| FatesWebb |
 |
|
|
| SDLaw06 |
At first blush I think what the shit was this judge thinking? The more I think about it, maybe he made a good decision. The easy answer is put them in jail now, fuck them. THe more difficult answer is there is no reason to ruin 4 lives instead of the 2. These are young guys and they sound like they have some promise athletically. Maybe they will go on from this and learn a lesson, maybe they won't.
They are getting a pansy ass sentence anyway, a 500 word essay, oh no! They were only convicted of vandalism and petty theft. Had these been more serious charges, I would feel differently. I'm actually surprised they weren't. I guess it really depends on your views of the crimial justice system. Do think it is set up to punish or rehabilitate. If these kids can learn from this and benefit, then I'm all for it. That remains to be seen, however. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
| ok, so what other things play higher priority to the law besides football? |
|
|
| SDLaw06 |
Well for one, I'm not saying that football plays higher priority, I'm saying that not ruining these kids lives for a conviction of vandalism and petty theft justifies, IMO, delaying the sentence. It's easy to get wrapped up in what the end result of their misdeeds is, and I would be curious to know why they were only charged with vandalism and petty theft, but it's hard to make a conviction for vandalism have much teeth. The judge hasn't broke any laws by delaying it.
This actually reminds me of another case from OH where a child molestor was given a very small sentence after being convicted and the legislators threw a fit. The media spun that pretty well, I think O'reilly hit him hard. But what no one ever mentioned was that the legilators of Ohio came up with the sentencing guidelines and the judge acted within those guidelines. The legislators should have really been pissed at themselves.
I'm not trying to take away from what happened to the 2 victims, but we are talking about a vandalism and petty theft conviction, given that, I don't think delaying it is that big of a deal. But again, that would be if you believe in rehabilitation. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
yeah good point, however I still dont see why football should affect the sentence. It is like this, they have already been given a break by being tried for vandalism, rather than manslaughter. So why do we need to take it even further and make sure the football team wins?
I do see your point, however I dont agree with judges giving people special privledges based on they play football, or anything else, which is what admittedly happened here.
Even the judge admitted in court that what he did was wrong.
FW |
|
|
| SDLaw06 |
| Yeah I don't know what the reason for not trying them for manslaughter was. |
|
|
|
