I think you have a point, there. I'm new to this area and a bit appalled at what they don't do to sex offenders. A few months ago, this guy who had been arrested up in the Baltimore area for a sex crime, was never tried for it (I don't recall the nature of the crime, though). The reason he didn't get tried is because the courts delayed and delayed such that it reached the point that he had lost his right to a speedy trial and the case was thrown out (similar to our English speaking friend above who needs an intrepetor).

This guy makes the news again when he was driving in his convertable and drove up and all around a school bus filled with a bunch of girls from a local Catholic school. He decided to start "playing" with himself so the schoolgirls could see. He got arrested, thankfully.

Here's the most ironic part of the story - he teaches in a Silver Spring, MD junior high!!!!!!! He still has that job, although he is on leave (with pay, mind you). I haven't heard any updates since. When he ws busted for his crime in the Baltimore area, he was in the public school system up there, too. The news said he was allowed to resign.

What the.... . Don't our public schools do background checks? This, combined with the other stories in this thread, gives me no confidence in Maryland's ability to meet justice for crimes against children. It is outrageous on many fronts.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

News organisations and especially spindoctors will always love the 'one-episode-makes-a-rule' indignancy argument. Be careful of that.

Naturally, it's infuriating when some really bad guy beats a rap because someone dropped the ball, or the person got many breaks and then went out to do something really bad, etc. And the press or a spindoctor will always find an episode of that if they scour the entire criminal docket of a court.

Remember, the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland are very densely populated. Courts are overwhelmed in populated poor areas, and Baltimore and other cities in Maryland definitely have the problem. Urban areas have far more cases in court, especially if they are poor areas due to crime, family breakdowns, etc. Compounding the problem, densely populated poorer areas lack the tax base revenue to fund a massive court system with massive well-paid staff, assets, etc.

Cities can produce some crappy judges and other law enforcement and court personnel due to city political machines as can happen in rural political machines too, but that is not true of all of them--not even close. Most I have seen are adequate to competent to very competent--much like any court anywhere.

Courts in these kinds of areas are often more like huge cow corrals with a fresh underpaid prosecutor and hourly wage staff working hard to manage every aspect of every file. Just take a trip with me someday to Philadelphia Traffic Court, its civil Municipal Court for small claims, its Justice Center for criminal cases, or City Hall for civil cases or any other of the large metro area courts I attend--it makes for a wild field trip many times. Trips across the river to cities in New Jersey like Camden or Atlantic City and other densely populated areas will show the same thing. Wilmington, DE or NYC--same thing. I've even done some case work in Baltimore--same thing.

In the large stacks of case files, each case has its own issues, and in big urban areas trying to assemble witnesses and gather evidence is very hard compared to a rural area. Cases must be plea bargained or else the whole system would fail with speedy trial rights violations. Cases get dismissed or reduced due to missing witnesses, missing defendants, missing cops, failures to get all the evidence for many legitimate reasons never mind just ordinary messups in the massive system etc. Even the recent urban "Don't Snitch" movement is causing prosecutors many problems and they are trying to crack down on it because it is causing murder cases to get dismissed. Court staff also have huge backlogs and must keep cases moving along.

IMO, these courts on the whole do a very good job given the overwhelming load they must handle and the hosts of issues involved in each file.

Rural areas have far less case load and more knowledge of defendants and the area, and have much more time to focus on each case and give them attention. In fact, sometimes they have too much time . . . it amazes me how some rural areas sometimes have officers or prosecution policies that press the most petty kinds of cases and treat even minor traffic violations and infractions as if they are huge felonies and refuse to be reasonable with resolving them in an equitable manner based on the facts of each case. Sometimes having too much time on your hands is a bad thing too, especially if it leads to having the time to become too self-righteous and fall in love with power.

__________________

Having a busy court system does not excuse repeated cases (recent, not perusing through old court cases) where criminals who commit heinous crimes get off scott-free, or with VERY light sentences.
There is a clear indication that numerous judges are more interested in the welfare of the offender than protecting the public.
By spin doctor you are referring to O'Reilly I imagine, as much as an egotistical blow hard he is, he is a child advocate, and produces examples every week of cases that JUST happened whereby molesters and child rapist who were found guilty of committing YEARS of abuse simply walk away. This is a crime. The judges have a sworn duty to enforce laws and protect the innocent, not to release the criminals because they don't like it that they won't get treeeaaatment in a nice comfy environment.

The reference to spindoctor went right over my head. I didn't even think of O'Reilly as I didn't read or hear any of this on his show (haven't seen it in months).

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Truly henious offences get priority. It's extremely rare for them to get off scot-free when they shouldn't but why it happens is not always in control of the prosecution and/or the judge is obliged by law to do so given some issue. As for VERY light sentences on heinous crimes, it's statistically negligible when that happens. I am a court regular in many courts in a large metro area and I don't see it. People in court don't think much differently than you or I do on that stuff. It's more or less an insult to them to presume they have an overabundance of people who think "Oh, the poor child rapist and murderer had a poor childhood--let's hug him and send him to therapy." This is especially so after viewing the evidence first hand, which is often sickening, saddening and enraging. There are also mandatory sentences and sentencing guidelines they must follow anyway.


There really isn't, although many in the entertainment industry would have you believe it. I'd likely believe that too had I not seen differently in actual courts. The vast number just try to be fair and reach the right result by weighing all the factors.

O'Reilly was not on my mind, just the general rants I often hear in the media. As for O'Reilly, I actually went to see him speak with CYDdharta recently. I harbour no hatred of him at all and I do watch his shows and listen to his radio programmes on occasion.

But, . . .

First, he is an entertainer--not a crusader. What you are citing is part of his entertainment strategy and he combs through tens of thousands of judges with tens of millions of cases across the country for any aberration. If one in a hundred is like what he said, that is 1%. He gets far less than that, so there is no massive fire going on.

Second, he does have an angle despite his 'no spin' zone. He only selects so-called 'liberal judges' whilst ignoring potential conservative aberrations so it is one sided. That doesn't mean he can't do some good pointing out things on the one side whilst he ignores the other, but that lopsided analysis must be borne in mind at all times before biting into his usual "Culture Warrior" schtick against the so called threat of the "SPs" (social progressives).

Third, his biggest problem is that his entertainment objective does interfere with his truth and fairness factor. He is not a reporter--he is an entertainer selling himself. "SP judges" letting out paedophiles is a popular one with him. What he often spins is that there are compelling reasons behind many decisions that seem unusual but he makes it seem like they did not have those aspects. He makes his audience believe that the judges he hounds are hiding from him for fear of being held accountable to him when he knows judges are legally obliged to remain silent off the record on cases that may remain before the courts in appeals.

He even goes so far to slander and libel many of the judges with wholly false claims. For example, O'Reilly even threw burning leaves all over Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Ernest Murphy for allegedly saying about a 14 year old rape victim: “tell her to get over it”. It was false, and O'Reilly's source on The Factor was successfully sued for libel and slander. O'Reilly didn't stand up and properly acknowledge and apologise for fanning the bogus story.

His nemesis, Ken Olbermann (to be fair, another entertainer rather than reporter who makes debunking O'Reilly part of his marketing scheme), did a nice piece on it.

o'reilly and judge - Google Video

__________________

I watched the video, what I saw was O'Reilly asking the reporter "Are you 100% sure that he told the girl "to get over it". This case is unfortunate, rather than the focus being on why did the guy get off easily it is focused on a reporter for the Boston Herald who tried to sensationalize the story. The judge sued the paper not O'Reilly, now of course Olbermann wants O'Reilly to get sued, and asks the question "why doesn't he get fired" - which shows the fact that Olbermann is a tool, his own presentation states that the Herald was guilty of malice, O'Reilly simply repeated a story in a major newspaper...and even questioned the reporter was he telling the truth.

Oh - and by the way - the judge who freed the english speaking molester - is off the case, a new judge sentenced the man 13 years

Ah, I had a hunch that Maryland was a Liberal state…that explains a few posts here.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

Yes, that’s right. It’s easy enough to draw a connection between two or more cases, but, in fact, in any serious study, neither of these cases could be cited as evidence of a laxed attitude to putting child offenders away. Research methodology would not just require a larger sample of similar incidents, but also a range of comparative data.

I can understand that. It’s only natural for us to be more incensed at the injustices endured by children.

Absolutely. In my view, we should not have complacent “faith” in the justice system. We must always be mindful of its defects. We must have faith in our power to effect change in the system. I think our systems are better because we don’t take them for granted, and we speak out when we perceive a weakness in the system.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

Very well said. This happens here too. Or you get one bad story, then you can bet it will be the flavour of the month as a story theme, and every little incident with similar ingredients will be splashed on the news, become the focus of commentaries, and soon enough, we have a crisis on our hands.

I think there are cases where the “rule of law” will lead to an apparent miscarriage of justice, and we can’t summarily claim such cases demonstrate a practice of leniency.

In the case cited in MattLarson’s OP, I don’t think we have enough information to assert that the Judge was soft on the offender, or could have ruled differently within the law.

Absolutely. It riles me when I hear some people claim that liberals care more about offenders than victims. It’s simply not true, and it does not assist in tackling problems in the justice system. We may all have different views on reforms, but we all care the same about our fellow human beings and about justice.

It’s great to have your input on these issues, OSB.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

I agree that O'Reilly wasn't liable because he was a secondary source and falls under the 'republishing' exception where good faith republishing is not considered intentional.

Given the size of his shows and their reach and some basic duties I feel he owes his audiences of which I have been a member, it does appear that he didn't spend too much time scrutinising the claim because what he heard already suited him, which goes to the point about him being an entertainer rather than a reporter.

O'Reilly might get held liable, though, if he does not give a retraction because then it can be construed as adoption and furtherance. I think the judge will probably sue him unless he does, so he should.

More importantly from my viewer/patronage perspective, he should do so as a matter of personal decency and do it publicly on his show in a way so the man can be freed of any audience members who believed what O'Reilly said about him. He owes that much to the judge and I think it is very indecent for him not to correct what he did in a public manner on his shows so the judge can move on with his life properly, especially given he is prone to get on the soapbox about others. If I think he is the type to leave the judge hanging, I may just tune him out altogether because he has an integrity problem beyond just being an entertainer trying to create a niche for self-marketing.

__________________

Sorry dude, but I don't think 13 years is neeeeaaaaarrrrrllllyyyy enough for this non-human. I always have and still think that child rape and molestion (of young children) should be a capital crime.

__________________
The U.N. is right; you can't be any more "un."
Than you are right now, the U.N. is undone.
Another mushroom cloud, another smoking gun.
The threat is real, the Locust King has come.
Don't tell me the truth; I don't like what they've done.
It's payback time at the United Abominations!