That's like using a ruby as a standard for determining the quality of diamonds. We already know something very wrong happened with the 17 year's case even before Swan went to trial.
Agreed, but it doesn't fix the first problem to make a mistake with the second guy's sentence. Repeating my question of yesterday, "Do you feel that a 7 year sentence is appropriate for burning a cross in someone's yard"?
Yes, if he has done similar acts like this before but not been caught or if he has a rap sheet of any kind. If not, then I say the sentence is too long.
It seems this was Pickering's concern, and that's as it should be. If there were aggravating circumstances, that's different. But for being a guy who came along for the ride on a cross burning, where the other participants got off scott-free and THEY were the ring-leaders, a 7 year sentence is awfully hard to justify.
Yes, but once again, we don't know all the facts of this case nor the background of Swan.
In the meantime, a jury of Mr. Swan's peers finds Mr. Swan guilty of two crimes......now neither one of us knows the details that came out during the trial but its clear he was convictable on two counts or his attorney would have asked for a new trial, and yet, Mr. Pickering took it upon himself to lighten the sentence.
That's what judges are supposed to do. In particular, it is up to the judge to insure that sentences fit the crime. I think Pickering has shown in innumerable cases that he used the same care in sentencing whites as well as blacks. If he were racist, he would not have done so -- he would NOT have gone the extra mile to insure that sentences of convicted blacks were lightened when appropriate.
I will agree there are inconsistencies in his behavior. Again, I am not hanging him because I am convinced he is a racist but rather because these inconsistencies exist and may effect his judgment.
ted |
