Episode 14 – Will Judges Save Us From Ourselves?

Episode 14

From The Spokesman: While his brother is in prison for molesting another child, he comes out with allegations that he too was molested by his brother many years earlier. Now that his brother is about to released after serving 25 years, he is saying that “I want that son of a bitch to never see the light of day again”.

From My Fox 8 in Greensboro NC. Here’s a clip of a police officer telling the public to be wary of stranger danger; that if you take your eyes off of your kid for a second, that they’ll disappear – and then they will have a situation

From The Intelligence: Pennsylvania State Police have started the process for removing as many as 5,000 ex-offenders from the Megan’s Law registry under a state supreme court mandate and a new law.

From The Brunswick News: In response to the recent school shooting, the author of this article seems to conflate being on fire, with stranger danger. He says that we should Regularly drill students on safety procedures for lockdown and ‘active shooter’ scenarios — Our youngest, a child with developmental delays, is well aware of “Stranger Danger,” as well as the particulars of “Stop, Drop and Roll.” Require monthly lockdown drills, tied to the receipt of state or federal grants to improve school security systems and staffing.

From the The College Fix:A student activist publicly called me a rapist with no evidence. Here’s the toll it took on my life. We’re back to the consequences of allegations.

From National Review: Let Them Wear Bracelets
Instead of unconditional release on bond or parole or probation, use GPS monitoring with a cell phone. An argument is made in the article that 4th amendment claims will be raised.

Describe how the travel ban went into effect, not by judges, but by someone filing some action to compel the judge to act
Judges are like umpires in baseball or referees in football or basketball. Their role is to see that the rules of court procedures are followed by both sides. Like the ump, they call ’em as they see ’em, according to the facts and law—without regard to which side is popular (no home field advantage), without regard to who is “favored,” without regard for what the spectators want, and without regard to whether the judge agrees with the law.

One of my personal problems in this area is that given a VERY guilty individual, given a VERY weak prosecutor, a guilty individual may go free – and vice versa. Given a very innocent individual, given an amazingly crafty prosecutor and innocent person could go to prison

But a judge isn’t necessarily interested in the capacity of the attorneys involved. Just the facts ma’am.

Today, many legislators often say: We don’t need to determine if a Bill is unconstitutional because after it becomes a law, eventually someone will challenge it in court and the courts will do their duty to judge the law.

Rational Basis: Rational relationship between purpose and law. No fundamental rights are involved, nor is there any discrimination based on race or gender.

Intermediate scrutiny: Substantial relationship between purpose and law. Certain cases involving discrimination based on gender and in some cases where the government compels a party to make disclosures.

Strict Scrutiny: Compelling purpose and is Narrowly tailored. Cases involving certain fundamental rights such as free speech or discrimination based on race.


2 thoughts on “Episode 14 – Will Judges Save Us From Ourselves?

  1. Will judges save us from lawmakers?

    Madison v Marbury1803: Judicial review establishment = A panel may void an act.
    That one may have opportunities does not equate to will do. We call this judicial restraint, presuming congress is of constitutional construction in law making. Thus SCOTUS defaulted in review in Whetterling Acts case03. That court did not consider the real question the electronic indenture as a punishment. The point was not considered, or couched in those terms either in Alaska &Conn v doe03.

    Registrants live under the general warrant condition. That is…… if a crime has occurred in your proximity you the sexual offender generally warrant a look by LEOs. If a child disappeared from a community all nearby registrants will be interviewed whether they are ACTUALLY involved is irrelevant. Some waste is apparent since no public interest is served from extraneous information gleaned from a fruitless interviews.

  2. Yes at times I like listening to Larry & Andy to get their view’s of all this sex registry ordeal. While I’m sure all have opinions about this I and I’m sure the average person can get a lot of info out of all this but listening is the key elements in these encounters. Internal evidence is a good factor they tend to use when presenting these cases. but actual intent who can determine that? Sure if one has a “real” victim than its sort of a touch and go issue.
    Today its a bit tough with so much confusion but it really shouldn’t be. Of course there is always going to be crime , but today we have this internet issue and that is a tool they “police” use in these situations that go against the way policing was intended to be as opposed to the earlier years back before the internet.
    Yes we have people in every walks of life getting ensnared in all this internet issue which I believe should be in a separate category by itself but sin is sin if you would like to call it that at least that’s what the bible says. Man has always wanted to be right to dominate others. I couldn’t serve two masters. I still say Judge not or you’ll be judged.
    Decisions always come into play in any opportunity. Being bias against certain sex offender issues is a part of human nature and is totally wrong. Humbling is a lot better and forgiving but in the long run man wants to be right in all aspects but facts and due process do need to play a lot of issues when any ordeal is upon court of law or justice is not being served and nobody win’s. Its all about money and States want to overthrow those that appears to disprspect the law.
    There is a difference in respecting and disrespecting just like there is difference in telling a lie and deceiving or making a choice or a decision.Maybe we should have a law of duping someone in cases of deceptive sexual internet sting operations. These unfair challanges with a plea deal in these internet set-up encounters are very shakey. There is not a lot of balance in these issues when due process is swayed by a plea deal they offer. Actually Judges and PO’s are servants and they are not going to save you. The truth must come out in these ordeals or where is due process down the drain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *