Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6483)	1/28/2002 9:36:57 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Respond to of 14610

Yes, I couldn't agree more with all you say. While I enjoy Court TV, I don't think there is any doubt that televising a trial changes its dynamics significantly. Everyone involved tends to become starstruck. And not without good reason, as a sterling performance can make a legal career. (I don't know if you watched the Dr. Greineder trial, but the winning young prosecutor has emerged now as a Court TV commentator as well as candidate for District Attorney). Another aspect of the problems with our judicial system is legal representation. I thought Junta's lawyer did just about everything wrong, from the theory of the case that he pressed, to his patronizing manner with the star prosecution witness, the female rink manager ("she was just a hysterical woman"), to his generally abrasive personality. He completely mishandled a jury that was 2/3 female. Junta had the misfortune to be a lower middle class person and home owner, too "rich" to get any help with the cost of his defense, but too poor to afford a really good trial lawyer or pay for well qualified experts. If he had been indigent he probably would have ended up with a top lawyer, especially in view of the publicity value of the case, as happened with Timothy McVeigh. Of course, if he was rich he would have had the best. I think a Johnnie Cochran type, or better yet a top female lawyer, would have handled the case in an entirely different manner, and might well have gotten him off altogether. I'm not saying that would necessarily have been justice either, only that a person of Junta's status has the cards stacked against him from the start. I thought also that the judge was very antagonistic toward the defense attorney, and that his sentence reflected an "I'll show you" attitude toward the lawyer as much as it was based on appropriate punishment for the defendant. I think that happens a lot in trials, where the egos of the legal principals clash and the defendant (or victim, for that matter) becomes lost in the shuffle. Such ego-strutting is all the more aggravated by the televising. The reason they have sentencing guidelines is for the purpose of having consistency in punishment. To deviate so hugely from the guidelines defeats this purpose. When you compare the outcomes of the Junta case and the Louise Woodward case, the whole thing becomes a travesty. Comparing the facts of the two cases, if Woodward deserved one year, then Junta deserved about a month. I agree that Junta is a tough yahoo from a rough and tumble Charlestown neighborhood with much too short of a temper. Yet as I saw him whisked off in cuffs to begin life as a con in a tough prison, I thought, "there's something not right with this picture." JC

To: Lane3 who wrote (6483)	1/28/2002 9:43:34 AM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

His little demonstration at the sentencing reminded me a bit of Judge Ito. Cameras in the courtroom have turned trials into entertainment. Ito clearly was influenced by the presence of cameras in the courtroom, and the judge in the Hockey Dad case may have been as well. IMO the interest of the public in knowing about the legal system can be met by having reporters attend the trial and report later on what happened. Keep the cameras out.

To: Lane3 who wrote (6483)	1/28/2002 7:15:28 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14610

After reviewing this a bit, I think that the judge got a little overzealous. Parental misbehavior surrounding their children's sports is a longstanding hotpoint for many people. I think that the judge took this opportunity to send a message to parents who can't control themselves. I don't think that the sentence was about rehabilitation as I suspect a minimal sentence would accomplish this. I also don't think that it is appropriate as a form of retribution as it seems way out of whack when compared to the punishment meted out for like verdicts. IMO, the sentencing was a way for the judge to say "see, we are doing something about these parents who can't control themselves". Of course, I don't think that the sentencing will really accomplish the goal. I would compare it to the war on drugs. No real results, but at least it looks like they are doing something. In summary, I think that the sentence was a bit harsh.