Our Kinder, Gentler Justice System

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.wlextv.com/global/story.asp?s=1977923&ClientType=Printable

Quote

LEX 18 INVESTIGATES
Inmate On The Loose Following Release

Lexington, KY One of the men suspected in a violent home invasion--who's facing a possible 45-year prison sentence if convicted--was on the loose Tuesday evening. But he didn't escape from jail. He was allowed to leave on a five-day pass...and didn't come back.

When Teddy Hawkins walked out of the Fayette County Detention Center last Wednesday, he was a free man for five days--five unsupervised days. Tuesday marked day six...so where is he? One terrified family would like to know.

"I'm in fear for my life--my family's life," Chris Manley told LEX 18 News. "We've had to stay in a hotel cause we're that scared." Manley is scared because Hawkins is one of the men accused of robbing Manley and his fiance during a violent home invasion at their house in April of last year. Manley wants to know why a judge would give a five-day unsupervised pass to someone who's accused of terrorizing his family--someone who has a history of breaking the law...and running from the law.

"I think it's ridiculous," Manley says. "I don't understand how anybody would do that. This guy came to my house with a loaded gun, put the gun to my fiance's head--who was 9 months pregnant, on her due date--and one of the people with him shot me."

The five-day pass came from Fayette Circuit Judge Pamela Goodwine, who allowed Hawkins to be released from custody so he could attend his father's funeral in Detroit, Michigan. Hawkins was supposed to return to jail no later than noon on Monday, June 28th. In a handwritten letter to the judge, Hawkins wrote, "I have nothing to offer you in exchange for your graciousness, beyond my word [that I will do] exactly as you stipulate if I'm allowed to visit."

On the same day Hawkins was to return back to jail he was in Lexington. How do we know? Court records show he was at Fayette District Court...getting married.

"It's the awfullest thing in the world," Manley tells LEX 18 News. "I don't see how any judge would ever allow somebody out for 5 days...facing 45 years time. He has 3 different aliases, he jumped bail twice, escaped jail in Detroit and she lets him go to Detroit. It don't make any sense to me."

LEX 18 News spoke to Judge Goodwine over the phone Tuesday. She says as a judge she tries to be compassionate to both sides. She says her mother was murdered and she went through the loss of her father with her siblings. But because of this case, she's changing her rules.

Police say Manley and his fiance were random targets the night Hawkins and several other men allegedly broke into their home. Investigators say the group followed Manley home from work because he drove a nice car.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mr2mk1g 10]

We tag the fuckers over here. Electronic leg iron with GPS so we know where they are. If they leave the geographical boundaries we set for them it sets off an alarm at the monitoring station and they're picked up. Ditto if they start tampering with it. They're better than day release. They're being over-used here though.

I'm waiting for the neck iron development a-la running man.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Who gives a fuck about a GPS tag?! Does that tag act as a physical impediment to MURDER? Can that tag keep someone from going to the home of a witness and executing him?

This stupid sow of a judge should die at the hands of the scumbag she released. That would be justice.

"Compassionate to both sides"?! ONLY ONE FUCKIN' SIDE NEEDS COMPASSION HERE. THE OTHER SIDE IS THE FUCKIN' [I]CRIMINAL[/I]!!

BTW I've heard of endemic problems with that supposed "we're watching where they go and we'll pick 'em up right away if they stray" system. They're full of shit. These people wander wherever the fuck they want to. I remember reading about a guy who cut off his ankle bracelet and put it on a fuckin' CAT.

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[skydyvr 0]

Why is it just plain intuitively obvious - without knowing anything more than what this article presents - that this judge is a flaming LIBERAL asshole?

Why?

. . =(_8^(1)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Why is it just plain intuitively obvious - without knowing anything more than what this article presents - that this judge is a flaming LIBERAL asshole?

Misconception? I've been called a flaming liberal by you guys a few times. But I agree the judge is an asshole.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I've been called a flaming liberal by you guys a few times. But I agree the judge is an asshole.

But I believe you are a balanced, thoughtful flaming liberal.

Still though, you expect other idiotic antics from conservative judges, like running down motorcycle riders and what not, but why is it always liberal judges making life easy on the crooks?

I'd guess it could be called "selective compassion". Let's give the poor old criminal a break, but the victims can go to hell.

. . =(_8^(1)

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Why is it just plain intuitively obvious - without knowing anything more than what this article presents - that this judge is a flaming LIBERAL asshole?

Misconception? I've been called a flaming liberal by you guys a few times. But I agree the judge is an asshole.

Not every liberal would do what she did, but everyone who would do what she did is a liberal.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[FallRate 0]

(Read the whole thing before posting, please.)

A judge should be guided by the ideal: "innocent until proven guilty". The judge is obliged to view the accused as an innocent man. If she made the call to allow an accused man the opportunity to attend his Father's funeral, it shows the Judge to be compassionate and reasonable. It's the Criminal Justice System. (A shitty system which has nothing to do with justice, but which is entirely criminal.)

As much as the Criminal Justice System exists to prosecute crimes against the accused, it exists to protect the rights of the accused from the whims of the mob.

But that is no reason to be discouraged.

On the upside, by allowing the accused the opportunity to break the trust of the court, the court can now rule (without trial) that the accused has voluntarily given up his right to due process. He may be apprehended in pretty much any manner seen fit to the person who apprehends him.

It's a matter of looking on the bright side. If I were the man who was shot on the same evening that my fiance had a gun held to her head, I would pray that the persons responsible were conditionally released. So that I could have the opportunity to find him and kill him myself.
Systems suck, but every cloud...silver lining.

FallRate

[Kennedy 0]

You have to realize though, that "innocent until proven guilty" is a fallacy.

If the prosectuor, witnesses, and judge truly believe him to be innocent, they would be guilty of several crime by bringing him to trial.

Honestly, the idea of "maybe guilty but we don't know until trial" is more accurate, but doesn't make for as good a soundbyte.

Yeah, maybe a legal loophole might make him less than guilty in a trial, but anyone not suffering from cranial-rectal inversion can see that this guy is a flight risk and a very likely threat to society. Who in their right mind would release this asshole?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[FallRate 0]

Quote

Who in their right mind would release this asshole?

If I were the victim in this case, I would have to say it was a judge who is sympathetic to my cause. It would grant me the legally sanctioned opportunity to take it out of the accused' ass. (Not explicitly, of course. But it you look at the lack of restraints placed on bounty hunters, it becomes apparent that the gloves are off.)

Granted, the vicitm in this case feels that the Justice System let him down. But once again, the Justice System has nothing to do with justice. The sole purpose of the Justice System is to act as a buffer between opposing parties. There are countless variations on the platitude that blind, fair and equal treatment of all parties will result in a just ruling. But in the end, it still comes down to a whim. It's simply more elegant than that which the mob provides.

Just looking on the bright side.

(By the way...considering the severity of the charge, should he have been given an unsupervised pass? IMO: No!)

FallRate

[FallRate 0]

Quote

If the prosecutor, witnesses, and judge truly believe him to be innocent, they would be guilty of several crime by bringing him to trial.

I am uncertain about this. I know that if a prosecutor withholds evidence or a witness lies, then they are culpable. But a judge does not bring the case to trial. She is supposed to oversee the case as a whole, without prejudice. If the judge were to believe that the accused is guilty or innocent from the outset then that judge should probably recuse herself from the case.

To delve into semantics, it may be better to say that a person is considered not guilty unless proven guilty. This goes with the fact that when rendering a verdict, innocent is not an option. It is either guilty or not guilty. And the accused, while not being guilty, should be afforded certain rights.

(Lawrocket, please be gentle.)

FallRate

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

(Read the whole thing before posting, please.)

A judge should be guided by the ideal: "innocent until proven guilty". The judge is obliged to view the accused as an innocent man. If she made the call to allow an accused man the opportunity to attend his Father's funeral, it shows the Judge to be compassionate and reasonable. It's the Criminal Justice System. (A shitty system which has nothing to do with justice, but which is entirely criminal.)

The System represents The People, i.e. the rest of the NON-criminal, NON-lawbreaking society, and it is in place to protect them from the lawBREAKERS who are brought before the court. In that sense, the system owes far more to the People than it does to the accused.

If what you are saying is true as an absolute, then there would not be varying degrees of BAIL, or the potential for a suspect to be completely DENIED bail, if his/her offense is serious enough. In this case, it WAS. This piece of shit SHOT someone, and threatened to shoot others. How much more serious can it get? He should have been left to rot until his trial, as many shooting suspects would be if not appearing before a liberal bleeding-heart stupid asshole judge like this bitch. What guarantee does the public have that when released on the ostensible purpose of going to his father's funeral, he's not really planning on using the time to go and kill the witnesses against him? Or maybe rob some people to have the cash to pay a lawyer to get him off for attempted murder? Ohhh, wait, I forgot, we have the impassioned plea and promise of a guy who is accused of attempted murder. How could that not be enough?

Quote

As much as the Criminal Justice System exists to prosecute crimes against the accused, it exists to protect the rights of the accused from the whims of the mob.

There is nothing about denying a person bail that is failing to protect his rights. The judge should realize that this is a person whom the police and prosecutor believe, strongly enough to bring charges, actually shot someone -- an act that can only be viewed as an attempt to end that person's life! Yes, the system must protect the rights of the accused, but that does not mean they have a guaranteed right to go around free until their trial. Some people are too much of a danger to let free on bail -- and then they go and don't come back, like this piece of shit, because, well, we were counting on the word of a suspected criminal, now, weren't we?

Quote

On the upside, by allowing the accused the opportunity to break the trust of the court, the court can now rule (without trial) that the accused has voluntarily given up his right to due process. He may be apprehended in pretty much any manner seen fit to the person who apprehends him.

So you're saying that we allow the criminal to dig himself in deeper, and then we can go full-bore on him?

First of all, you're wrong. Just because he has broken faith with the court does not mean that he has forfeited due process. Do you think that now when they arrest him, they're allowed to violate his rights? That's absurd. And what of the people he might violate while he's out? Yes, if he kills another person, that may make the judge decide to be "really harsh" on him and not let him out a seconde time... But it cost someone their life just to get the judge to take this shit seriously. (Sort of like parole for violent criminals. They get an undeserved second chance, and we gamble with the lives of the public in order to just put them back in jail where we already had them. And a large percentage end up going right back anyway.)

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

But a judge does not bring the case to trial. She is supposed to oversee the case as a whole, without prejudice. If the judge were to believe that the accused is guilty or innocent from the outset then that judge should probably recuse herself from the case.

The judge certainly would be correct to take into account the seriousness of the charges, and the weight of the evidence that is being used to bring this matter to trial. Strong evidence is cause for being more reluctant to release an offender on bail. Strong charges, likewise. This has nothing to do with the impartiality of the trial. This is about protecting the public from the possible harm from a suspect during the interval between apprehension and a determination of guilt or not guilt. What if a person was charged with killing seventeen people by walking through a mall firing a high-capacity rifle at them? And the police caught him red-handed when he was trying to reload? Still deserves that benefit-of-the-doubt, innocent-until-proven-guilty shit, and the judge should let him see his father's funeral before trial, with no one to supervise him, and no guarantee he'll come back to prostrate himself before a court that may sentence him to death?! Come on.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

What if a person was charged with killing seventeen people by walking through a mall firing a high-capacity rifle at them? And the police caught him red-handed when he was trying to reload? Still deserves that benefit-of-the-doubt, innocent-until-proven-guilty shit,

Yes, that shit is the basis of our justice system and one reason I'm proud of this country.

Quote

and the judge should let him see his father's funeral before trial, with no one to supervise him, and no guarantee he'll come back to prostrate himself before a court that may sentence him to death?!

No, that would be an asshat move.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

What if a person was charged with killing seventeen people by walking through a mall firing a high-capacity rifle at them? And the police caught him red-handed when he was trying to reload? Still deserves that benefit-of-the-doubt, innocent-until-proven-guilty shit,

Yes, that shit is the basis of our justice system and one reason I'm proud of this country.

Quote

and the judge should let him see his father's funeral before trial, with no one to supervise him, and no guarantee he'll come back to prostrate himself before a court that may sentence him to death?!

No, that would be an asshat move.

B-Bu-But that's not treating him as "innocent until proven guilty"!! If you truly were treating him as "innocent until proven guilty," why, then you'd let him go off on his way until trial, with no more worry than when the bailiff goes home at the end of his shift.

Which is it?

Innocent until proven guilty, and we treat them as though they're no threat at all

or

Not yet proven guilty, but regarded as a threat because there's enough evidence to suspect guilt and bring him to trial.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

The latter. I agree with your assessment, just not your qualification as innocent until proven guilty as "shit".

BTW...it's presumed innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't preclude due process. Due process is the means by which the public is protected until guilt is determined.

[FallRate 0]

I was being facetious, Jeffrey.

Like I said, I don't believe that the accused should have been given an unsupervised pass. It was dumb.

FallRate

[newsstand 0]

Given the total picture before the fact of his running away what the judge did was dumb.

However it sounds like you are saying that if the cops charge someone it pretty much means they are guilty which is far from true.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes