Comments by Shorts
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on July 24 at 12:32 p.m.
Ace, ahahahaha! My vote is that it's a crime that it was a Kia. Good stuff
Posted on July 19 at 12:23 p.m.
Consider_reason, if you have been ignored by an attorney after paying, then you have your recourse. There's no doubt that there are bad attorneys...but on the other hand, there are very very good ones, and people need to recognize that, instead of lumping ALL attorneys into the same category as "bad."
And I have not disagreed that bond may have been applied differently in similar situations. And I have also repeatedly said that this is so because there is no magical, slide chart, cheat sheet to set those amounts. It's ultimately within the discretion of the judge.
And I will agree that as judges their prejudices aren't necessarily diminished. What everyone has to understand is that they are people too, and as much as everyone would like, they are influenced by all sorts of things. I'm not saying that's right, but whatever is perceived as "bad" with the justice system is not all the judge’s fault. People have to remember that some of these judges are ELECTED, so that's the communities fault. On the other hand, some judges are elected, a lot of times for political reasons, and there's no way around that.
I appreciate the fact that you can find that an attorney's input adds much to the edification of this forum. I apologize if you felt that my delivery sucked, sometimes there's no other way to get across to some people.
Regardless of all this, everyone has to understand that, as you said, we do have the best possible justice system. Yes there are problems, and those problems will never ever completely go away. We also need to understand why and how attorneys and judges make their decisions. Judges do have discretion in making some decisions; however, that's why there are some guidelines, because the people that drafted these laws were aware of the fact that judges and attorneys are influenced by a number of things and people. That's why the people have the power to make those changes when they see fit.
I appreciate the dialogue that you and I, as well as everyone else have had. I feel that we have all gained something from it.
Posted on July 17 at 1:36 p.m.
Beammeup...why do you think they are called "amendments"? Because they amended the Constitution and become part of it. It's not the Bill of Rights "and" the first 10 amendments, as you state. The Bill of Rights "IS" the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, so they are one in the same. Before you attack someone, you might want to know what you're talking about as well my friend. So if beammeupscotty is your lawyer, luck isn't going to do you any good.
And to the arguments of low bail, I don't disagree that there were some low bails set, that's why I said there is no magical dollar amount, as that is left up to the judge. The one thing I said was that bail is a right that a judge must grant, and can only deny bail on a limited number of occasions. Otherwise, the judge has numerous factors to consider, and must administer the LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS to ensure their appearance at trial.
Unlike mzbyrdie2 suggests, you can't just lock a person up forever just because he's been arrested. That's why we have courts, trials, and juries, where these people are tried, and then if and only if found guilty, and if the punishment allows for it, they can be locked up "forever." What would the jail system be like if everyone that got arrested for possession of marijuana or possession of a handgun was locked up indefinitely?
And if he was on probation, that is still just one factor to consider. He would then have to be brought before a judge to determine whether he violated the terms of that probation.
And thanks to Skippydammit for backing me up. And to consider_reason, I'm not trying to be pompous, I'm merely stating what is true. Do you honestly think most people are knowledgeable or understand laws or the constitution? Hell, most attorneys and judges probably don't fully understand it all. It just irritates me when people assume things that they don't know the first thing about, and then grandstand and complain about what's "wrong" with the judicial system, and that judges and attorneys are crooked. As beammeupscotty suggested, let's all go understand our rights as state and U.S. citizens and have a meaningful conversation. People like to bash attorneys left and right...until they need one.
Posted on July 17 at 8:50 a.m.
As I posted on another story, people don't have a clue about bail. First of all, it's a right, unless (normally) the person has been charged with a crime punishable by death, the prosecutor can present proof that conviction is likely, and that the death penatly may be imposed. Secondly, the bail amount must be an amount that is the least restrictive means to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial. Also, there are numerous other factors the judge has to consider, some of which include criminal history, seriousness of the charge, family, community ties, possible flight issues, and many many more. There is no magical dollar amount that applies. So to answer the question above, the number is not just pulled from the top of the judge's hat. It's something called the constitution, that most of you know nothing about.
Posted on July 17 at 8:30 a.m.
Judges are required to issue a bond that is the least restrictive means to ensure their appearance at trial. There are a number of things that must be looked at in conjuction with that, including their criminal history, likelihood of danger to others, etc. I hate how people automatically assume that "they'll probably walk" or "they must be friends with the judge." If you had any knowledge of the law, you would have a clue about how it works.
On Two arrested, one child in custody after raid of alleged meth lab
Posted on March 20 at 7:17 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted on March 16 at 12:04 p.m.
How can you question it? It's stated as "customary." Nobody said she would be making decisions or actually acting as sheriff on her own. Get a clue...
Posted on March 6 at 9:55 a.m.
Atta boy Jake! Taking after your Uncle in that park.
Posted on March 3 at 7:20 a.m.
That-a-boy, Jake! Your uncle sure is proud of you. Keep it up!
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on October 21 at 8:44 a.m.
Keep in mind that this is not ultimately up to the judge. The jury will decide his fate. So when the grand jury reduces the charge and he gets a sentence that is within the sentencing guidelines for the crime, don't blame the judge as everyone is so quick to do...blame the jury comprised of your peers and your legislatures that wrote the law.
On Teen bound over to grand jury for murder