Only every so often do we come across a story that so pleasantly reeks of perversion of power as this one: a Wisconsin prosecutor on the state’s “Crime Victims’ Rights Board, a quasi-judicial agency that can reprimand judges, prosecutors and police officers who mistreat crime victims” stands accused of sexting an unwilling woman while prosecuting her ex boyfriend for domestic abuse.
AZ Central: The 26-year-old woman complained last year to police after receiving 30 texts from Calumet County District Attorney Kenneth Kratz in three days, according to the report obtained by The Associated Press.
What better way to ensure an abuse victim’s good treatment than by harassing her for sexual favors ten times a day?
“Are you the kind of girl that likes secret contact with an older married elected DA … the riskier the better?” Kratz, 50, wrote in a message to Stephanie Van Groll in October 2009. In another, he wrote: “I would not expect you to be the other woman. I would want you to be so hot and treat me so well that you’d be THE woman! R U that good?”
Though it may well be (if by technicality) as Horny Katz asserts ”the Office of Lawyer Regulation had found he did not violate any rules governing attorney misconduct,” to say (or ‘shout’), as he has, that “This is a non-news story,” betrays either his personal arrogance or an odd, yet honest, ignorance as to how our beloved American media functions: like a rabid pack of vultures (can vultures be rabid?) waiting for you to bleed out to begin their veritable feeding frenzy.
And a news story it is, Mr. Katz, a juicy one at that… especially when your alleged victim makes statements such as this one:
“Nothing really happened to him and I had three days of hell,” Van Groll said in a phone interview with the AP. “They gave him a slap on the wrist and told him not to do it again. If it was anybody else that did something like this, they’d lose their job.”
What is it about power that makes it so often exciting to abuse — at risk of losing it — by embracing precisely what one is supposed to protect us from? Is it, as it seems in Katz’s case the self-destructive thrill of it?
And why is it that such offenders often seem so easily able to escape unscathed? If it really is, as Katz said, ‘the riskier the better’ when it comes to self-destruction, why is still so thrilling when — gentle slap on the Rolexed wrist aside– there’s no real risk involved?