Print

Print


Hmmm --- Looks like someone has got it right.

Dick


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dana Dorsett" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [SKIVT-L] Michelle Gardner-Quinn


> Marc Guido [[log in to unmask]] writes:
>
>>> I thought EVERY day was troll day on SKIVT-L!?!  (Somebody,
>>> stop me! :-)
>>
>>It must be...how else could you be defending a 60-day sentence for a guy
>>who repeatedly raped a child over a three-year period?
>
> You apparently didn't read (or understand) the whole post- I wasn't 
> defending the perp, only making a case for letting the judiciary do their 
> not-so easy job in the face of under-funded prisons & prosecutors and 
> cheap-shot politics.
>
>>Treatment to help him? My butt...he can get plenty of treatment during 20
>>years in the Grey Bar Motel.
>
> That's just it- with a 10-life with no treatment-enforcement, in the 
> judge's inside-of-the-system view it was more likely that he'd get out 
> well before his sentence was up and well before your theoretical ideal of 
> 20 years, which would mean would be 54 years old, untreated, on the 
> street, and dangerous as lleh. The sentence given was treatment option 
> with a "life-means-life if you fuggup" clause, a sentence inended to help 
> US, not HIM! I personally would think more jail time with the same 
> treatment + eternal-damnation clause if screws up may have been more 
> appropriate, but I don't know how well that would have worked in the 
> systems as they exist (as opposed to how we'd LIKE them to be.) I'm 
> trusting that the judge knows the lay of the land better than us, and made 
> the right call as how to best help the public.
>
> Within the prison system you can't ENFORCE treatment, but having a "throw 
> away the key" clause should he refuse treatment is strong incentive to get 
> him there. And (in the judges view) it's the simplest/surest way to take 
> him for good if he's untreatable. The judge appears to balancing a 
> moderate risk to kids this year against a very high risk to kids 10-15 
> years from now.  I'm sure I can't make that call from what little I know 
> about this case and the current system. But since you (and the tin-whistle 
> politicians) obviously know what's best way to protect the public, maybe 
> YOU ought to apply for the job.  Criminal court judges get to work with 
> the worst of the worst of society, and the worst of the system, and 
> somehow the solutions offered by peanut-gallery pundits tend to be 
> shoot-from the hip simpleton views.
>
> An independent judiciary seems worth saving, something to keep the lynch 
> mobs and witch hunters in check to at least SOME degree.  If there's 
> anything that I'm defending here it's the concept that in an imperfect 
> world we're likely better off to let judges do their jobs, and not be too 
> quick to hang 'em when two-line story seems at odds with common sense. 
> I'm GLAD that rabfly ski bum or nerd scientists don't always get their way 
> on criminal justice issue, since arguments that don't fit on a bumper 
> sticker seem to pass them by. There doesn't seem much justice in a 
> sentence with only 60 days of jail-time plus treatment, but there's more 
> to it in the fine print if you bother read it.
>
>>Let's stop feeling sorry for the slime of the earth, OK?
>
> When did anyone feel sorry for the slime? The judge didn't, I don't, I 
> doubt YOU did. Who is this "us" implicit in the "Let's stop..." phrase?
>
> From my read of the judge's statements, if he'd had a "lock up and throw 
> away the key" option he may have gone for it, but apparently that doesn't 
> exist on a first offense even for this heinous a crime. His reasoning was 
> that a suspension of the bulk of the sentence was the only sure-fire way 
> to get the criminal into treatment and ensure that if he didn't fly right 
> he'd be put away for good without a second trial.  Not being an insider to 
> the local criminal justice system I can't say that it was the right call 
> or not, but to treat it as if it was simple criminal-coddling by an 
> aberrant judge is a naïve view of how the penal systems work in-practice 
> as opposed to some simplistic ideal.
>
> So... (since we're celebrating troll day...)
>
> Why don't you just go back to your Rush-Room and help blow the tin horn 
> for mandatory death-sentences for pedophiles, narcotics addicts, and other 
> slime, you chum-bucket slingin' vigilante! :-) :-) :-)
>
> Alas, still no snow in sight...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...but it's startin' to feel like a pretty good troll day! :-D
>
> dana
> _____________ ________ __
> __ /________ ________ ___
> __( ________ __山スキー!_
> ___\ ________ ________ __
> ____) ______ __________ _
> ___/ ______ ___________ _
> __(  o ____ __________ __
> __ \(|\.____ _______ ____
> ___`\>/______ ____ ______
> ____ \` ______ __ _______
> ______`________ _ _______
> _______________ __ ______
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
>
> To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html
> 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html