|
Judges
Jun 1, 2007 9:58:07 GMT -6
Post by Jimmy Mack on Jun 1, 2007 9:58:07 GMT -6
Is Jim Crow still alive? You bet your sweet bippy! There are judges doing favors for friends, judges ruling to help friends, judges spreading rumors, judges ruling on hearsay and not facts. Elected officials who took an oath to uphold the law as it is written and not to make it up as they go. Judges who conspire with others because they say. Our society has taken a turn for the worst. They do not realize that the position that they are in a covenant was made with God and man to rule the people rightously, but these judges in Lafayette make it us as they go and since it is a close knit group no one sees, hears, or talk about it. Friends in high places will get you friends in low places come judgement day!
|
|
fubar
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Judges
Jun 5, 2007 20:32:49 GMT -6
Post by fubar on Jun 5, 2007 20:32:49 GMT -6
Can you be a bit more specific. Name of judge, ruling, person benefited, anything less makes your post useless.
|
|
|
Judges
Jun 6, 2007 1:38:51 GMT -6
Post by zoe10850 on Jun 6, 2007 1:38:51 GMT -6
I think he was less than impressed with Judge Keaty. Personally, I think she is a nice lady but a very poorly qualified and inexperienced judge, a problem I have seen in several of the local judges. I have always believed that becoming a judge should be the end of a long career of practicing law, not the aviodance of practice. Too many of our judges are just too young to have experienced life and as such, are not fit to judge us. No one should sit on the bench before the age of 60 or after the age of 72; not that you are senile, but it has to stop somewhere. Of course I also contend that no judge below Supreme Court should be appointed for life and even the Supreme Court Justices should be examined annually for fitness and mental alertness. But then, I am a radical on this issue.
|
|
fubar
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Judges
Jun 6, 2007 19:06:06 GMT -6
Post by fubar on Jun 6, 2007 19:06:06 GMT -6
Ok. I was wondering what the case was about and the judge. I guess the folks on the other side thought she was the best judge in the courthouse. She will be running again if the family court judge law is passed (I have just not followed it). I also find her a very nice person but I can understand someone on the other side being unhappy. Of course that happens 50% for 100% of the time.
|
|
ij
New Member
Posts: 44
|
Judges
Jan 18, 2008 11:34:46 GMT -6
Post by ij on Jan 18, 2008 11:34:46 GMT -6
Any thoughts on the latest sentence handed down by Judge Clause in that drunk driving death? A year? A friggin year? And now the perp gets transfered to his hometown jail to do his "hard labor". What a crock. It ain't what ya know,it's WHO ya know.
|
|
|
Judges
Jan 18, 2008 23:19:32 GMT -6
Post by zoe10850 on Jan 18, 2008 23:19:32 GMT -6
Well, you know our jail is "full". It is the state responsibility to house these people.
I would not want to spend a year in jail in New Iberia or Lafayette for that matter. I know people were killed, but it was an accident of negligence, not intent. I would rather that the judge made him pay a large restitution to the family so he would always remember what he did and how he dispupted lives through his careless acts. Placing him in jail for 10 years serves no purpose other than to ruin another life. Make him pay money, that will have a lasting impression.
|
|
|
Judges
Feb 13, 2008 17:48:19 GMT -6
Post by ronnief on Feb 13, 2008 17:48:19 GMT -6
I pretty much agree. I think the jail is a revenge thing, and I would feel the same way if it were my family member, however, jailing people who drink and drive does nothing. Same as the SpeedVan business. Where is the safety aspect when you get a ticket two weeks later. You probably do not even remember the incident. That is no deterrent. Make people who damage property or hurt people suffer economically. That would mean something.
|
|
irish
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Judges
Feb 22, 2008 9:11:22 GMT -6
Post by irish on Feb 22, 2008 9:11:22 GMT -6
well, i guess thats an easy point of view- it's not an issue of punishment or deterrent, its a matter of protecting the public- when a member of your family gets killed by a drunk driver would you still have the same position?- yes the jails are full everywhere, and the system has many problems, but recent events in youngsville should be an indicator that violators of this type need to be incarcerated
|
|
irish
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Judges
Feb 22, 2008 9:14:46 GMT -6
Post by irish on Feb 22, 2008 9:14:46 GMT -6
jimmy mack, you raise an interesting point of view- there is a problem when a person is arrested for over $250,000 worth of cocaine, and gets three years probation, and a previoous marijuana charge dropped in the plea- whose doing favors for who- its not just judges- the da's office signs off on the pleas-
|
|
sb
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Judges
Apr 30, 2008 8:12:55 GMT -6
Post by sb on Apr 30, 2008 8:12:55 GMT -6
Actually, Zoe, Badeaux's case was one of drinking/using and driving. He was speeding while impaired down the turn lane of Amb. Caf. and maimed several people and killed two innocent people. Putting people like that trash (who is a repeat offender that knows that if you run from the scene it is very hard to be charged with OWI) in jail keeps them from continuing the cycle of driving while impaired, if not for a shot period of time. Frankly, the two people killed in the accident were very well acquainted with a local district judge, so I guess who you know doesn't guarantee you justice either.
|
|
|
Judges
May 5, 2008 1:18:44 GMT -6
Post by zoe10850 on May 5, 2008 1:18:44 GMT -6
Please understand SB, I do not condone for one minute what Mr Badeaux did. It was an action of the utmost stupidity and thoughtless to themax. I am just saying that putting otherwise productive (?) citizens in jail does not accomplish much beyond the revenge aspect. I think they should be made to work and pay a large restitution for years to come. It is a lesson that has more impact and more benefit will be realized. I know I am in minority opinion on that matter, but I do not think there is any deterrent with jail because these acts were not planned in advance. Is just a random act of stupidity and poor judgement. I see that in a lot of out local politicians and bureaucrats as well !
|
|
sb
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Judges
Jun 29, 2008 23:54:33 GMT -6
Post by sb on Jun 29, 2008 23:54:33 GMT -6
I am not trying to be an azz, but jail can be a deterrent when applied correctly. Currently, our incarceration system has been soooo watered down that is has stopped being a deterrent for the people that need it the most. Jail has become in many instances the objective of the criminal.
As for DUI, it is something that most people plan to do or not just by the very act of getting in a car to drive to the destination that serves alcohol, drinking alcohol, and then getting into the vehicle after consuming alcohol. It is a planned activity. Brad Badeaux is not a productive member of society. He acted in a reckless manner with the lives of more than the two citizens that were killed. Having him locked up is a safety issue. He has proven that he is not responsible enough to be on our streets. That accident was just the culmination of his reckless behavior. Consequences for your behavior do not equate with societal revenge.
For the record, I have worked with plenty of people involved in criminal justice system. We absolutely need to reconsider how & which punishments are doled out. My program attempted to apply whatever would elicit a change in behavior. Jail was it sometimes. Sometimes jail was the desire of the criminal in the first place. It is very easy to second guess the actions of judges, but until you know the entire story, second guesses are just that.
|
|
sb
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Judges
Jun 30, 2008 0:06:27 GMT -6
Post by sb on Jun 30, 2008 0:06:27 GMT -6
Zoe, another thing about the working, paying deal. That is a logistical nightmare for the justice system. Think about how screwed up the child support stuff is and the trouble with collecting all that.
How much are two lives worth? How inconvient is it for someone with the means to pay? $500 to you and me is like a penny (or less) to Angelina Jolie, so would that deter anyone with an enormous amount of wealth? Locally, I have had people ask to pay the fine for their kid and be on their way. I have had people try to buy their kids out of detention and they really had a hard time understanding why they couldn't. Will continued payments deter them?
We need to stop thinking of DUI as just a stupid act. DUI is a stupid mistake the FIRST time you do it. I don't mean the first time you get caught, but the first time you do it. If you get caught, then you should learn from that "mistake" and never get in a car again after you have had any alcohol. Badeaux was driving under a suspended license after his previous DUI. There were no "mistakes".
10 years at hard labor wouldn't even begin to touch the debt he owes to society. He knew when he left the scene what he was doing and unfortunately it worked in his favor. But that's okay, this won't be the last we will hear of him and my only hope is that the next time he drinks and drives, it is a one vehicle accident instead.
|
|
|
Judges
Jul 8, 2008 22:15:12 GMT -6
Post by ronnief on Jul 8, 2008 22:15:12 GMT -6
SB, I must respectfully disagree with your position. If jail were any sort of deterrent, there would not be so much recidivism. We all know that about 90% of crimes are committed by about 5% of the population. Most of this 5% (or so) have been in and out of jail numerous times. Does not deter them in the least.
Drunks are clearly not in the same class of "criminal" as those jailed repeatedly.
If it were up to me, I would break their arms on the 3rd offense DUI. I would also castrate child molesters and rapists. I would execute any person who committed a crime involving firearms. But then, some people think I am too narrow minded.
|
|
|
Judges
Jul 8, 2008 22:26:37 GMT -6
Post by ronnief on Jul 8, 2008 22:26:37 GMT -6
And by the way, our judicial system needs a complete overhaul because justice clearly is not served. There is a two tiered system for connected versus non-connected people.
I understand people using all means at their disposal to help out family members. I would do the same. What I do not like is when some poor kid with no family (that counts) have the book thrown at him and another kid skate by without a slap on the wrist for the same crime. That person's life is ruined. Society suffers. Our local parish jail is full of this type of person. Yet we have some well connected politicians who have avoided punishment for taking advantage of us, their employers, and we are stupid enough to re-elect them. Go figure.
|
|
|
Judges
Jul 9, 2008 19:08:02 GMT -6
Post by LisaS on Jul 9, 2008 19:08:02 GMT -6
There should be no logistical nightmare; you could add fees to their tax returns, attach driver licenses, garnish,anyone (legal that is) can be tracked by their social security number.
If we can track a cow that produces diseased meat or find tomatoes that are tainted, I think we can find a drunk. Cannot be that hard, you just need to actually do it.
Nothing can ever bring back a loved one, and no amount of punishment can undo what is done. I agree, make them pay for the rest of their life to the family that suffered. isn't that what lawyers are always suing over; "pain and suffering". Apparently the court can establish a value for that. And if it were indeed Angelina Jolie, one would assume a higher cost. And the lawyer should not get a third nor should the state.
|
|
|
Judges
Jul 10, 2008 19:47:33 GMT -6
Post by SeleR on Jul 10, 2008 19:47:33 GMT -6
I do not understand the logistical nightmare stuff. It just proves that the courts are incompetent.
Hire those bondsman guys. I promise they will find you for a dollar. And they might actually violate your civil rights. You would pay the victims or else those guys would come get you.
Sending a person to jail does nothing other than satisfying the revenge factor, and does not bring back anyone. I agree, make them pay a huge financial penalty like 10% of what you make for the next 15-20 years. That would get some attention.
|
|