2015/12/21 M – Stetson Hallam 2

I am sorry that I have nothing new on this topic.  I ranted much in the last post, perhaps without sufficient appreciation of the strains placed on the legal system.  The lady judge, wildly and fanatically feministic though she may be, probably tried her best given the conditions.

I do still wonder whether she knew that Stetson did not destroy his evidence at all.  I told him to get rid of his implements of threat, as he confessed to and counselled with me in his car on the night of that mistake.  Looking back, this may have been very poor advice, as it may have strengthened his charges; and those familiar with law will spot the opportunity to claim obstruction of justice, or tampering with evidence, even on my part.  This, indeed, is one reason why I gave only what co-operation seemed mandatory to the investigators of that incident — I started to worry about the collateral damage of an enraged justice system, how that it may just as shamelessly accuse me of crime just for having been there.

I was one of three of his roommates (I in the other of our two rooms), all of us surprised by the first social reports of the incident, but I think I was the only one to have had the luxury of talking it out with him afterward, in his vehicle.  And if I did wrong in it, I will have to carry the regret.

Frankly disturbed by the sight of his tools, my only thought at the time was to put some distance between him and them, to start him back down the path of psychological normalisation.  Throw them out, I urged.  He agreed, and did so.  We found some dumpster in a church parking lot (not our apartment dumpster later ransacked by somewhat rough-talking police officers a couple days later in their search of our apartment, whose immodest manners were sufficient to discourage me from a more scrupulous disclosure of those facts).

He wanted, the next day, to go to the authorities, but, while glad for his humility, I made the second error of questioning his intuition.  Not fully cognizant of the potential penalty lying ahead, I suggested instead just going to the school authorities to report it there; surely this would also be done by the other parties involved, and he may as well give his voice, too.  I did not know that it would go any further than that, so why go instigate what could be a difficult legal process?  To this, too, he seemed to agree, and I accompanied him to the school office…

Bad advice, all of it.  Good given my limited experience, maybe, but bad in the end.  The judge may have viewed him more humanely, less ferally, had he been left to his own inclinations.

That’s about as far as I got with it; he was arrested some days later, as I recall.  People asked our apartment residents for verbal evidence, and I gave mine sparingly, not wanting my words twisted or weighted, hoping instead to make myself available to his sympathizers, in case I could shine any favourable light on what was destined to be an unfavourable process.  As I remember, my attempt at contact was rebuffed — though, again, maybe it would just have invited culpability, to interact with the defense.  Before I knew it, the trial had come and gone.

But, no, Lady Judge, he did not destroy that evidence, not of his own intent, nor was there any bad intention in it.

From half a world away, it is difficult to give any news.  Contributory comments are welcome.  If Stetson ever reads this, Stetson, know that many people are interested in your future.  My post on you was far more visited than any of my others, even discounting repeat visitors.  People care, even those who seem not to care.  Even the critics were, in their frequently immature way, expressing the dissonance between their own good expectations of your well-living and the negative observations that had reached them, filtered through their biases, and resulted in their scorn or bullying or pessimism.  Very many are concerned about you, and your life ahead can be as bright as the next man’s, as bright as you choose.  All who care for you are expecting and awaiting such a result, inevitable mistakes notwithstanding.

-Steve

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to 2015/12/21 M – Stetson Hallam 2

  1. Pingback: 2011/11/20 Su – Stetson Hallam | Steve's journal

  2. Cherry says:

    Lady Judge? Why not just Judge? Sexist much?

    • agkcrbs says:

      Lady judge because she is a lady, and a judge, and that’s what those words mean (you’re welcome! Enjoy your stay in the English language.). Also, because lady judges are in the minority (the figure that pops up is 33% in the country), and this exceptionality invites specification. Also, above all, because my theory is that she gave a harsher sentence to a male in a gender-conflict case than I thought was warranted here. Maybe she fears male criminals. Maybe she hates them. Who knows? Anyway, she admitted that she could not comprehend his thinking, and if she thinks from inside a female bubble, she is properly viewed in terms of that bubble.

  3. Jane Neilsen says:

    So you say “Lady Judge” and “Man Judge”? Judges fear all criminals not just male or female. She would not be in her position if she hated men or male criminals or gender related cases. Just as a man judge would not to male or female. So there is a female bubble? You are very very sexist, your comments come across as someone as sexist as a Donald Trump.

  4. agkcrbs says:

    Are you really this bored? Well, comment away…


    “She would not be in her position if she hated men or male criminals or gender related cases.”

    Actually, it still seems entirely possible to me that a lady judge may have a thing against male criminals that may not register as problematic on society’s current radar. …Because, guess what, about men?

    …They’re different from women! Yes, it’s true. In some interesting ways. I know this must shock you feminists, inconsistent though your recent fiction of gender sameness may be (how can you even be pro-female, if males and females are the same?).

    Now, a smarter lady than you ladies, with more experience with criminality ( http://law.jrank.org/pages/1250/Gender-Crime-Differences-between-male-female-offending-patterns.html , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#In_the_United_States ), may know that men can be more culpable in crime, and may develop a bias.

    But can you offer any evidence for your contradiction, or is it just a hunch, a bare rationalization, like mine was, of her gendered misinterpretation of his confession? Though, to be fair, his male parole officer did nearly the same thing, which I complained about in my last post; I would probably call his “bubble” something other than a “female bubble”.

    My evidence?
    – “Results of analysis […] indicated many similarities and some differences between female and male judges in their sentencing practices. Women judges were somewhat harsher in that they were more likely to incarcerate and impose longer sentences. They also tended toward a more contextualized style in weighing the effects of defendant characteristics and prior record on sentencing outcomes. Notably, they were particularly harsh toward repeat black offenders.”
    ( https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=177804 )

    – “We found no racial differences and very few gender differences [in Detroit, from 1976 to 1985]. The only exception was that female judges imposed longer prison sentences than did male judges.”
    ( http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J012v02n01_06 )

    – “The race and gender results suggest, however, that a judge’s background affects his or her sentencing decisions.” (<- though their estimate also seems to favour more lady judges)
    ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=668544 )

    …And more ( https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx ). I find it suggested here that men have a harder time with both lady and man judges, for reasons that I could only speculate about right now. But, yeah, maybe you should rethink your idea, that male and female judges are exactly the same.


    "You are very very sexist…"
    Yeah, I, Donald Trump, Mother Nature, and perhaps all children everywhere are all "sexist", because we recognize that men and women are different. What does that make you? It makes you a deluded liar, staring the truth in the face but neither willing nor able to comprehend it. (I'm sure you're wonderfully nice to your friends, though, and only rude and shrill to strangers on-line. And despite that "liar" bit above, I of course will not hold your opinion against you personally, since my world values free thought.)

    Men and women are different, and I do not greatly care whether you dislike this fact, but I welcome your discussion, as this site is nearly vacant otherwise.

    • agkcrbs says:

      And concurrence accrues from the unlikeliest places… videlicet, the federal high priestess called by Obama:

      “In [a 2001] speech, Judge [Sonia] Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

      ” ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’

      […]
      ” ‘Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,’ she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, ‘our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.’

      “Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench ‘will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.’

      […]
      “Judge Sotomayor questioned whether achieving impartiality ‘is possible in all, or even, in most, cases.’ She added, ‘And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.’

      “She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that ‘to judge is an exercise of power’ and that ‘there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives.’

      ” ‘Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,’ she said.”

      (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html?_r=1)

      Setting aside her flaming, Trumplike ‘sexism’ and ‘racism’ (as feminists and liberals use the terms — that is, overbroadly), she did tell a hard truth about judicial bias, to her credit. But considering her rulings, I think she, like all prideful idiots, sadly overestimated her own superior wisdom and dismally failed her own later hope, phrased in that article:

      ” ‘All judges have cases that touch our passions deeply, but we all struggle constantly with remaining impartial’ and letting reason rule.”

  5. Jane Neilson says:

    I am not a feminist, I value men and women as equal.Calling me out as a feminist online is showing you really do have harsh feelings towards women and feel as if we are not as important as men. I do not believe men are better, I do not believe women are better. Each as much to offer, and yes in different ways. What is your opinion on the sentence for the Stanford student who the judge gave 6 months of prison to for raping the woman behind the dumpster until 2 young men stopped him in the process. Thank you for your time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s