.12(1m). Defendant A admitted to viewing adult pornography but denied intentionally seeking child pornography.
Defense counsel requested a lesser felony that would preserve judicial discretion, allow individualized consideration of registry requirements, and potentially permit expungement because the conduct occurred before age 25. The prosecutor’s office, led by District Attorney Benjamin Lindsey, who employs Assistant Attorney Kristian Kanekoa Lindo, refused, stating, “Unless there are major proof issues, our office isn’t going to come off the CP charge. While the prerogative of other counties may be different, that’s not how it works in Ozaukee County (and most of our residents generally appreciate that, unless it’s their kids being charged).”
The statement is revealing. It suggests a charging philosophy driven less by individualized justice than by a categorical refusal to consider mitigation unless the State has a proof problem. In other words, mercy, proportionality, and context appear to matter only when conviction becomes difficult. It is curious that the prosecutor’s office itself referred to the defendant as a “kid".
The message was clear: mitigation matters only when the State fears losing. Youth, impulsivity, developmental science, and risk assessment were treated as irrelevant.
Defendant A pled to one count and received:
3 years in prison
2 years of extended supervision
15 years on the sex offender registry
$1,018 fine
For online, non‑contact conduct tied to youth and disputed intent.
Defendant B: 20-Year-Old College Student, Non-Contact, Mitigated - Mandatory Minimum
Much like Defendant A, Defendant B faced five counts of possession (Class D felonies) under Wis. Stat. § 948.12(1m) in Ozaukee County, with no prior legal issues and a stable family. Once again, any mitigating factors in Defendant B’s case carried little weight. Defense counsel filed, unsuccessfully, a motion to suppress and a Miranda motion. The defendant also had several character letters submitted to the court on his behalf. After a protracted case which lasted several years, the defendant had few options.
Ultimately, Defendant B who is a “kid” also pled guilty to one county, for a non-contact online conduct tied to youth and disputed intent and received:
3 years in prison
3 years of extended supervision
15 years on the sex offender registry
$1,018 fine
Defendant C: 36-Year-Old Adult Teacher, Hands‑On Conduct, and Granted Leniency
During the same period under District Attorney Lindsey’s jurisdiction, defendant C, a 36‑year‑old teacher at a religious school, was charged with Child Enticement (Class D felony) and Exposing a Pubic Area (Class I felony) after allegations of grooming and inappropriate touching of elementary‑school boys.
The complaint alleged he:
Selected “favorite” male students
Had children sit on his lap
Rubbed stomachs and backs
Kissed students
Asked a child to lower pants and underwear so he could view the pubic area
Admitted his conduct was wrong
Multiple parents reported concerns. This was hands‑on conduct by an adult authority figure, behavior that fits the public’s understanding of predatory harm far more closely than Defendant A’s online behavior.
Yet Defendant C was allowed to plead to the lesser Class I felony under § 948.10(1)(a). The more serious Class D child‑enticement charge was dismissed and read in.
He received:
1.5 years in prison
2 years extended supervision
15 years on the registry
$25,222 fine
An adult teacher who groomed and touched children received half the prison time imposed on two young adults whose conduct was online and non‑contact.
Manitowoc County, Wisconsin: The Disparity Continues
Defendant D: 48‑Year‑Old Adult, Multiple Counts, Deferred Prosecution
The disparity is not limited to Ozaukee County. In Manitowoc County, District Attorney Jacalyn LeBre and Assistant District Attorney Angelina Scarpelli allowed a 48‑year‑old Defendant D, originally charged with nine counts of possession of child pornography (Felony D) under Wis. Stat. § 948.12(1m), and one count of distributionof an intimate representation (Felony I), to plead no contest to two counts of possession, and one count of distribution of an intimate representation. The seven other charges of possession were dismissed, and Defendant D entered into afive‑year deferred prosecution agreement on the two counts of possession.
A deferred prosecution agreement for an adult with multiple counts of possession and distribution stands in stark contrast to the refusal to consider any mitigation for young adults with disputed intent and no deviant interest. Ultimately, the 48-Year-Old was sentenced to 1 year in jail with Huber privileges for the Felony I.
1 year in jail, with Huber
5 years deferred prosecution
15 years on the registry
$518 fine
The Pattern: Selective Severity Against the Young, Flexibility for Adults
Across these cases, a pattern emerges:
Young defendants, 20 and 22, with non‑contact digital conduct → maximum severity, no negotiation, lengthy prison term.
36-year-old adult teacher with hands‑on conduct → reduced charge, shorter prison term.
48‑year‑old adult with multiple counts → dismissed charges and deferred prosecution.
This is not principled prosecution. It is selective severity.
It punishes the easiest case most harshly while resolving more morally serious cases leniently. It rewards defendants who are older, more experienced, and more capable of navigating the system, while penalizing younger defendants who are frightened, impulsive, and vulnerable to coercive plea pressure.
A justice system worthy of public trust must distinguish:
youth from predation
impulsivity from grooming
online misconduct from hands‑on abuse
proportional punishment from prosecutorial leverage
When prosecutors ignore mitigation unless they have “major proof issues,” discretion becomes arbitrary. Proportionality disappears. Justice gives way to convenience.
The Public Should Remember
This article does not name the defendants. They have already faced punishment and will continue to live with lasting consequences. The purpose is not to relitigate their cases, but to expose the stark contrast between elected prosecutors’ “law and order” postures and the outcomes produced when discretion is exercised without meaningful regard for mitigation, proportionality, or equal treatment.
Public office is not measured by conviction totals. It is measured by fairness, integrity, and fidelity to both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Ozaukee County, Manitowoc County, and every county in this country deserves officials who apply the law firmly and fairly, without selective severity.
We hear many accounts from our SBS Community that are challenging for loved ones. If you have additional story leads from the US or abroad - please email info@csamsupport.com. Please ensure all relevant information provided to SBS is 100 percent verifiable. We will fact-check and review court records to ensure the information, as outlined, is accurately reported.