View Single Post
Old December 9, 2008, 10:14 PM   #17
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 3,482
(Sigh....), I cannot resist. But I will attempt to comment in a respectful manner, consistent with the spirit of this new forum. Thanks for letting me participate in here!

The Judge's decision is a unjust and completely subjective, and is devoid of a sound legal basis. The Judge dismissed the case because of completely irrelevant events concerning 9/11; moreover, this subjectivity is the type that is often unfairly applied to different defendants.

The dismissal was based on the defendant's actions on 9/11, as well as plea offers that were given to the defendant. But what about the construction worker, the waiter, the homeless man, and all of the rest of us who didn't happen to find a flag on 9/11? This is the problem with the Judge's decision, as well as the statutory basis that provided for the same: subjectivity. Now, I understand that all judicial decisions are subjective to a certain degree; but at least most of them are subjectiviely based on the Constitution, or some less-subjective statutory basis. Why not just dismiss the case on 2nd Amendment or 4th Amendment grounds? If the defendant had the right to keep an arm, then hold that (2nd Amendment basis); if the police lacked the proper basis to enter defendant's residence without a warrant, then hold that (4th Amendment basis). But for goodness sake, don't dismiss the case because the defendant is someone special, for special reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the case, or that may cause a Prosecutor to hesitate to extend plea offers in the future.

The very basis of our criminal justice system is evenly applied justice, based on solid Constitutional and/or statutory grounds. Grounds that apply to everyone, regardless of who they are, who they know, and other subjective (and completely) irrelevant reasons that have nothing to do with the case. Substitute the 9/11 rationale for, "the defendant is a close friend of the King, having provided excellent counsel for the King in the most pressing of our times", and you'll understand what I mean.

I'm not pretending to know much about the statute, and I've only read the last link that was kindly provided by Anti. But it seems to me that the case was dismissed based on who the defendant was, rather than on a violation of rights that would also apply to everyone. And that is a poor application of justice, if you can even call it that.

My flame suit is on.
Fremmer is offline  
Page generated in 0.03590 seconds with 7 queries