This is an interesting story. Judge Philip Kirk gave a Wisconsin man, who was convicted of sexually assaulting four boys over several decades as a bus driver, a lecture on the dangers of repressed homosexuality, essentially saying that the man's sex offenses were due to being unable to live as a gay man (even though the man in question is married with children). His colorful comments are highly controversial with references to finding his penis floating in the river and a "sweet-smelling jockstrap". This has to be seen and heard to be believed. How is this relevant to tell someone during a conviction hearing? (via
towleroad)
