[Timoteo]

(02-05-2013 07:52 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 07:36 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 07:18 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

He's a judge, not a king.

In his courtroom, on the bench, he IS king. That's why the bench is elevated above everyone else in the room also. And frankly, if you're in front of him, it's probably because you fucked up in some way. I hear you regarding having to genuflect in front of another human being, but her OBVIOUS disrespect for both the judge and the situation warranted the punishment. She probably won't end up getting punished too severely for possession of Xanax, but she should have to sell her jewelry, at least do those 30 days. Like most bubbleheads, the lesson probably won't stick, but the judge should hit her as hard as the law allows. Dudes don't get cut slack.

You're right now that I think about it more. I was initially looking at it from the perspective of him sentencing her because she disrespected HIM personally, which was fucked up. But if you look at like he is sentencing her for disrespecting the court (hence the name of the charge - contempt of court) and law itself, then it becomes clear he was in the right. It's his duty as a judge to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and ensure compliance and respect for the law.

I feel better about it looking at it from that perspective. I really just hate the idea of government officials abusing power for personal reasons, so I'm always quick to look for that sort of thing. Definitely won't be shedding any tear for this bitch though, she needed to be checked hard like that.

And well you should. I just finished reading the February 4th issue of Sports Illustrated. On the last page of each issue, there's a column called "Point After," usually written by a journalist who writes about some sports issue he finds relevant or moving for some reason. The column in this issue was written by someone named Jeff Deskovic, who from age 17 to 33 was in Elmira State Prison in NY. He wrote about how sports, both on tv and playing in the yard with fellow inmates, sustained him. He was wrongfully convicted of the rape and murder of a classmate at Peekskill High School. He was 16 at the time, and his confession was coerced. His case was filled with prosecutorial misconduct and fraudulent testimony, but he still lost all appeals and was refused parole. In '06, he was cleared when The Innocence Project used the DNA evidence to find the actual perpetrator, a career criminal who had actually killed another woman 3 years after Peskovic was locked up. An ambitious prosecutor will bury evidence that he knows will exonerate a defendant, because they care more about conviction rates than getting the actual perpetrator of a crime. Then they resist all efforts to review or retest evidence because they don't want the conviction overturned, because it will expose either incompetence or corruption. We all remember the Central Park Jogger case, where the same thing happened. The boys that were arrested weren't "innocents" (they were in the park that night robbing people), but they weren't guilty of THAT crime. There was plenty of DNA collected, and NONE of it belonged to those boys. They found out the actual perpetrator was locked up already for another crime. Linda Fairstein, the sex crimes prosecutor, used that case for two failed runs for Manhattan DA, and has written novels and been consulted for tons of tv shows, as well as personal appearances. Those kids made for great defendants, and she knew they could get quick, easy convictions with their coerced confessions - some extracted before the boys got legal counsel. There's no excuse NOT to test DNA to make sure you've got the right guy.