sexual abuse that had been perpetrated on him starting from the time when he was about four or five up into the time he was for nine ten maybe eleven years old the crimes that he committed were committed when it was unclear exactly but probably from the time when he was eleven to about the time when he was still in full at the time that he was sentenced he was he was in a facility inpatient facility designed to provide him with treatment to send him to school to allow him to have some social life with members of the enough so that the sense that he was given however ensures that he will remain institutionalized remain incarcerated during the entirety of this remaining adolescent years up into the age twenty one as a young adult i don't know that there was any and fish ever sort of prison while the court proceedings were going request happened was he had improperly touched his father's girlfriend's daughter and what was happening is this says his his own perpetration issues came to life and it was revealed fifteen had been involved in with him proper contact her improper sexual with with two to three other children ok but it's also interesting this time when when these things arose he began with with inpatient i'm sorry outpatient treatment  abused on more than one occasion you know several times young children how much how much risk is the district court required to take for the public in other words work wise and abusive why is that an abuse of discretion for the judge to view it as a serious matter and say that you need to be confined into your twenty one but you can have treatment where you can fin designed to a limited institutionalization and we all recognize that that's not the best option for kids and sometimes it has to be done which are limited and two  of discretion because it not only went against the recommendations of the parties but it also quinn against the recommendations of his treating professionals it's an abuse of discretion because it doesn't it doesn't truly allow for his rehabilitation and for his treatment he's going to be institutionalized where he can't integrate with the community he can't hold down a job like a lot of kids do he won't be able to live with this family he's native american actively involved in traditional native american practice won't be able to go out of house and all sorts of things won't be able to interact with with his ability to profess a page in any sort of meaningful adolescent life is taken away from him and it was taken away from him by this i think it's pretty clear because the climate that are contained within the pre sentence report including these facts that he's a repeat sex offender he has actually used both boys and girls who were both still clings extended step family siblings and children who played at his house he greatly minimized any of his offenses he came from a family that was right with domestic violence and alcohol and drug use he has a history of suicide attempts he was a sexual his victim himself he was depressed he was addicted to pornography  agree with and that he constituted different objections that mr nast had filed and he said i'm not going to review those i have in fact however looked at the entire pre sentence report he is familiar with all of that he was suicide attempts the difference here is the fact that the standard is an abuse of discretion did the district court who had the pre sentence report the information from the limited services which is not contained within this record and the entire really specific concern within the sentencing transcript was that he needed some significant help and significant lengthy treatment in a place where he couldn't just decide not to participate has he done for the majority of his time at normative and he indicated that he was also looking at the seriousness of the events the fact that there were other offenses within the past and the history of other types of charges that were admitted and that he's been given the opportunity to attempt to make progress in treatment this young man had been in a treatment setting outpatient within a family in a less restrictive setting informative and he failed for the majority of that treatment and that he needed to be in a more restrictive setting and i think the judge called this correct what judge had recommended was a minimum of eighteen months to get a basis get a start but it didn't at all preclude  and a half years old at the time that he was sentenced that's correct and now why number of children that he himself had victimized and just hadn't took that into account in making the decision in this case which was not an abuse of his discretion he did not indicate any intent during any of this sentencing that he was planning to just lock him up and throw away the key is the allegation is in fact his biggest concern was extended treatment and the judge was very clear about that he did not say climate you are a waste of breathing space i'm throwing you away he said i want you to be able to have access to treatment for your own issues as well as for your perpetration issues and i don't believe in any fashion that that is an abuse of the judge's discretion in this case the recommendation was that he was going to be placed in south dakota and as we that he had poor school attendance he was disruptive disruptive argumentative had class he bought damaged school property was defiance and inappropriate unwanted sexual advances to a female and so there was some significant concerns about he is being able to be managed whether i would have thought the same thing or not that the district court concluded that he needed to have treatment in a structured environment for an extensive creative time in light of the full record  treatment and a judge very carefully looked at other facets in the pre sentence report his history his own victimization and his victimization of a number of other children and made that determination and there's no abuse of discretion cases that i could find indicate that that would be a problem the judge al he abuse his discretion in applying the law to the facts of this case and you do not have anything but the cold right in front of you and judge can was very careful in reviewing a pre sentence report and setting forth his why it was that he was concerned about this young man on the as future as well as the future of society and i think that it would be an abuse of this court's discretion to reverse that because this judge had in fact in front of him the entire record considered very carefully the entire record and felt that in this young man's best interests and protection professional people were eight then under treatment state if he was a risk and he hadn't participated adequately in the treatment program he down there it's interesting to note that he went into this treatment program i think on course the end of march and by june he was beginning to make progress and in fact he said that he was at that point attending all of his treatment programs it was time he was starting to digest and take on the rules of the of the program that he was and then finally and i think one of the most important things this is that they never said that this treatment program isn't working for for him in fact they said the opposite two thousand and three when you when you actually read their their reports to the court if that they're in the records the judge refers to them they don't state explicitly all of that but i think implicitly in there is that they take a resistance that they encountered with climate is something that they would expect that they would expect an initial resistance and for it to take a little while for the treatment programming to begin working i mean we're dealing with everyone here will acknowledge a very very troubled young man based upon what happened to troubled people often act out in inappropriate ways and and when you look at the united states supreme court cases and and there's really no cases directly on point but when they talk about juveniles when they talk about our treatment of juveniles they say that institutionalization should be a last resort and it should not extend any longer than necessary and there is nothing in this record indicates that the entire seven years is necessary for this case to sta institutionalized environment in order for his treatment nothing the judge be the charge was very clear that his reasons for th said the reasons include the seriousness of the offense the fact that he had other offenses in this past the fact that he had been given an opportunity to make progress with treatment he had done very little to take advantage of that and i think that that's  us based upon reports that were given and that he had a need for treatment one gets the sense here that the judge's reasoning here are our reasons taken directly out of the adult statutes and ignore remove juveniles from the ordinary criminal process in order to avoid the speak much of a prior criminal conviction and to encourage treatment and rehabilitation that's the primary thrust of the view not only with the statutes