My cousin richard and i held an interesting discussion on judicial double-standards and judicial hypocrisy re: Damned if u do; Damned if u dont. Its like a double-sided coin where its always Heads I win; Tails u lose! Cant win for losing! One step forward, two steps back! (Okay, forgive the corny cliches! I take it you get the point by now) Our discussion entailed examples of how a judge will use WHATEVER trait, quality, or characteristic of a Defendants and spin it however necessary to do so, and hold the same said trait, quality, or characteristic against them - And the kicker is: This occurs NO MATTER whether or regardless whether the traits are good, bad, or indifferent. To illustrate the point, chew on this: Defendant John happens to be a very gregarious individual; high on the social ladder; many friends - as John is friendly and outgoing and highly esteemed/respected in the business community. Okay, so the judge will use those otherwise positive or healthy or good traits AGAINST John when it comes to items on the judicial agenda such as bail-considerations; sentencing duration; aggravating v. mitigating factors; parole recommendations (or lack thereof); etc. For instance, her Honor might say, Given the fact that John has many connections and contacts in the business world and the fact that he is so outgoing, it is this courts belief that John is an endangerment to society. His great exposure to such a large number of individuals places more individuals at risk of becoming victimized. John can use his contacts in the tri-state area in ways that are criminal and non-conducive to productive societal membership. The more people John comes in contact with (and due to his outgoing nature and successful business model, this number is great) the greater the risk posed. Therefore, due to Johns gregarious behavior; extroverted personality; and exceptional corporate and people-skills, we feel that John is not an amenable candidate for rehabilitation and that he is a flight-risk due to his multi-state contacts, and so accordingly, we will make point to put it on record NOW that this court will NEVER give ANY due parole considerations in terms of forwarding recommendations on Johns behalf EVER at any time - past, now, or herewith. Okay, now for the opposite demonstration: John is introverted. Anti-social; has few friends. Defendant John is a loner; lives in isolation. John has no stable or lengthy term of home address; he exhibits a transient nature. He is quiet, keeps to himself, and doesnt like to bother anyone. Therefore, it is this Honorable Courts opinion that John is not an amenable candidate for rehabilitation or parole since his loner-like tendencies and historic patterns of isolationism prove that he may turn out to be one of them serial-type men who are easily able to hide their whereabouts, planting no feet down, leaving behind no trail; John undoubtedly will inevitably increase exposure to victimization of unsuspecting civilians since John is not readily recognized, has little or no community ties, and can readily and easily harm others under the guise and protection of a fly-by-night-type facilitation. Because of these tendencies and characteristics, John is an endangerment to society. (Well, thanks for bearing with me here! haha. The in-person, actual conversation between my cousin and I was much cooler. You kind of had to be there. Its hard to convey it in writing - like how the judges are and stuff. It just seems like no matter what, theyre gonna twist shit against you if they possess or pre-possess a fixed bias against you. I had fun in court last year and the year before, messing around with semantics. lol. Like, for example, I would try to think ahead of what the judge might say if I say this or that - as opposed to saying the opposite of this or that. For instance, his Honor (at a bail modification hearing for the defendant to try to get their bail lowered) might say (about that little write-up you got back on the block when u and your cellies were caught smoking)....the judge might say, HOW CAN YOU EXPECT TO STAY OUT OF TROUBLE OUT IN SOCIETY IF YOU CANT EVEN STAY OUT OF TROUBLE IN JAIL?!? (Yeah, judges often saying annoying things like this just to sound wise or cunning. Generally, judges are quite adept at slinging catchy phrases and remarking on-the-spot markedly smart alec remarks. Theyll typically take WHATEVER you say, and turn it against you (this is, if they have it out for you, or if they are just naturally show-offs and crave public attention from the audience or....well, u get the point - there are all kinds of reasons why judges do this. I suppose it doesnt really matter why they do it, just know and b prepared for the fact that they do. I proactively reminded the judge of the fact that I had no prison disciplinary infractions - no misconducts; was a model prisoner, etc. I beat him to the punch, self-vouching, YOUR HONOR (big smile on my face, mind you), IF I CAN STAY OUT OF TROUBLE IN JAIL, I CAN STAY OUT OF TROUBLE ANYWHERE! I CAN MOST CERTAINLY STAY OUT OF TROUBLE ON THE STREET IF I CAN AVOID CONFLICT AND MISCHIEF AND DRAMA - IN JAIL - OF ALL PLACES! (Tho his honor would NEVER openly admit in a million years that I was right, I know he HAD TO have admitted to himself, He truly does have a point there! But I have it out for him, so even though hes absolutely correct, I have to dish out some type of adverse ruling regardless. (So really what it all boils down to, is that if youre creative enuff to catch a judge off guard linguistically - if youre able to quickly conduct some tricky judicial tongue-tying while up at the stand - if you are capable of delivering some crafty un-unprovable but most-plausible truth such as the If I can stay out of trouble in jail... type-tip, then all its gonna do is piss their Honor off, and they will become red-faced because they know youre right, and worse - they know that they may look ridiculous ruling against reason, and, adding insult to injury - now u have put them on the spot, inadvertently put THEIR morals and character in check, but they have to stick to the plan that the D.A. and Public Defender Office has formulated against you; this means ruling against you - even when deep inside their soul, conscience, mind, heart - they know its wrong to do so, but their hands are tied and they have to stay in sync with public perception; the goal is to fry you, so their actions must remain consistent with such - like I said - EVEN WHEN THEY APPEAR FOOLISH IN DOING SO! (I mean, come on! - They know when someone learned their lesson and is not an endangerment. They know when an individual is sincere and isnt going to get out and hack people to pieces with a sickle. But they cant show that they know this. This is why when a Pro Se party such as myself pops off with a snappy, hard-to-argue-with antic or anecdote or quickly whips up a rhetorical wisdom dish of quips with a side of judicial hiccups - they consequently become embarrassed, have been rendered momentarily speechless, and in face-saving-attempt (usually to no avail), defensively issue dumb-founded responses, manifested in equally not-too-smart decisions that lie against all reason and logic and common sense. (Just my opinion, folks...)
Posted on: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 04:10:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015