Posted on 05/28/2002 5:04:16 PM PDT by marshmallow
The "process" is over when the defendant is found guilty(until the appeal). Punishment is supposed to be pre-prescribed and based upon nothing but the crime. No "representation" needed.
You also need a lawyer to make sure your rights are not trampled on, like the car thief's were.
LOL!! He had counsel, was found guilty, mother refused to pay, kid lost unpaid counsel for restitution hearing, which is a civil matter, no matter how screwed up courts have made civil v.s. criminal law.
Also, if the prosecution is going to have a lawyer representing the state, then the defendent is allowed a lawyer to represent him, especially involving criminal matters.
The prosecution is the "lawyer" representing the State. The perp represents himslef/herself in sentencing - only the crime matters, which has pre-prescribed penalties. No "representation" needed in civil restitution hearings.
Civil trials involve loss.
Yes, they do.
The restitution is part of the punishment in the criminal matter, and a condition of probation.
Yes, a screwed up court system has intertwined civil and criminal law. Makes no difference to me - its not Constitutional, nor does it follow common law.
If I remember correctly, the people who had their cars stolen can still take him to court for their losses, repair bills, lost wages, etc, etc, even though he was ordered to pay restitution.
Only a fool sues a convict without money. The injured parties(the person who was stolen from) and not the STATE, should direct prosecution. If the person wishes to get civil restitution in leu of prison time, that should be their right. The courts, by instituting restitution in leu of jail time, have screwed up the distinctions between criminal and civil law. I will not entertain screwed up 20th century legal gobblygook.
Spoiled wise ass brat defendant
enabling parent who should also be forced to pay restitution for not keeping her kid in school.
Imagine of one of them happened to look like the violent rapist they're looking for in my area & they got arrested because they happened to look like the guy. They could be beaten and tortured until a confession is extracted, they could be denied representation, even a trial, much less a trial by jury, and once found guilty, be taken out and shot, and that could happen in a matter of days, if not hours. See, that's what it's like when anarchy reigns.
But I see none of them waiving their Constitutional protections, but are more than willing to waive them for others.
Yes, lets throw out wild scenarios to obscure the fact that Elias was found guilty and knew of pre-prescribed penalties - none of which an attorney has any say over. Restiution is a civil matter, no matter what courts have "ruled". The courts screwed up when they intertwined civil and criminal law. I do not recognize illegal, immoral laws - and neither should you. But you are employeed by the court system, so you wouldn't really care as longs as you are getting paid. Thats what's wrong with the country.
Yeh, sure. You and the wannabe lawyer are the only ones arguing on the boy's behalf. The facts are that the court system is screwed up. You seem to not understand that.
And thats double jeopardy, no matter what courts have ruled.
The disheartening part of this whole scenario is that you are probably correct.
Juan Carlos Elias will end up wriggling out of the ordered restitution of $4,608.94 (the victim's out of pocket costs, according to the article) because some lawyer with a burning desire to see his/her name in the St. Petersburg Times will petition an appelate court to overturn the judgement because Elias' rights to due process were "violated". Yet everybody is OK with that presumably because of their undying love and respect for the Constitution.
Yea, thats it. Absolve the perp of responsibility for his actions, screw the victim out of the court ordered (fair and reasonable) restitution, screw the taxpayers with a six figure court cost invoice, smack down the newbie judge, all in the name of protecting the Constitution.
I must have mistakenly logged on to the Democratic Underground, because this hue and cry makes no sense to me at all.
Once again, this is backwards. If the judge had complied with the law and the Constitution, and hadn't gotten found out by someone getting a copy of the tape of the hearing from court personnel and reporting on it (God forbid--maybe we shouldn't allow reporters inside a courtroom), the kid wouldn't be going to the appellate court and he'd be paying restitution. Because the Judge messed up and got found out, the kid now has the perfect right to go to the appellate court and get the judge's ruling overturned. Now it just may happen that the appellate court will reverse the judge, but send this back to the lower courts--but not to this judge--for a new hearing, but none of that would have had to have happened if the judge would've followed the Constitution.
The judge messed up Big Time.
All that without posting a picture? Shame :)
If you want to vent rage at the system, vent it at the broken part here, the judge. He's sitting in a criminal court and needs a repeat of L1. This mistake is trivial, and easily corrected. The next one may not be.
You're laughable. First, you confuse criminal with civil law because you can't discern the obvious difference. You haven't done one iota of legal research to back up your claim that "they intertwined civil and criminal law." How so? Provide your proof--and I'll help you out: Findlaw. Give me a few case cites that the judiciary has intertwined civil and criminal laws and I'll be happy.
But see, you negate your argument by saying that you "do not recognize illegal, immoral laws." Give me a list of the laws you don't obey. If you can't give me a list, give me an overview. How about Constitutional amendments you don't like? Com'n, share with us. I just didn't realize the law and the Constitution had a Chinese menu aspect to them--pick one law from column A, pick one law from column C, but substitute from column B. Interesting approach.
I'm not employed by the court system. I work for lawyers in private practice. They pay me, not any governmental agency. And honey, I don't really need the money. I very much enjoy what I'm doing, and that includes thwapping around silly little boys like you.
I do believe that's what I've been saying, but it's falling on deaf ears.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.