Originally posted by Martlet
There you go again. I understand you feel bad that now that you've realized what a fool you are.
It's all about the facts.
He broke the law.
He was sentenced accordingly.
If you don't want to go to jail, don't break the law. Why do hippies always support the criminals?
Better? It isn't a matter of what's "better". It's a matter of fact.
Fact: He chose to break the law.
Fact: He was sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines.
It's a valuable message to other criminals.
Valuable message to criminals? That's not gonna help you fight your way outa the corner.
We're not talking John Gotti here. We're talking about *sigh* (Arlo shakes his head at having to explain such a basic premise to someone who seems apparently smart enough to log onto the internet by themself) ... a
severely handicapped individual that
couldn't serve jail time who was found guilty of a
misdemeanor that the judge seemed to think was
the perfect opportunity to send your .... message to criminals ... via example. An example that resulted in the death of an incarcerated quadrapalegic in a facility that wasn't designed to handle his special needs .... to
live.
That's way too stupid a decision to continue to entrust that judge with her duties.
You don't leave a scalpel in the hand of a surgeon who makes poor decisions at the operating table.
You don't leave a gun in the hand of a police officer who makes bad decisions in the street.
And you don't leave a gavel in the hand of a judge that makes poor decisions behind the bench.
But you just can't grasp
those particular facts, can you? You pretty well made up your mind when you read the topic line, didn't ya?
Well hell, Martie ... if ya can't be honest with yourself, who am I to expect you to be honest with anyone else?
Why do you like arguing yourself into a corner then parading your forehead into a wall while chanting how dumb everyone else is for not admiring your unique ability to do that time and again?
Stop bruising your forehead and try reading the pertinent facts again:
At the center of the many questions surrounding his death is whether D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Department of Corrections did enough to ensure adequate care for the quadriplegic inmate.
(Kinda hard to argue that they DID ... given the circumstances of his DEATH ... dontcha think?)
"I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been punished, because he did smoke the marijuana," his mother, Mary Scott, said yesterday, a day after burying her son. "I just don't think it should have cost him his life."
(Even the mother agrees that there probably should have been a punishment handed out. She doesn't think it should have cost him his life. Call her up and explain to her how valuable an example her son is to other criminals.)
By the standards of D.C. Superior Court, the 10-day sentence rendered by Judge Judith E. Retchin was unusually punitive for a first-time offender such as Magbie. Along with his defense attorney, Boniface Cobbina, a pre-sentence report had recommended probation, and the U.S. attorney's office had not objected.
(Do you understand what the term "standards" means? Do you understand that the judge went
beyond those standards .... even for someone who
wasn't severly handicapped? Of course you don't.)
But Retchin rejected probation alone. A former federal prosecutor who became a Superior Court judge in 1992, Retchin is known to dispense stiff sentences.
(Got a rep to maintain, dontcha know.)
"Mr. Magbie, I'm not giving you straight probation," the judge said, according to a transcript of the Sept. 20 proceedings. "Although you did not plead guilty to having this gun, it is just unacceptable to be riding around in a car with a loaded gun in this city."
(paraphrase - "Because if I let
you get away with running around loose on the streets with your tongue on the trigger of a loaded gun then I'll have to let all the other psychopathic quads in the DC area brought before me for having a loaded tounge gun go free too!")
Details about Magbie's death were first reported by WJLA-TV. Magbie was struck by a drunk driver when he was 4 years old; he was paralyzed from the neck down, and his growth was stunted. Barely five feet tall and 120 pounds,
he moved around on a motorized wheelchair that he operated with his chin.[/size]
(Obvious enough for everyone but Martlet and Judge Judy to grasp.)
In a statement yesterday, Retchin said she was led to believe "that Mr. Magbie's medical needs could be met; this was such an unintended tragedy. I would like to convey my deepest sympathy to Mr. Magbie's family."
(Sorry bout that. Next case.)
Even the Correctional Treatment Facility, a jail annex that houses many inmates with medical or security needs, would not have been able to readily care for a prisoner such as Magbie, Philip Fornaci, executive director of the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, said yesterday.
(EVEN .. the CTF .... which apparently he wasn't sent to. What's that `ol Forrest Gump bit? Stupid is as stupid does? Well now. Defending it to the death seems `bout near as stupid but hopefully you don't bear a position of responsibility in real life so .. no
real threat there, eh?)
