David McNelis (dmcnelis) wrote, @ 2004-01-23 08:28:00

Current mood:	awake
Current music:	Heating duct over my head

I don't agree with this judge
Its been awhile since I really posted anything on this blog, but, as the political season is heating up, I'm sure I'll have more to say.

On another not, USA Today is carrying this story about former South Dakota Governor and Representative Bill Janklow. For those unfamiliar with this political figure, he ran a stop sign while speed and killed a motorcyclist. On his behalf he made no excuses for his actions. However, he recieved a paltry 100 days in jail for being convicted of MANSLAUGHTER. I recogonize that this man worked as a public servant, and I understand that people, when truly sorry should be forgiven. However, there is also a little bit of redemption involved as well. Being a motorcyclist I think this guy should be made an example of, because he is a public figure, we should be showing people that you don't just get a slap on the wrist for driving recklessly and killing someone.

Other news, Democratic Presidential nominees had a debate last night in New Hampshire. Unfortunately I only managed to catch a few minutes of it, but it was a good debate in my opinion, from the bits and pieces I saw. You can find writeups about it on any of the major news websites, CNN, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, and a host of blog, so I'm not going to bother to link to it. The funniest part of the night was when Al Sharpton addressed remarks to Howard Dean that he would still be "hootin and Hollerin'" if he spent that much money in Iowa and only got 18% of the caucuses. All in all, the candidates avoided taking pot shots at each other, and focused on the issues that questioners such as Peter Jennings posed to them, and some answered eloquently, such as John Kerry on the topic of veterans affairs. Others answered as though they barely knew what they were talking about, Al Sharpton on who he would choose to head the federal reserve.

On a personal note, I'll try to do better about posting regularly on this stuff.

dsf3158 2004-01-23 12:41 (link)

Just a quick note...the criminal system does not care about redemption for the victim or their family, so it shouldn't play a role. The civil system is where the victims can try and get redemption and be "made whole again" if they choose. And, the family is bringing a wrongful death suit against the guy, so they will get some redemption, but they shouldn't expect it from the criminal system because that is not its purpose. In regards to the sentence, it is a little bit short, but there are usually other factors that we may not be aware of...I don't trust any source in the media to give us the full story. They did mention something about him being a diabetic and that contributing to the crash, so the judge could have considered it as a mitigating factor in the sentencing. Either way, reckless manslaughter usually does not carry all that significant of punishment, especially with traffic incidents. I do think a 2-3 year sentence would have been better...but the I don't think the criminal justice system should ever be used to make an example of anyone. Anyway, just though I would comment...talk to you later (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Not so much redemption for the family dmcnelis 2004-01-23 12:57 (link)
	As much as the kind of precedent these kinds of rulings are constantly setting. I mean, he killed another human being and will spend less than a year in Jail. People who get busted for pirating copyrighted material are facing harsher punishments. I can't find the article right now, but if I do I'll link to the case I'm refering to. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Not so much redemption for the family dsf3158 2004-01-23 13:32 (link)

First, the sentencing has no precedential value whatsoever, the only thing that has precedential value will be the decision concerning the manslaughter. I don't disagree with the discrepancies between the punishments for the crimes, a human life versus intellectual property...but the legislatures usually make the laws concerning the sentencing requirements. The problem in South Dakota is that they don't have a minimum sentencing provision, which from my understanding is unusual, at least I hope so. Again though, the redemption of the family is irrelevant to criminal justice system, the CJ system concentrates solely on the defendant and their actions. I am not saying that this is right, it is just the way it is. The family's opportunities for redemption, if it wants it, is through the civil system, which focuses on the victim. Granted, any type of suit is not going to bring back a deceased family member, but that is the remedy the law affords for victims. If you can find that case, I would be interested in reading about it. Talk to you later.... (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)