[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hello Doctor,
Your legal interpretation makes a lot of sense as does Kathy's point
about the court of public opinion. The problem is that if we carry the
court of public opinion to its logical conclusion then no one who has
ever been convicted of a crime and paid their debt to society would be
allowed to hold a job in order to make a living. The consequences of
that would be much more far reaching than allowing Louise Woodward to
have the job that she wanted.
Bill
On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 23:48:49 -0800 "Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>"Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Kathy, you make good sense and have shed another light on this, the
>social plane; thank you for hosting a list where we can discuss
>different opinions. My point of view concerns courts and law,
>consistency and finality, rather dryly I confess, more than this
>individual defendant. I wish another reason had been given, like the
>job has been filled, or we are considering several candidates, rather
>than being an example of outcome nullificatiion. Again, not
>considering
>the particular defendant here, but the intent of trial outcomes as
>such.
>Again, you make strong points; thanks for pondering and responding. :)
>LDMF
>--------------------Kathy E
>wrote:--------------------------------------
>>
>> Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Hi Linda :)
>>
>> I have thought on what you said, and to me the old stand by still
>comes
>> into action as it has through history, there are two court systems
>in
>> this world, one we all know which is the court of law, the hardest
>court
>> to pass through though is the court of public opinion. If you lose
>your
>> case there you have basically messed up your life for years, Louise
>lost
>> in the court of public opinion. She is a liability as far as being
>> associated with anyone in public, and I can understand why the
>Sheriff
>> denied her request, I myself would have done the same. He has to
>> consider the publicity that would have been generated if he allowed
>her
>> to work there, a lot of that publicity wouldn't be good, and he has
>to
>> consider what is good for his town, and yes even for his own career.
>>
>> It is fair? Is it right? That isn't for me to answer, but sometimes
>one
>> may walk away from a court of law with a clean record, but they will
>not
>> be able to walk away from the court of public opinion in the same
>> manner. Oj is a prime example of that. Louise is another example.
>>
>> One other thing I consider is part of this is her fault also, she
>has
>> asked for some of this media attention, one finds out sooner or
>later
>> that having all that media attention isn't always an asset,
>sometimes it
>> can be quite the opposite.
>>
>> Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff wrote:
>> >
>> > "Dr.L.D.Misek-Falkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > :) Kathy, hi - I was a bit sorry to hear about the argument that
>having
>> > Woodward as a volunteer would not be in the 'best interest' --
>because
>> > she has been through the justice system at this time and according
>to
>> > the law she has served her time. I say this without reference to
>what
>> > one might think 'should' have happened, and with definite
>reference to
>> > what 'did' happen. The same with appeals; until and unless one
>side wins
>> > the appeal,the status is that she has served her time, again,
>without
>> > regard to whether one feels this was 'right or wrong'. Does anyone
>else
>> > think this is reminiscent of (loosely used) social double jeopardy
>(used
>> > metaphorically)?
>> >
>> > But this idea of course could get into the matter of sex offenders
>being
>> > identified (ex sex offenders at that point) to the community,
>after they
>> > are released. Come to think of it, perhaps the two things are
>related.
>> > What think you? :) LDMF
>> --
>> Kathy E
>> "I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and
>tomorrow
>> isn't looking too good for you either"
>> http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
>> http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
>> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime
>photo's
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
