Bit of a calculated risk, though. If the defense can get the jury to buy the insanity defense, then he goes to the loony bin--and, the way things go nowadays, probably gets released in fairly short order. It's the correct move, but risky.
}:-)4
I heard from someone that you are one who thinks like I do. Imagine my surprise when I read that judge thought this was TOO LIGHT! Sorry, I should've said delight!
I will ping the 'someone.'
How quaint, a judge uses his inherent discretion in a way that pleases a given person and hooray for the man in the black robe. But, let the same judge exercise his judicial discretion in another case that displeases the same poster, and the judge becomes a demonic, usurping judicial tyrant. Thus, it's situational ethics and partisan predispositions that drive the opinion of an observer. It is subjectively based and not founded in objective analysis.
"I feel a responsibility to society," Oakland County Circuit Court Judge John J. McDonald said in rejecting the deal prosecutors and defense attorneys had worked out. The judge said a prison term of 22 1/2 to 34 years was too light for the crime.
So often we see folks complaining about the judges on the bench, O Reilly will even take a few to task. So, when I read what this guy had to say, well we should first say, he is doing his job and bravo. But, when so few seem to be stepping up as Judge McDonald did today than perhaps we need to go that extra step and really voice our appreciation. I hope a few will agree.
C'mon, he was performing a retroactive abortion. Nothing wrong with that. /SARCASM
111 times? Talk about compulsive.
I wonder if this kid was ever taken to church or if he could list the 10 commandments. I would think not.
If she had just left him alone, he would have found someone else to kill.
It's obviously her own fault.
So9
My congratulations go to Judge McDonald.
My mom was friends with Diane. She would always look forward to the lunches they had each month. Loosing a friend is always hard, but they way it happened in this case - you can't imagine the shock, confusion and sicking feelings. The judge did the right thing.
Another "what happened to dad" story.
Ok, one reasonable judge out of how many?
Take the rest out and stone them.
It makes sense if we knew the time off for good behavior calculation.
It's just me but, I think the insanity defense will fly.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
As a lawyer, I have a few thoughts about this case. First of all, no one has mentioned that an insanity defense is entirely inconsistent with even an attempted plea bargain. When you plead insanity, you must convince the jury that you were incapable of comprehending the wrongful nature of your acts at the time the crime was committed. But a plea bargain involving a guilty plea is an entirely rational act based on enlightened self-interest. In fact, before any such guilty plea can be accepted, the trial judge must first ascertain, on the record, that it was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and that there is an adequate factual and legal basis for the plea. For the defendant in this case to offer to "waive" the issue of his alleged mental incapacity in exchange for a lesser prison term makes no sense if he was, in fact, mentally infirm. Of course, the jury will never be given the opportunity to learn all this until after the trial's over, so . . .
Second, I must disagree wit those who think an insanity plea would probably work if the defendant had a slick enough lawyer. Insanity pleas work best in cases when there is no apparent motive, and this case doesn't appear to fall into that category. Likewise, the utter brutality and wanton cruelty of a given attack can generally be turned against the defendant by a skillful prosecutor. So all in all, I think the defense team is quite unhappy right now -- which is generally a good sign to anyone but the criminal defense bar and the ACLU.
Finally, as to the alleged tendency of some here to decry "judicial activism" except when it pleases the poster, one must keep in mind that what this judge did is explicitly permitted under the law of nearly every state. What tends to bother me is when judges attempt to justify the exercise of raw, virtually unrestrained judicial power which is barely constitutionally permissible by claiming that it is actually constitutionally mandated.
Hey friends, just wanted to say thanks for the terrific comments. I also wanted to add a pet peeve and that this news article got moved to "general/chat."
Why the frustration. Well, in the last few months, judges and their inabilities have been brought up in the NATIONAL news quite a bit. The guy from Vermont to another most recent named Conner.
Nationally folks are angry. They feel that many aren't doing their jobs.
Than an article showing a judge DOING his duties becomes available. In a case that has received quite of bit of attention. It wasn't a ho hum article, it was one of judicial action. I am sure there is a more legal/professional word but the judge decided to the right thing. Again, I am sure there is a legal term of how his ruling, that he denied the plea deal, differed from a judge who say tries to change a sentence (the reduction of a sex offender's sentence).
This judge should be praised, this article should be passed along to your newspaper's, other judges should be made aware of McDonald's actions, to remind them of how judges should judge from the bench.
Sorry for the rant, I really thought more of this article than "general/chat" this imho was an impressive judge ... JUST DOING HIS JOB.