[T]he California Supreme Court issued an opinion in 2002 that sent ripples through the legal community. They ruled it was a violation of a defendant's rights to have him fitted with a shock belt as a security measure.Let me make this clear: No matter what their ideology, threatening or harming a judge in any way ABSOLUTELY MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL -- whether in the U.S. or Iraq. But I'm guessing that the new Iraqi judges wouldn't spend a nanosecond contemplating the -- literally -- suicidal horsepucky that Judge Brown tried to stop.
The case sent shockwaves through the system, and has had a chilling effect
on the use of stun belts which would have stopped the carnage in Georgia
today.
One judge dissented: George W. Bush nominee Janice Rogers Brown. Here's what she said:
"We are a court of review. The question for review here was whether the judgment of conviction must be overturned because defendant was required to
wear a stun belt, and the answer is, we should have affirmed the judgment
because no prejudice was shown. Full stop. The question in this case was not
whether stun belts pose serious medical risks for persons with heart
problems or other medical conditions, nor was it whether the current design
of the stun belt could be improved upon. There is absolutely no evidence in
the record bearing on these questions. In the absence of such evidence, we
had two choices. We could have deferred to the Legislature, which can make
law after hearing from distinguished experts on all sides of controversial
issues. Or we could have waited for a case that raised these questions on an
adequate record.
Instead, the majority, rushing to judgment after conducting an embarrassing
Google.com search for information outside the record, has tied the hands of
the Legislature, to the likely peril of judges, bailiffs, and ordinary
citizens called upon to do their civic duty."
Preiscent, no?
And is now reaping a terrible harvest.
LOL
Posts
