(true story) 2 cops were going to house because there was a 911 call but got disconnected where the lady screamed help me my husband is trying to kill me. when the police arrived at the house the husband had thrown boiling hot water on the wifes face and the child was punched in the face too. (the child was so young it only had a few teeth which were knocked out wen the child was punched) when the cops were arresting him the husband resisted and threw 1 of the cops on the ground and started to charge for the other cop... the other cop breaks the husbands arm.. later in court the courtroom was filled with people and the husband was really a priest. the judge sentaced the priest to prison but on a recuded sentace just because he was a priest do you think the judge's decision was right? even after what the priest did?
2006-12-06 02:38:52 · 11 answers · asked by Dont get Infected 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
my instructer told m the story and it happend when he was a rookie and when he was a cop he was in newark new jersey so im rpetty sure it happend there
2006-12-06 02:42:20 · update #1
Tora i somewhat agree with you.. but if ANYBODY does something like what i discribed then i think they should not get a reduced sentance
2006-12-06 13:35:23 · update #2
Priest or not, everyone should face the same penalty for their crimes.
2006-12-06 02:41:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Where was this true story at? We need links!
Whether it's true or not, a priest should not be let off so easily. An honorific title does not give someone permission to be a jerk to his fellow man.
Now, even if the story is not true, the message is accurate: Some people give others the benefit of the doubt because of the illusion of piety and divinity. As an example, just look at all the prison convicts who suddenly found Jesus. When they're street scum, they don't care about anyone else, but when they have a parole hearing coming up, they are filled with Christ. I really hope the parole board can see through that, but the jaded part of me suspects they can't.
One true story I can share (this was in no newspaper, so I can't provide links, sorry) is when I was working in an arcade. A boy was trying to cheat the system by claiming that the crane game stopped in the middle and dropped the plush toy. While toys do fall out, the boy claimed that it opened up in the middle. That's not how the crane games work, and I call BS on the aspiring con artist. This earned the wrath of his mother. I explained to her that the machine does not do what the boy described. Her response: "My son wouldn't lie. He's a Christian!"
Yeah, so did a judge really reduce sentence because the defendant was a Christian (a priest, no less)? I couldn't say. Does it sound possible? It does indeed.
Edit: I see some claims that the sentence should be harsher because he was a "man of the cloth." I whole-heartedly disagree. A man's station should not determine his punishment. The punishment should fit the crime and only the crime (which is why I disagree with most "hate laws" as violence is bad, no matter what the motivation).
Sure, the priest should be an example for mankind, but then again, mankind should be an example for mankind. If you fail to be a good example for your fellow man, then you should be punished. It doesn't matter if that "good example" is a priest, a rabbi, or a garbage man.
2006-12-06 02:40:23 · answer #2 · answered by Rev Kev 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We're all human and all make mistakes. However, certain people of authority are put there because they have shown a higher level of trust and compassion. When those people mess-up (although imperfect)they betray more lives and ideals then the person how's always a criminal (comparing only one similar incidents). When a Priest (police officer, government official, etc) breaks the law they should be held to a higher standard, if not equal; because, more people are affect then just the immediate victims.
give a lighter sentence because of a position is cowardly on the judge fear that it will come back and hurt him.
2006-12-06 02:43:23 · answer #3 · answered by Coool 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For a Crime there is a suggested Punishment.
If this was a first time offense then the Judge has the right to choose the lesser end of the punishment.
The fact that he was a priest may have swayed the judge as he had a prior good behavior which I think had lead the judge to the lesser punishment.
2006-12-06 02:44:13 · answer #4 · answered by tora911 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. I think there was some major bias going on there. I wonder what the judge would have given him if he was a Rabbi, a muslim Caliph or a pagan priest...
2006-12-06 02:42:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
His being a priest should not have any bearing on how he is charged, treated, and sentenced. All should be equal before the law.
2006-12-06 02:42:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Girl Wonder is right - his occupation has no bearing on this. He should not get his sentence reduced because he's a priest.
2006-12-06 02:43:33 · answer #7 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I were the judge and found out he was a "man of God" and yet was able to commit those atrocities, he would receive MAXIMUM SENTENCING.
2006-12-06 02:41:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
no it wasnt right. i guess the judge never took an ethics class.
2006-12-06 02:42:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
um...no....he should be given a longer sentence in my opinion...he is supposed to set an example and what kind of example is that?
2006-12-06 02:42:13 · answer #10 · answered by XSkittle_FantasticX 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋