On whether Judges do or should punish defendants for going to trial, Anonymous writes:
The Judges are not punishing people who go to trial. That is silly. The defendants get convicted, and then they get an appropriate sentence. What IS happening is that people get REWARDED for NOT going to trial by getting a lower sentence than is appropriate. This is entirely fair, and appropriate.
Before Rumpole can manage a reply, quick as a cat, Mr. Richard Hersch, who we have dubbed THE ELDER STATESMAN, steps in front of us and eloquently responds:
Anonymous presents simple logic. simple minded logic. My client doesn’t give two shakes about whether the extra jail is a punishment or a "lack of reward". Charging rent on a courtroom is a shameless effort to chill basic rights. not in an effort to make the system more fair, the verdicts more reliable, just more "efficient.
Picking ourselves up from the floor after the BUMP from Hersch, we brush ourselves off and add: We would love a Judge to weigh in on this. The topic is good, hot, current and important.
COMING MONDAY: BOBBY REIFF IS NOT AFRAID TO SIGN HIS NAME. READ WHAT HE HAS TO SAY, MONDAY, IN A RUMPOLE EXCLUSIVE.
Is Finch out of his mind when he writes that the judges are afraid of the Herald. Does this man practice in Dade County?
ReplyDeleteIf Judges were so afraid of the Herald why would they offer 90 percent of the career criminals who dont face minimum mandatory sentences the bottom of the sentencing guidelines right before trial?
IF they were so concerned about the Herald, why would the Judges engage in this charade in which they switch calendars with each other so that thier colleague can offer defendant's a low ball plea offer and they can still max the guy after trial and not seem vindictive?
If the Judges were so concerned about the Herald, Why, As Rumpole has noted, Would they sentence someone with no prior arrests to jail becuase they went to trial?
If Judges were so concerned about the Herald why would they try to brow beat all the parties into settling every case without a trial?
Which brings me to a second thought. Why do people who dont want to try case or decide anything become Judges in the first place? I know the money the retirement blah blah blah but really you gotta do alot of unpleasant things to get elected and stay elected. You have to grovel for money from people who will no doubt appear before you. You have to go to alot of rubber chicken dinners and go to alot of kiwanis club meetings. You have to subject yourself to the embarrasing JNC process and interviews with the Herald. Why go through all that headache if you really dont want to do what Judges are supposed to do in the first place?
Which brings up a third issue which I think you ought to addres rump-- Should Judges even offer pleas at all before trial?