More from the "Just-Us" files
Putting on my lawyer hat for a minute, I would like to get your opinion on the following from lay perspective (and a lawyer perspective too - Ryan).
The Deputy did have a trial and was "sentenced"... Not surprisingly the legal blawgosphere is abuzz with astonishment, not just over what happened but also the showdown...
Just thinking if he was on our side of the American just-us system if he would have gotten different treatment? Maybe say, like this guy? Or how about this guy? Or maybe these folks? Nah, I think such treatment he got was more in line with this guy...
Could it be the rise of paramilitary forces in police ranks might be tipping the balance in favor of the cops? Or how about the longstanding treatment of folks on that side of the just-us system? Thoughts? Comments?
Look here for a new free tool to look up case law... Not on par (yet) with Westlaw or Lexis, but hey, it's free... And you already know how to search using the logic as opposed to learning boolean logic to search the paid sites.
I'm not sure if Judges in Arizona are elected or not, which can make a difference in their rulings. Sheriff Joe in Phoenix (head of Sheriff Dept.) seems like an asshole to me, but the voters like him.
But there are a lot of people who instinctively back the cops; who say that a person wouldn't be accused if he hadn't done something wrong or blame people for "being in the wrong neighborhood." And it's pretty tough to get a conviction against a police officer, jailer, or police department in court.
But there are plenty of times that justice doesn't get done even if a person isn't a cop. Check this story out:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/11/23/charles-diez-gets-120-days-for-shooting-cyclist-in-the-head/
Guy shoots someone in the back of the head in front of that person's child and only gets 120 days.
I think the actions of the deputy really just reflect on the leadership in that department (Joe Aripo) who never backs down or apologizes and always tries to humiliate both the accused and the convicted.
I don't think that the deputy will get away with it this time; even if it is appealed, this is a sheriff messing with lawyers in the Courtroom. Judges feel that is their sole perogoative. The deputy is supposed to follow their orders, not vice versa.
Structurally, we have a political system where if someone takes steps to protect the rights of the accused, they are pilloried for "coddling criminals" or being "soft on crime." So there isn't much of an incentive to help stregthen due process anymore, and the reforms of the Warren Court have all been gradually scaled back.
Reply to this