Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
my point was that altho some (well, one) thinks that the judge went to such lengths because it was paris, yet somehow the sheriff gets a free pass, when his actions apparently had a lot to do with the fact it was paris. yet the sheriff gets a pass--why, because of how he handled it, and that if fits in with certain points of view? i guess the sheriff is the one thinking clearly, but not the judge? again, i guess it depends on what side you think is correct.
i don't have a 'rule book' about human behavior, but if someone is so sick they can't serve 45 days in jail, common sense might say they aren't up to having hundreds of their closest personal friends for a soiree either....
and if she was let out of jail due to a condition, you'd think that would have been settled BEFORE she was let out. it would be on the sheriff to show the reason, not the judge to find why he must return her to the jail she was released from.
|
Some of that raises valid points and some makes no sense to me. Regarding the alleged party...I don't know if those reports are true or not but I'd imagine if I just got out of jail I might feel like celebrating at home where it's safe, Paris' parents were probably overjoyed, I know I would be if my child was just released given the circumstances (hell, given any circumstances) and if she was suffering from depression and on the edge of a psychotic break, it makes perfect sense to surround her with friends and try and erase some of the anxiety so I don't see the issue. Now the other part of your post regarding her alleged illness, are you saying that they should have kept her incarcerated until she was cured? Boy, I'd hate to go to your prison with a chronic illness! Seriously though, the reports are she was suffering from acute depression due to her incarceration and was on the edge of a psychotic break...if true, removing the stressor (in this case jail) is the treatment! Is the Sheriff responsible for anything here? Frankly I don't know enough about procedure in that county to know whether he followed the law or not...he claims he had jurisdiction and the judge disagrees, that's a matter for the appeals court. What we know is that he and prison authorities reviewed the information they had, including the diagnosis of a psychiatrist, and came to a decision. In my experience here in Pa, it would seem like they acted properly but I just don't know Cal law, if it is later determined that he was somehow wrong then he will and should be held accountable. Regarding the sheriff's "responsibility" to prove anything here to the judge, again that seems to be a debatable subject and one the court will again decide but again, what we do know is that the judge affectively "hid" behind his viewpoint that it was the Sheriff's responsibility to provide the information. what I'm saying is that if he had problems with the decision, why wouldn't he demand the info and review it BEFORE taking action? He obviously knew (that's an assumption on my part but hard to believe he hadn't heard) that there was a medical condition involved in the decision yet he refused to consider that...sending her back to prison.
Let me try this scenerio...taken from Law and Order TV show...more extreme I admit but the same principle involved...letter of the law vs intent.
Say a man is convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Some time passes and he exhausts his appeals, finally only days before his scheduled execution, new evidence is found that proves beyond any doubt he is not guilty, the attorney goes to the judge but the judge refuses to hear this evidence because the appeal process has ended...by the letter of the law, the judge is right to so rule, but that means an innocent man will die! Would you be comfortable with that? That's what happened here, because...at least in the judge's mind...the Sheriff and other officials failed to produce "evidence" that he knows exists, he is refusing to consider same. According to reports, Paris was placed in the medical wing under suicide watch with 24/7 observation, security cameras, the whole works...suppose, just for argument, she does experience a psychotic break and harms herself or suffers permanent damage and once reviewed, the psychiatrist's diagnosis clearly warns of same...how will the judge explain his refusal to even review this information? Why wouldn't he?