Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford under fire over sentencing decision

In a race that could reshape the balance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, candidate Susan Crawford is facing scrutiny over past sentencing decisions that have become a focal point in a tight contest with opponent Brad Schimel.

Breitbart reports that the judicial race, set against the backdrop of a potentially transformative April 1 election, features candidates Crawford and Schimel in an intense debate over crime sentencing and campaign funding.

The controversy stems from a recent debate at Marquette University Law School, where Crawford, a Democrat-aligned candidate, defended her record in a 2020 child sex-offense case. The event, broadcast by ABC affiliate WISN 12, allowed both judicial candidates to present their records on crime and judicial behavior, emphasizing high stakes ahead of election day.

Crawford's decision to sentence a child sex offender to four years in prison, rather than the decade prosecutors sought, has been criticized by Schimel and his supporters. The case involved Curtis O’Brien, who was sentenced to serve four years despite facing a potential 60-year term. O'Brien completed nearly two years of his sentence and now resides near schools in Madison. Throughout the debate, Crawford maintained that she adhered to legal guidelines and prioritized public safety.

Funding And Judicial Decisions Under Scrutiny

The debate revealed not only differences in judicial philosophy but also highlighted campaign funding sources influencing each candidate's platform. In particular, Crawford's campaign has received backing from well-known Silicon Valley names like Reid Hoffman and figures like George Soros. Additionally, her campaign is supported by organizations such as EMILY’s List and Planned Parenthood.

In contrast, Schimel's efforts to portray himself as tough on crime have been emphasized through his campaign rhetoric and endorsements. He touts his record as Attorney General, where he secured a $4 million federal grant to expedite the testing of sexual assault kits by 2018. Despite early project delays, this initiative aimed to enhance justice for victims, a point of pride for Schimel.

Schimel's campaign has capitalized on Crawford's sentencing decision in advertisements, one of which stated that Crawford allowed a pedophile to become a new neighbor "thanks to Judge Susan Crawford’s sweetheart sentence." The ad exemplifies the sharp exchanges characterizing this race as it nears its conclusion.

Competing Visions For The High Court

For voters, the election carries significant weight as it could shift power dynamics in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The retirement of a liberal justice offers conservatives a chance to reclaim a majority on the bench—a prospect reflected in both candidates' strategies.

With substantial political stakes involved, the candidates have underscored their divergent visions for handling issues of public safety and justice. Crawford insists her decisions are bound by law and guided by the need to protect community welfare. Schimel counters by questioning her judgment, arguing that her approach fails to adequately prioritize community safety.

During the debate, Schimel directly confronted Crawford, suggesting her judicial philosophy displayed poor discretion, particularly in cases involving severe offenders. Crawford responded by reiterating her commitment to legal statutes and public safety.

Community Safety At The Forefront

The backdrop to this heated race is the recent history of Wisconsin's Supreme Court elections being among the costliest in the nation. The 2023 elections shattered spending records for judicial contests, with over $56 million expended—a reflection of the wider significance attributed to the court’s composition.

Crawford’s defense of her judgment remained steadfast, asserting her belief that every action taken was within the confines of state law. According to Crawford, ensuring community safety was always her primary objective, and she contended that the criticisms leveled against her diverted attention from her adherence to due process.

On the other hand, Schimel and his campaign continue to stress his law enforcement endorsements and his role in initiating projects aimed at combatting violent crime, shaping his image as a committed defender of public safety.

The emphasis on judicial records, campaign finance, and public safety sharpens the contrast between Crawford and Schimel. As both candidates vie for the critical Supreme Court role, their divergent perspectives on law and order resonate with voters facing a consequential choice.

With the April election on the horizon, Wisconsinites are poised to determine which judicial philosophy aligns better with their vision for law and justice in their state.