Here in northwest Ohio. We had a trial that was concluded recently. It was a case of an attempted child abduction. The offender has two prior convictions for pandring young girls on the internet. He then attempted to snatch a 12 year old girl off the street in Toledo. The girl was fortunate and broke away, then ran for help. She was also smart enough to remember the plate number on his car.
He went to trial, the judge did not allow the previous convictions to be introduced as evidence, because some how pandering minors on the internet and actually trying to grab one are unrelated. The trial ended in a hung jury. As the second trial was approaching he plea bargained down to 6 months in jail.
My questions are what happened to oue justice system? Should we find a way to hold the judge and prosecuter responsible if he gets out and tries something else ? How could the Judge live with himself if he gets out and snatches a 12 year old and rapes her ?
2007-02-08 23:58:18 · 7 answers · asked by snowball45830 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I wish we could hold those Liberal black robes accountable. Places like Vermont, Ohio and California (not an all conclusive list) have so called judges letting convicted child sex offenders walk. As citizens of the U.S., we claim to be for the welfare of kids but the actions of some lead you to believe otherwise..............
2007-02-09 00:17:44 · answer #1 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't agree with the outcome of this trial--but blaming the judge and prosecutor is wrong.
The legal position the judge took was correct--and he would simply have been reversed had he ruled otherwise. In which case the offender would have goon free with no legal sanction at all. As for the prosecutor making a plea bargain--since I don't know th edetails, I won't make any calls--but be aware that prosecutors often do this either because they don't want to risk a "not guilty" verdict (very likely here) or because they simply don't have the resources to fight every case in court--so the pick the ones they can and cut a deal on the rest.
The real culprit her is a system of justice that is underfunded--and that is historically geared to view such offenses lightly. In both cases that is a result of choices made by the community--here, the state. If you want the courts to deal more harshly with such offenders--then get your legislature to pass appropriate laws. And taxes to pay for the people the prosecutors need to try all the cases they have to deal with. Stop blamingthe judges and attorneys you hire to do the job when you as citizens don't give them what they need to do it.
2007-02-09 08:30:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's the price of being better. Liberals didn't make these changes, they were introduced in a Republican court, during the time of the Earl Warren court. So those above who want to blame someone for the "criminals taking over the system", blame him, Hugo Black, and the lot of them. Blame them for it being mandatory for criminals to know their Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona), blame him for criminals being given a lawyer paid for by the state (Gideon v. Wainright), and blame them for all the other laws and procedures that make it harder for police to convict the believed guilty. In an interview, he stated that it's purpose was to make it harder to make a conviction. Before then, a cop could force a confession from the convicted, they could use evidence obtained illegally, and if you couldn't afford a lawyer, you were simply screwed.
The court system of today may not be perfect, it never will be. But what happened, as bad as it may be, is merely the downside of a court system slowly changing for the better.
2007-02-09 08:49:14 · answer #3 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because our justice system is crap. However the jury should be blamed. What did they think he was going to do with the little girl. Go buy her ice cream and then take her home. Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what he was going to do.
2007-02-09 09:52:29 · answer #4 · answered by kc 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"What happened to our justice system?"
What makes you think that it used to be perfect?
"Should we find a way to hold the judge and prosecutor responsible if he gets out and tries something else?"
No. Punish the person who commits crime. The judge and prosecutor didn't commit a crime.
"How could the judge live with himself if he gets out and snatches a 12 year old and rapes her?"
By saying to himself -- I didn't do anything wrong; I did my job.
2007-02-09 08:27:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think the biggest setback to Justice is the "right to remain silent". What that does is allow lawyers to stage a setting all their own, and bury reality in fiction.
2007-02-09 09:22:38 · answer #6 · answered by billy brite 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The criminals have taken over the justice system.
2007-02-09 08:09:22 · answer #7 · answered by mamasquirrel 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋