The follow has been reported in various news media upon the initial court appearance of Jared Loughner in Federal Court in Phoenix, AZ today the following...
..."Jon Sands, the federal public defender for Arizona, wrote in the motion that qualified local public defenders either declined to take the case or found conflicts of interest in representing Loughner and therefore must step aside.
"Given the gravity of the charges, the possibility of the death penalty, and our discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s office concerning the charges, we believe that death-qualified counsel must be appointed," Sands says in the motion."....
So what does this mean? Well it means this...."The suspect in a deadly Arizona shooting is being held without bail and has been assigned a lawyer who defended Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Timothy McVeigh."
OK , I have no problem with this individual having his day in court, and being afforded right to counsel, and being presumed innocent until proven guilty as our Constitution provides for. These are basic rights afford to all citizens and even non citizens by this country and these rights were put forth into the Constitution some 200+ years ago by our "Founding Fathers" and it's is one of the "blocks" which make our nation great...
However, since the Founding Father's wrote the Constitution much has evolved to the point now that our Judicial System has turned into an absolute "circus"....
I believe that Loughner has a right to a lawyer and that lawyer should and must be competent. Based upon the gravity of the charges would he be eligible for bail? No. Obviously he is a threat or danger to society so therefore he should be held without bail until trial.
Now this is where the Judicial system will become the "Circus"...
His attorney will obviously try and put forth a defense to avoid the death penalty. Insanity will be probably the way to go. After all, that is the only remote chance she has and I didn't go to Harvard Law School to see this....
She will begin acting in his behalf just as the Federal prosecutors will begin putting together their case to convict him and I would be shocked if the death penalty wasn't asked for.
One note here is the fact that every lawyer in the Federal Public Defenders office has taken a "pass" on this case. Really because of "conflicts" or the "declining to take this case"?. How about because they are smart enough to realize that there is no way in hell they could get this guy off!!!!!! Yes, everyone is presumed innocent as a basic preamble to being found guilty. However, let's take a brief review of the "facts" as they exist before hand.
***Was he at the scene of the shooting? YES!!!
***Is is he owner of the handgun used in the shooting? YES!!!
***Are there independent witness who will be able to testify that they saw him shoot these people? YES!!!
***Was he the individual who was observed shooting these people and subsequently subdued at the scene by several bystanders? YES!!!
Now, once of the basic tenants in the judicial system is an individual charged with a crime must be found guilty beyond a "reasonable doubt" (with beyond "reasonable doubt" being what the normal person would reach a conclusion when presented with the facts or evidence in the case...)
Now, if I haven't made my case for the guilt of this individual to this point based upon my my four points of facts then perhaps I am being the one unreasonable here. From my years in law enforcement I believe based upon those fur facts there is a preponderance of evidence to convict this individual....but if these isn't then let me just move forward another couple of "degrees" here....
Will the forensic investigations well as subsequent investigation produce additional evidence to support intent? More than likely.... YES!!!! Investigations usually do and one of this magnitude will leave nothing unturned.
Now, lets get back to his defense lawyer. It will be her goal to show "insanity" a a defense to avoid the death penalty and allow her defendant to live his life out somewhere locked up until he does take his last breath something that 6 people as of Saturday morning are now denied, including one 9 year old girl who had many many years ahead of her to live.
So the "circus" that will now play out will consist of many motions put forth by his attorney to show that in fact he was insane, supported by court order psychiatric evaluations and expert testimony to support these claims countered by evidence to show that he was in fact "sane" at the time by the prosecution, although on "first blush" one might think a "normal" person wouldn't pre-meditate killing any person, let alone planning on killing as many as possible for no valid reason. However, people do kill for a variety of reason without a bonifide reason or purpose simply because we as a species are that way.
So this who judicial process will now carry on for months upon months and probably for several years until he is eventually found guilty. However, that will only be the beginning, since in all likelihood he will be found guilty and sentenced to death. This will kick in the next phase of the "circus". The appeal process followed by the fact that for whatever reason be it the media attention, the fact that one of his victims was a federal judge that this individual could not possibly get a fair trial. So the "circus" will continue not for months but for years and years before it finally ends in all likelihood with his execution. Only then will this circus be over.
In all likelyhood the years will pass by and I will finally myself be dead and buried before he is....it will be that long of a process.
But let me take this back to perhaps what the process should be when the Founding Fathers wrote this into the Constitution...
She he have a speedy trial? YES,
A trial by jury? YES
Should he be able to confront his accusers? YES
Should the evidence be put forth to show his guilt or innocence? YES
So why can this all be done within a reasonable time frame. Not months upon month stretching into years, but say within 6 months. Shouldn't his lawyer be able to do what she needs to do within this time frame??? I would think so. After all she will be getting paid a very good salary for being his legal counsel.
Then once he is convicted if in fact he is. Then one appeal should be allowed and this appeal should take no more than 6 months to heard and reviewed. Then once a judgement is rendered and if in fact it is determined that he is guilty then the sentence should stand and if it involves the death penalty then have it carried out 2 weeks after the final decision is returned.
I would really like to see a judge with a big set of "C O JONES" say at the arrangement in the next month or so to the attorneys involved on both sides...prosecution and defense, the following...
"I am going to set this for trial in 6 months ...have your case ready for trial"...
"Prepare your motions to be heard in 3-4 months"...
I will set one day for the prosecution to present their case and I will set one day for the defense to put on their case"....then I'll set one day for the jury to deliberate the facts of this case".
Simple and to the point.
If we did it that way I think we'd be doing the judicial process the way the Founding Fathers thought it should be and not the way the judicial system has turned into the "three Ring Circus" it is now....
At least this is what I think "From Where I sit".....
No comments:
Post a Comment