It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Legal system - Collapse

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
The whole family sat around the dinner table and we had a discussion about a 40 year old man who living in Montana had sex with his 12 year old daughter..



The state recommended a prison sentence of 100 years with 75 years suspended, meaning he would spend 25 years in prison.


The victims mother and grandmother pleaded to the judge with these words;



'Not a monster'

"He needs help - not to spend 25 years locked up, "He has two sons that still love him and need their father in their lives, even with very understandable restrictions. I would like to see my children have an opportunity to heal the relationship with their father. "He is not a monster, just a man that really screwed up and has been paying in many ways since and will continue to have to pay through this justice system and with the loss of family and friends and his own conscience."


The girl's maternal grandmother also wrote a letter to the court, saying:



"What [the defendant] did to my granddaughter was horrible, and he should face consequences. "But his children, especially his sons, will be devastated if their dad is no longer part of their lives."


The laws are there to protect the citizens of a society, they are not of moral lessons, they are dogmatic in case of events like these happen..
If the person wasnt caught, he would still abuse and sexually "rape" his daughter of twelve..

If 70.000 Signatures demand another sentence it means, the people made a decision, that the sentence is wrong based on moral intent..
The mans intention was a perversion that is in our modern society illegal..

Our conclusion at the dinner table came with a set of words;" Maybe God forgives our sins, but that doesnt mean Society fails and even promote sexual deviancy, we are just animals.. And if the reward is higher than the punishment, you can be sure most humans will act out..

The Judge is looking at impeachment, even though he is retiring, he should be impeached and judged.. According to the rules a man brought down from a mountain several thousands of years ago.

BBC - Article
edit on 20161025 by tikbalang because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: tikbalang

There are crimes for which, once guilty verdict has been reached, no judge ought to set terms, but which must come with automatic, and totally binding terms for incarceration, or in capital cases, death. The judge in such cases ought, once verdict has been passed, be powerless to prevent the maximum sentence being handed down, regardless of public outcry, regardless of appeals from family, regardless of the instructions of political entities. Justice cares not for these mundane, petty things. Only that the innocent are protected from the guilty, and the guilty punished for their crimes.

As I have had to point out more than once this week, Justice must be served by law. In this instance, the judge has ensured that the ends of justice are not served, and this in and of itself ought to be a crime. Disgusting, wrong, and in RAPID need of correction.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit


Few laws are done precisely in black and white standards. Law by its very nature is not intended to be such.
To be so rigid would be rather Fascist.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

Few laws, yes. Not all by any means. No one is suggesting that a parking ticket or a possession offence need come with mandatory minimum sentences (although in some places, it has been known for mere possession of a thing to be enough to jail a person).



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: tikbalang

There are crimes for which, once guilty verdict has been reached, no judge ought to set terms, but which must come with automatic, and totally binding terms for incarceration, or in capital cases, death. The judge in such cases ought, once verdict has been passed, be powerless to prevent the maximum sentence being handed down, regardless of public outcry, regardless of appeals from family, regardless of the instructions of political entities. Justice cares not for these mundane, petty things. Only that the innocent are protected from the guilty, and the guilty punished for their crimes.

As I have had to point out more than once this week, Justice must be served by law. In this instance, the judge has ensured that the ends of justice are not served, and this in and of itself ought to be a crime. Disgusting, wrong, and in RAPID need of correction.


The problem is the common sense and the law do not necessarily line up. Rapists, serial killers, Chomos, Murderers can all go take a dirt nap as far as I am concerned. The problem is you get these weak cases or special circumstance issues where you need someone to apply some common sense. There has to be some ability of a judge to use some discretion.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: tikbalang

The laws are there to protect the citizens of a society, they are not of moral lessons

Law is nothing but one big moral lesson. Every law ever written since the dawn of law has been rooted in morality (or a twisted sense there of). Law is exactly that, a means to coerce morality.


If the person wasnt caught, he would still abuse and sexually "rape" his daughter of twelve.

Yeah, probably, as sad as that is.


Our conclusion at the dinner table came with a set of words;" Maybe God forgives our sins, but that doesnt mean Society fails and even promote sexual deviancy, we are just animals

I beleive that is exactly how the family felt -- forgiveness.


The Judge is looking at impeachment, even though he is retiring, he should be impeached and judged.. According to the rules a man brought down from a mountain several thousands of years ago.

Not a particular smart or just decision, but the Judge was following the law as the article also notes:

But the law states that the defendant can argue for a lesser punishment if an evaluator recommends treatment of the offender in a local community.

In his decision, Judge McKeon, of Valley County District Court, cited a report prepared by Michael Sullivan, a specialist, who said the defendant could be "safely treated" in the community, court documents showed.

According to the records, the prosecution did not contest the findings.

Should the law, the specialist, the judge, the prosecution, the family, or society be held accountable for a misgiving (whether actual or perceived) in sentencing?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
and that's the difference between a justice system and a legal system.
The end goal of a justice system is to seek and dispense justice.
The end goal of a legal system is to ensure that all the legalities have been performed and carried out correctly.
The very nature of a legal system makes it incapable of dispensing justice.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join