Judge throws teen in jail for 30 days for giving him the finger.

[Dazzle]

I've never claimed to be a lawyer!

[Wetcoaster]

I don't see how his purported 'lack of real life knowledge/experience' could be applicable to discussion.

Someone even with janitorial experience (in other words, no relevant experience) should be able to generally comment on the situation.

There is an argument that flipping the bird at a judge is disrespectful. I think EVERYONE can agree with that in this thread.

The problem is: does it warrant the jail time PLUS increased bond limit?

One camp says that that is the way the court should work, but then another side says that the penalty is not proportional to the offence (It basically is an offence, an informal one)

Here's where I think you have missed the point.

Based on the actions of one judge, you have agreed with the judge's decisions with penalizing the girl (That's fine).

However, given the same set of circumstances with a different judge, would that judge have acted differently?

And since there are different personalities for Judges, it is possible that the exact penalty (30 days of jail + 10,000 bond) would not have been prescribed in that exact same manner. In other words, the 'penalty' for flipping the bird at a judge is arbitary and up to the judge's discretion.

Had the judge NOT made any decision on it, would you still have respected that decision as it is?

[Buddhas Hand]

I don't see how his purported 'lack of real life knowledge/experience' could be applicable to discussion.

Someone even with janitorial experience (in other words, no relevant experience) should be able to generally comment on the situation.

There is an argument that flipping the bird at a judge is disrespectful. I think EVERYONE can agree with that in this thread.

The problem is: does it warrant the jail time PLUS increased bond limit?

One camp says that that is the way the court should work, but then another side says that the penalty is not proportional to the offence (It basically is an offence, an informal one)

Here's where I think you have missed the point.

Based on the actions of one judge, you have agreed with the judge's decisions with penalizing the girl (That's fine).

However, given the same set of circumstances with a different judge, would that judge have acted differently?

And since there are different personalities for Judges, it is possible that the exact penalty (30 days of jail + 10,000 bond) would not have been prescribed in that exact same manner. In other words, the 'penalty' for flipping the bird at a judge is arbitary and up to the judge's discretion.

Had the judge NOT made any decision on it, would you still have respected that decision as it is?

[Buddhas Hand]

That might be true except in this case he is beginning from a position of not only fundamentally misapprehending the facts but also not having much of a clue of what was at issue in terms of legal principles and processes.

Had I been the sitting judge faced with these same circumstances, I would have had no difficulty in jailing her for 30 days for her criminal contempt in the face of the court.

[Dazzle]

That might be true except in this case he is beginning from a position of not only fundamentally misapprehending the facts but also not having much of a clue of what was at issue in terms of legal principles and processes.

Had I been the sitting judge faced with these same circumstances, I would have had no difficulty in jailing her for 30 days for her criminal contempt in the face of the court.

[Mr. Ambien]

If your bolded holds true, I'd say I should be more known for the company you and I share, than this instance of my agreeing with Zaibatsu.

I have dealt with this post a number of times in this thread. I do not enjoy wasting my time. The issue has never been a judge's legal ability, but the benefit of exercising said ability. The most you addressed it was via your anecdotal evidence during your career.

We have all watched the same video. The contents of it are not in question. The implications are.

Edit: I made a reasonable assumption that someone found in possession of 200+ doses of Xanax is a drug dealer. Whether she is or not has absolutely no bearing on the arguments I have put forth.

[Buddhas Hand]

But if it was a different judge, one who was more sympathetic (or perhaps pitying the girl for being such a train wreck) decided to force her to go do a month at boot camp, it could serve the same purpose of teaching the lesson about consequences.

One may have different opinions about the efficacy of jail time and how it may or may not reform people.

There are likely situations where the 'contempt of court' charge were reserved for very serious incidents, but in this scenario, it seems that it is more readily used. The penalty, as mentioned, is arbitrary, without any prior warning to the accused.

I am not defending the accused - I am questioning how the penalties are going to help her down the road. It will be something we can't answer until she finishes the 30 days of jail time AND dealing with the rest of her charges.

When I went to the Richmond Courthouse, I noticed how lax the atmosphere was like, especially with the interactions of the Crown Counsel and the defense during the arraignment hearing. It seems, in many of the cases, Crown Counsel opts not to go for the most extreme charges, but instead, recommends a mellow punishment which the defense readily agrees with. I spoke with a defense attorney afterward and he said that "it's not always about sending someone to jail. It's about helping the person find their way."

Based on the example above, I think, in my most humble opinion, that the penalty, while legally justified, will not help the accused 'find their way'. She needs an attitude adjustment for sure and inside a jail, you are surrounded by negative influences.

[Aladeen]

1. Since this has nothing to do with the usual criminal sentencing principles as it is punishment for criminal contempt in the face of the court, rehabilitation and other sentencing principles do not come into play.

2. Like most first appearances a public defender was there but there is no real cure for stupid.

[Buddhas Hand]

Looks like you were 86'd from the "club". Note that disagreeing with a clique or not falling for clique dogma results in clique excommunication. Clique is looking for devout sycophants.

Obviously that's the issue, Wetcoaster clearly takes issues with judgement calls made by judges in Heller because the outcome is not what he personally desires, but given he already invested subjective declarations about Ms. Soto, and illustrates wilful ignorance on the second page to the antagonistic behaviour the judge was blatantly partaking in, he will give a pass to a judge being part of a conflict he just jailed someone for. If this is likening to parenting, given the posts suggesting this is supposed to be a lesson taught, this is awful parenting that won't teach any valuable lesson, and clearly something is in need of being done about this judge's absolute authority in the matter, he does not look like he can handle it.

[MillerGenuineDraft]

It's about attitude.......and obviously this mouthy teenager was not getting the message. She's old enough to know better and kudos to the judge for giving her something to think about while she sits in jail for 30 days. She should have just shut her face after the "Adios" with attitude. And it must have been with attitude as I seriously doubt the judge would have upped the bail otherwise. As stated in the article, this prime exhibit of teenagerhood was behaving badly all during her time in front of the judge.

Bravo, judge!! More judges need to be doing this!

Edit to correct a word in error.

[Bertuzzi Babe]

Looks like you were 86'd from the "club". Note that disagreeing with a clique or not falling for clique dogma results in clique excommunication. Clique is looking for devout sycophants.

Obviously that's the issue, Wetcoaster clearly takes issues with judgement calls made by judges in Heller because the outcome is not what he personally desires, but given he already invested subjective declarations about Ms. Soto, and illustrates wilful ignorance on the second page to the antagonistic behaviour the judge was blatantly partaking in, he will give a pass to a judge being part of a conflict he just jailed someone for. If this is likening to parenting, given the posts suggesting this is supposed to be a lesson taught, this is awful parenting that won't teach any valuable lesson, and clearly something is in need of being done about this judge's absolute authority in the matter, he does not look like he can handle it.

[Dazzle]

And i have pointed out many times before , so often the law fails to provide JUSTICE

[Bertuzzi Babe]

I take it you're a parent/have nieces or nephews. If they said "Adios" to you, or gave you the middle finger, would you send them to jail for 30 days?

This is *swear filter bypass removed*, and an abuse of power.

[Wetcoaster]

But if it was a different judge, one who was more sympathetic (or perhaps pitying the girl for being such a train wreck) decided to force her to go do a month at boot camp, it could serve the same purpose of teaching the lesson about consequences.

One may have different opinions about the efficacy of jail time and how it may or may not reform people.

There are likely situations where the 'contempt of court' charge were reserved for very serious incidents, but in this scenario, it seems that it is more readily used. The penalty, as mentioned, is arbitrary, without any prior warning to the accused.

I am not defending the accused - I am questioning how the penalties are going to help her down the road. It will be something we can't answer until she finishes the 30 days of jail time AND dealing with the rest of her charges.

When I went to the Richmond Courthouse, I noticed how lax the atmosphere was like, especially with the interactions of the Crown Counsel and the defense during the arraignment hearing. It seems, in many of the cases, Crown Counsel opts not to go for the most extreme charges, but instead, recommends a mellow punishment which the defense readily agrees with. I spoke with a defense attorney afterward and he said that "it's not always about sending someone to jail. It's about helping the person find their way."

Based on the example above, I think, in my most humble opinion, that the penalty, while legally justified, will not help the accused 'find their way'. She needs an attitude adjustment for sure and inside a jail, you are surrounded by negative influences.

[MillerGenuineDraft]

Apples and orangutans.

And no, as they would not be speaking to me like that in the first place.

[Aladeen]

So you're saying that in the event of it being your own niece/nephew/child, you would not give this sentence. Yet since it's a mouthy teenager you don't know, it's totally acceptable?

You seriously need to change your attitude.

Edit: Oh, and wait till they grow up, they'll be saying even worse thing to you than, "adios." I wonder what type of sentence you think will be necessary when that day comes

[Bertuzzi Babe]

So you're saying that in the event of it being your own niece/nephew/child, you would not give this sentence. Yet since it's a mouthy teenager you don't know, it's totally acceptable?

You seriously need to change your attitude.

Edit: Oh, and wait till they grow up, they'll be saying even worse thing to you than, "adios." I wonder what type of sentence you think will be necessary when that day comes

[Buddhas Hand]

Everyone has a different concept of what "justice" is.

For some people, justice is retribution, which may or may not involve the concept of "Karma". When I mean by retribution, it may be the idea of an eye for an eye.

Other parts of retribution may involve "Karma". Example would be: a rapist rapes a girl/guy and gets away. Right after he gets away, inexplicably, there is a rapist that rapes him/her.

Others think 'justice' is when a convicted felon is locked up so he can no longer terrorize his/her victims.

I think the law has difficulty putting in what the people 'really' want. It is so divided.

[Bertuzzi Babe]

look man you have to learn BB (in her world) is perfect. Anything she says or does either agree with it or you get a lesson in board rules.

[MillerGenuineDraft]

That's not what I said at all.

And my attitude is fine, thanks!

Uhh, most likely not. They are being raised to be respectful and polite. What is said behind my back and out of earshot is one thing but directly to my face? The possibility of that happening is slim to none.

(Unfortunately, I had a mother with the hearing of an owl...... one did not even think of lipping her off within possible earshot )