Do people put thought into what they write before sending their letters off to the editor?
I was reading Vivian Ellis’ letter (Oct. 11) regarding Judge Nancy Mills conduct in regards to the Leo Hylton trial for the house break-in and assault on the Guerrette family: “…He should be comfortable with his legal defense.”
Yeah, right! This travesty of justice is an old story with Judge Mills. Her typical sentencing is of the “20 years, all but 2 suspended…” variety.
How do we get rid of these liberal judges and replace them with judges with some spine? I do not know the answer, perhaps someone can shed some light on this subject. This business of letting murderers go free after 15 or 20 years is another example of the failure of our judicial system. The bleeding heart reply to stiffer sentences is, “the jails and prisons are overcrowded.”
Build more and bigger jails, get rid of the cable TVs, commissary, freebie this and freebie that, etc. In my opinion, jails and prisons should not have the “country club” status they have now. That’s a big part of the problem. Check out Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona. Here’s a guy that’s tuned into reality!
Convicted murderers and sex offenders: Issue brown uniforms, glue antlers on their heads and turn them loose into the woods next month! Those that make it get to serve out their sentence.
Finally, what ever happened to the concept of a speedy trial? Lawyer shenanigans can result in a wait of two years, maybe more, for a case to come to trial.
I almost wrote about the referenced letter last week. I decided against it because I told myself most people don’t buy into such inanity. I guess I was wrong.
Quick summary: Guy machete’s a family (which survives). He gets a lawyer. Recently, he asked for a different one and his request was granted. Some mook writes that this is absurd. Now we get the above letter.
Why don’t people understand that bar a few requirements, defendants have a choice in counsel? That anyone would think this absurd is tantamount to saying the Constitution is absurd. But my favorite part of this letter is the reference to a speedy trial. This concept specifically relates to the defendant. What Robert Schena suggests is that the state has a right to a speedy trial. At the very least his criticism should be that it is the fault of the state for allowing the defendant a new lawyer. This doesn’t mean the defendant should be denied his rights because the state is slow to act. To think otherwise is clearly illogical. Of course, this is all moot because Schena hides in language by referring to “lawyer shenanigans”, not any specific event. And if he is referencing this supposed “shenanigan”, then he is wrong. It doesn’t take years.
It’s utterly clear that these people who whine about this sort of thing are just emotional infants who have no concept of individual rights. ‘What? The bad guy wants something? Noooo! Waaaahhh!” Grow up, Schena.