Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

Amazing!

August 17th, 2010, Promulgated by Vox Clara

A jury fails to convict a man who is as guilty as sin of anything more than one of his most minor crimes. Granted, the jury was hung and there may yet be a conviction in a retrial, but how does the governor who said: “I’ve got this thing, and it’s [expletive] golden. I’m just not giving it up for [expletive] nothing.” concerning a senate seat manage not to be convicted of all kinds of political corruption! I apologize for the rant, but I find this obscene.

Tags: , ,

|

4 Responses to “Amazing!”

  1. avatar Robert says:

    Who are you to cast the stone? Stay out of non Church related items. This site is getting too political!

  2. avatar Jim R says:

    Gotta agree with Robert. Whatever your personal opinion, the system provides that a person is presumed innocent and it is the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I’ve seen corrupt and dishonest prosecutors – so bad that Judges have come close to throwing them in jail for contempt. Add incompetence to that, too. I’ve also seen people pressured into pleading guilty when they never thought themselves guilty of anything. I am personally knowledgeable of one person who plead guilty to lying to the FBI where the “lie” he “told” is nowhere in the FBI notes. From the bench a judge in another matter where this came out exclaimed she had never heard of such a thing. The guy got probation with no jail time and didn’t bankrupt his family fighting the charge. There’s lots of reasons why people plead when they did nothing wrong. I know of others who have plead because they did not have the money or emotional stability to fight a multi-year battle. Make no mistake, many in the DOJ – and presumably DAs in many places – care little beyond their careers; certainly justice and prosecuting according to the rules often is irrelevant.

    Just because the government charges someone, does NOT make them guilty. It’s a joke among lawyers that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich if he so wishes. I actually heard an Assistant US Attorney say at a public forum, that her office would now arrest all people indicted because “people guilty of crimes should be arrested.” Scary – imagine a AUSA not knowing an indictment is not a conviction. Scarier, that a AUSA does not know the law. Scariest, an AUSA thinks she is prosecutor, judge and jury!

    I’m no fan of Blogo, but he like anyone else is due the presumption that the law gives.

    I suggest the proper response is to be glad the system usually works reasonably well; acknowledge it’s imperfect and be humble when the result is not what you want or think it should be – and always wonder if a mistake or improper conduct led to injustice.

  3. avatar Christopher says:

    Robert, keep in mind this is an opinion based blog. It’s not sanctioned by an organization last I knew. A blog can be about anything. They could write about Bret Favre’s return to the Vikings tomorrow if they wanted.

    They’re free to write whatever they want, your free to read it or not. Kinda like what Howard Stern says: “If you don’t like me, just change the dial”

    Personally I understand your frustration though as I skip/skim most of the non-DOR related articles myself. There simply is too much information to take in within the course of a day so you have to be diligent about what you spend time on (that goes for any reading).

    That said, you could voice your concerns to people individually via email which might carry more weight than inflaming them in front of their readers.

  4. avatar Vox Clara says:

    Don’t worry Christopher, there’s very little chance of my getting embroiled in a flame war; I’ve got better things to do with my time.

    More generally, I do not intend to focus much on politics on this site; I think my previous posts, few though they may be, do show this. Every once in a while though, something really catches my attention and I have a hard time not commenting. If people don’t like this, then the best thing that they can do is communicate such with clarity and charity. While the only people I will definitely comply with are the admins, I am open to the opinions of others.

    I do find it rather telling that nobody who objected to my post has attempted to argue for Blagojevich’s innocence. From what I’ve seen of this case, the man really seems to have proven himself guilty and I do find it frustrating that there is still a chance that he might be let off.

    Jim, you’ve made some very good points in your comment. I only wish that I could agree with you more when you say that the system works reasonably well. I’ve definitely gotten the sense here that prosecutors were grasping at straws with some of the charges, but certain others involving corruption and extortion seem a bit more obvious from the kinds of things that the former governor said. Then again, it seems now that half the problem with just making a decision was confusion over legalise; no surprises there.

    Anyway, I hope that clears things up a bit. Either way, I’ll at least listen to my critics, but if my posts irritate you too much, then don’t read them.

Leave a Reply


Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.


-Return to main page-