Poetic Justice

>> Essentially, as I wrote earlier, this sentence
>> amounts to a form of house arrest, that we maybe should term "bus
>> arrest".
>> Get it now?
>
> I'm afraid I don't. The child is not confined to the bus

Yes, the child IS confined to the bus, for a very specific amount of time,
just like house arrest. Failure of the child to be ON the bus would be
contempt of court, and would get the 'child' in much more trouble.

> There is a reason minors accused of traffic offenses are required to
> appear in court. Can you guess what it is?

Unequal justice obviously. It could also be a spiteful attempt to punish
the parents for the crimes of their offspring.

In this case, it is obviously so that the judge can enjoy making kids
ry. -Dave

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:14:38 -0400, "Mike T." > wrote:

>> It's not a case of causing a teenager to lose his job because of
>> riding the bus.
>> It's much more a case of consequences, even unintended ones. The fault
>> here is not with the court for the teenager losing his job; that's the
>> fault of the teenager. He's the one who brought this on. It's his
>> responsibility.
>> Placing the responsibility on the court is exactly getting it
>> backwards.
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> replace "g" with "a"
>
>No, the responsibility IS on the court. Losing your job is not a reasonable
>punishment for minor traffic infractions.

The punishment isn't losing a job; the judge did not give a punishment
of losing a job. You seem to not understand this.
>If the usual fine and/or license
>suspention was the punishment, then I'd say the teenager should be willing
>to "do the time" if she's going to "do the crime".

That's what you've nbeen saying, and all the while missing that the
judge has no obligation to hand out "the usual."
>
>Having trouble grasping the unequal justice angle? Imagine if a 35-year-old
>single mom with two kids was caught speeding, say 40 in a 30, and the judge
>imposed house arrest, causing the lady to lose her job. NOW do you see why
>this is so outrageous? Essentially, as I wrote earlier, this sentence
>amounts to a form of house arrest, that we maybe should term "bus arrest".
>Get it now? -Dave
>
I have no problem with the basic concept.
I see that you have a problem understanding that adolescents and
adults are different. Thus, they get treated differently. Sometimes,
more leniently, sometimes less. Sometimes, the punishments they get
meted tot hem *SEEM* more harsh, but are in reality less harsh that a
more lenient sentence would be, because it teaches more, and saving
problems down the road (so to speak).
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

In article .com>,
gpsman > wrote:
>Mike T. wrote:
>> "gpsman" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > Matthew Russotto wrote: <brevity snip>
>> >> If the judge has decided that a 16 year old gets a suspension where a 26
>> >> year old gets a fine, for the same offense under the same
>> >> circumstances, that's not justice.
>> >
>> > Minors are not equal to adults in many legal circunstances. Minors are
>> > "learning" to drive, supposedly. Traffic offenses are not all equal.
>>
>> Yes. That means judges should treat teen drivers no differently than
>> adults. (how else are they going to learn?)
>
>Learn what? I think she's been provided the opportunity to learn not
>to drive like she was driving, and that traffic offenses aren't taken
>lightly by the court.
>
>For all we know this teen was speeding 80 in a 35 residential district.
> And, for all we know, the sentence was for 3 days. It's impossible to
>tell if the punishment fits the crime with the ****-poor reporting of
>the generalities of this case.

Except that the story ALSO reported that the judge has requested that
ALL traffic violations for 16-18 year olds go to her court for this treatment.

>I think not. The maximum sentence for traffic violations often, if not
>always, includes the possibility of jail. An adult demonstrating
>contempt before the bench for the law, the court and the possible
>consequences would likely find their ass in the crossbar hotel. An
>adult could not be ordered to ride a school bus instead.

Merely "not taking seriously" the offense or the fine isn't contempt.

>I'm willing to believe the judge was appropiate in her decision.
>Adults are often made an example for the public to consider before
>acting in a similar manner.

To "make an example" of someone is antithetical to justice.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Bill Funk > wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:23:28 -0500,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Bill Funk > wrote:
>>>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:06:33 -0500,
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>Bill Funk > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In that case, you would be treated as an adult, and wouldn't be given
>>>>>the choice to ride a bus or take the conventional punishment,
>>>>>including the record that went with it.
>>>>>Which is anothe rpoint you forgot: the teens have the choice. If
>>>>>riding the bus means they lose a job, they can choose the conventional
>>>>>punishment.
>>>>
>>>>Which would be fine, except that the judge jacks up the conventional
>>>>punishment (compared to that of older offenders who commit the same
>>>>offense) in order to get the teen to accept the unconventional one.
>>>
>>>Ar eyou saying that the original citation doesn't carry the sentence
>>>the judge gives? I don't see how that's possible.
>>
>>I would assume it carries that as a possible sentence. But it's not
>>the usual sentence.
>
>Well, now, you want to limit the courts to the "usual" sentence?
>I've always thought the judge was able to deliver any punishment
>between the minimum and the maximum.
>No?

The judge has that discretion. But merely because they have that discretion
doesn't mean that any use of it is reasonable. To punish people more
harshly because of their age is abuse of that discretion.

>>If the judge has decided that a 16 year old gets a suspension where a 26
>>year old gets a fine, for the same offense under the same
>>circumstances, that's not justice. Even if, perhaps especially if,
>>the judge is doing that in order to force acquiesence to her own
>>nontraditional punishment.
>
>It's not justice?
>Well, maybe in your world, but here it's not only legal, but if the
>judge determines that such a justice system serves the public, it's
>his duty to do so.

Setting public policy isn't the job of judges.

>Or, do I have the whole thing backwards; is the judge supposed to
>instead deliver a justice that's amenable to the convicted?

They are supposed to deliver equal justice. Equal punishments for
equal crimes. Not one punishment for 19 year olds and a different,
harsher punishment for 17 year olds who commit the same offense.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote: <brevity snip>
> gpsman > wrote:

> >For all we know this teen was speeding 80 in a 35 residential district.
> > And, for all we know, the sentence was for 3 days. It's impossible to
> >tell if the punishment fits the crime with the ****-poor reporting of
> >the generalities of this case.
>
> Except that the story ALSO reported that the judge has requested that
> ALL traffic violations for 16-18 year olds go to her court for this treatment.

"The judge has told every law enforcement agency in her jurisdiction
that all moving traffic citations involving drivers age 16 to 18 must
go before her."

That isn't a "request"... but it is irrelevant other than to
demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension.

>
> >I think not. The maximum sentence for traffic violations often, if not
> >always, includes the possibility of jail. An adult demonstrating
> >contempt before the bench for the law, the court and the possible
> >consequences would likely find their ass in the crossbar hotel. An
> >adult could not be ordered to ride a school bus instead.
>
> Merely "not taking seriously" the offense or the fine isn't contempt.

Perhaps you are unable to imagine yourself behind the bench with a
defendant minor standing before you with arms crossed, looking at the
ceiling, snapping their gum, rolling their eyes and replying to your
questions, "Whatever...".

>
> >I'm willing to believe the judge was appropiate in her decision.
> >Adults are often made an example for the public to consider before
> >acting in a similar manner.
>
> To "make an example" of someone is antithetical to justice.

LOL! I think you better get used to it. A judge may impose the
harshest penalty under the law and need not explain it to anyone.
That's something you will be smart to keep in mind should you ever find
yourself in court. I'll bet this teen, and her peers, never forget it.
-----

- gpsman

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:20:29 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
....
>>
>>Well, now, you want to limit the courts to the "usual" sentence?
>>I've always thought the judge was able to deliver any punishment
>>between the minimum and the maximum.
>>No?
>
>The judge has that discretion. But merely because they have that discretion
>doesn't mean that any use of it is reasonable. To punish people more
>harshly because of their age is abuse of that discretion.

Possibly, but you'll have to go some to make an actual case for that.
>
>>>If the judge has decided that a 16 year old gets a suspension where a 26
>>>year old gets a fine, for the same offense under the same
>>>circumstances, that's not justice. Even if, perhaps especially if,
>>>the judge is doing that in order to force acquiesence to her own
>>>nontraditional punishment.
>>
>>It's not justice?
>>Well, maybe in your world, but here it's not only legal, but if the
>>judge determines that such a justice system serves the public, it's
>>his duty to do so.
>
>Setting public policy isn't the job of judges.

I didn't say it was.
I did say that it's the job of the judge to use discretion to
determine if the punishment serves the public (society).
>
>>Or, do I have the whole thing backwards; is the judge supposed to
>>instead deliver a justice that's amenable to the convicted?
>
>They are supposed to deliver equal justice. Equal punishments for
>equal crimes. Not one punishment for 19 year olds and a different,
>harsher punishment for 17 year olds who commit the same offense.

No, that's not part of a judge's job description.
There's no way to define 'equal justice"; each case must be tried on
its own unique merits. This actually works against equal justice,
since rarely are two cases equal.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

In article .com>,
gpsman > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote: <brevity snip>
>> gpsman > wrote:
>
>> >For all we know this teen was speeding 80 in a 35 residential district.
>> > And, for all we know, the sentence was for 3 days. It's impossible to
>> >tell if the punishment fits the crime with the ****-poor reporting of
>> >the generalities of this case.
>>
>> Except that the story ALSO reported that the judge has requested that
>> ALL traffic violations for 16-18 year olds go to her court for this treatment.
>
>"The judge has told every law enforcement agency in her jurisdiction
>that all moving traffic citations involving drivers age 16 to 18 must
>go before her."
>
>That isn't a "request"... but it is irrelevant other than to
>demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension.

As you say, it's irrelevant, so I'm not going to get into this
particular hair-splitting game.

>> >I think not. The maximum sentence for traffic violations often, if not
>> >always, includes the possibility of jail. An adult demonstrating
>> >contempt before the bench for the law, the court and the possible
>> >consequences would likely find their ass in the crossbar hotel. An
>> >adult could not be ordered to ride a school bus instead.
>>
>> Merely "not taking seriously" the offense or the fine isn't contempt.
>
>Perhaps you are unable to imagine yourself behind the bench with a
>defendant minor standing before you with arms crossed, looking at the
>ceiling, snapping their gum, rolling their eyes and replying to your
>questions, "Whatever...".

Perhaps your reading comprehension extends to reading that which isn't
actually there.

>> >I'm willing to believe the judge was appropiate in her decision.
>> >Adults are often made an example for the public to consider before
>> >acting in a similar manner.
>>
>> To "make an example" of someone is antithetical to justice.
>
>LOL! I think you better get used to it. A judge may impose the
>harshest penalty under the law and need not explain it to anyone.
>That's something you will be smart to keep in mind should you ever find
>yourself in court. I'll bet this teen, and her peers, never forget it.

All you are proving is that your in favor of injustice.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

>
> No, that's not part of a judge's job description.
> There's no way to define 'equal justice"; each case must be tried on
> its own unique merits. This actually works against equal justice,
> since rarely are two cases equal.
> --

OK, a teenager gets busted, let's say for doing 54MPH in a 35MPH speed zone.
One of the local judges has dictated that all teenagers brought up on
traffic charges MUST face her, in her courtroom only (as opposed to one of
many other equally-qualified judges in the same jurisdiction). She does
this as she has a hard-on (probably literally) for making children cry by
imposing creative punishments that have nothing to do with the alleged
crimes. This wack-job sentences a teenager to ride a bus as punishment for
a minor traffic infraction.

Now, a 35-year-old woman gets busted in the same jurisdiction for driving
54MPH in a 35MPH speed zone, and has to face the now legendary teenage
creative justice judge. HOW is miss creative justice going to mete out
equal justice. The two cases ARE equal, and so they demand equal justice.
How is the judge going to do it? I'm waiting. (not holding my breath
ere) -Dave

In article >,
Bill Funk > wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:20:29 -0500,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>...
>>>
>>>Well, now, you want to limit the courts to the "usual" sentence?
>>>I've always thought the judge was able to deliver any punishment
>>>between the minimum and the maximum.
>>>No?
>>
>>The judge has that discretion. But merely because they have that discretion
>>doesn't mean that any use of it is reasonable. To punish people more
>>harshly because of their age is abuse of that discretion.
>
>Possibly, but you'll have to go some to make an actual case for that.

I don't have standing. Probably if this keeps up someone will bring
an appeal, though.

>>>>If the judge has decided that a 16 year old gets a suspension where a 26
>>>>year old gets a fine, for the same offense under the same
>>>>circumstances, that's not justice. Even if, perhaps especially if,
>>>>the judge is doing that in order to force acquiesence to her own
>>>>nontraditional punishment.
>>>
>>>It's not justice?
>>>Well, maybe in your world, but here it's not only legal, but if the
>>>judge determines that such a justice system serves the public, it's
>>>his duty to do so.
>>
>>Setting public policy isn't the job of judges.
>
>I didn't say it was.
>I did say that it's the job of the judge to use discretion to
>determine if the punishment serves the public (society).

You said that if a "justice system serves the public", it's the
judge's duty to impose it. That's setting public policy.

>>>Or, do I have the whole thing backwards; is the judge supposed to
>>>instead deliver a justice that's amenable to the convicted?
>>
>>They are supposed to deliver equal justice. Equal punishments for
>>equal crimes. Not one punishment for 19 year olds and a different,
>>harsher punishment for 17 year olds who commit the same offense.
>
>No, that's not part of a judge's job description.
>There's no way to define 'equal justice"; each case must be tried on
>its own unique merits. This actually works against equal justice,
>since rarely are two cases equal.

O.K. So the next judge to come along announces that all male traffic
offenders should be sent to her court, where she doles out to them fines
which are 60% higher than what she fines female offenders. That would
be justice?

Then the next one comes along and fines all black people the minimum,
while socking all white people with the maximum. Still justice?

This judge isn't trying cases on their merits. This judge has already
pre-determined the basic punishment she will apply to a minor, and she
applies punishment not based on the case, but on the inherent characteristics
of the defendant.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote: <brevity snip>
> gpsman wrote:
> >> Merely "not taking seriously" the offense or the fine isn't contempt.
> >
> >Perhaps you are unable to imagine yourself behind the bench with a
> >defendant minor standing before you with arms crossed, looking at the
> >ceiling, snapping their gum, rolling their eyes and replying to your
> >questions, "Whatever...".
>
> Perhaps your reading comprehension extends to reading that which isn't
> actually there.

You missed the word "imagine".

"Porter Superior Judge Julia Jent got the idea after a girl in her
court for a moving traffic violation appeared not to take seriously
either the offense or the possible fine."

> >> >I'm willing to believe the judge was appropiate in her decision.
> >> >Adults are often made an example for the public to consider before
> >> >acting in a similar manner.
> >>
> >> To "make an example" of someone is antithetical to justice.
> >
> >LOL! I think you better get used to it. A judge may impose the
> >harshest penalty under the law and need not explain it to anyone.
> >That's something you will be smart to keep in mind should you ever find
> >yourself in court. I'll bet this teen, and her peers, never forget it.
>
> All you are proving is that your in favor of injustice.

All you're proving is that you are unable to comprehend differences in
the legal status and rights of minors with probationary licenses and
the rights of discretionary punishment of judges.

Not to mention your inability to discern that you don't have enough
information to make a determination that the teen's punishment was too
harsh; neither her offense, it's severity or the length of punishment
is mentioned in the article. I will type v e r y slowly for your
benefit:

She may have been speeding 70 in a 35... and the sentence to ride the
bus may have been for one day... Your panties are all wadded up and
you really have no idea if they should be or not.
-----

- gpsman