|
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
... or any other technical problem-solver...
If the wrong question is asked, then the answer needs to be
for the right question.
If justice is going to be served, then the judge COULD have
adjusted the charges to cover the right portion of the
statute.
Sure, you can tell me that the law doesn't allow that. But I
don't buy it. It just means that the law has become divorced
from common sense. And this doesn't require vigilante
justice, it just requires someone to notice what the law
says about the offense that has been committed. Nothing
needed to be made up to cover this situation.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
That story makes much more sense with the details filled in. It appears to be a
case of charge inflation to force a guilty plea.
To put the situation into extreme terms, imagine the prosecutor offered
"plead guilty to attempted murder for that speeding offense and we won't
prosecute you for premeditated attempted murder".
Every once in a while you have to let the guilty go free to keep the system from
becoming abusive. This should be a black mark against the prosecutors office,
not against the judge.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
Gtand juries are, unfortunately, just mindless zombies that do whatever insane
thing the prosecutor wants. In this case a true, independent grand jury could
have saved the day by making the charges more realistic.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|