Update: "Kids for Cash" And Why We Need Government Regulation

Remove all ads!

I posted on this story a while back. And this is more than an update, but the demand that more government regulation is crafted, since we should never have to see a situation like this again, despite the phony cries of "free market" politics in our government:

Get a load of this:

This guy is a judge? WTF? This is what happens when money is the motivation for our government, rather than public service. An absolute disgrace. A "finders Fee," for selling kids in servitude?

How many more times are we going to have to hear about a "breakdown in oversight" because the government doesn't have the nuts to stand up to these moronic lemmings who complain about "government regulation" of our society? Who else is going to do it? Business? That profits from it? What a joke.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41448385/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

 

There are laws in place forbidding that sort of thing, and that is why he's in trouble now (among other things). This guy is a sleeze and I hope he get's decades. Thankfully, we have laws and regulations in place these days, unlike the dark ages of European criminal justice that Dickens wrote about.

 

Wow, it's been a while since I've heard of someone so deserving of the title "Sick *******." So he was getting "performance bonuses" for sentencing kids to the penitentiary. and he "didn't have a problem with the money?" I hope he feels the same way about getting a sentence of his own, no less harsh than the ones he used to give out.

A couple of things seem particularly striking here, though. The first is the amount he got - nearly 3 million USD. If that's what a single judge got, imagine the amount of money made in the system, and how much goes for other "promotion" activities, such as lobbying, media campaigns, etc.

I'm not sure exactly about some of the things he's being tried for, though - that the funds he took influenced his sentences, or that he took funds from an interested party in the first place? I think it is the former, but if there is no law regarding such a blatant conflict of interests this may be a problem in the future. This is a problem for public positions in general, especially when they are working in fields where they can influence public expenditure or can otherwise benefit or harm private businesses.

 

The owner paying kickbacks to a judge for sentencing i.e. providing steady business in his prisons at taxpayer's expense? It underlines in one sentence everything that's wrong with private prions.

Even when it isn't as perverse, corrupt and criminal as in this case - even judges just holding prison company stock, say as part of their 401k (not to mention tough on crime lawmakers), is a thing that must not be. Judges must not have a financial interest in sentencing. The judge should be sentenced harshly, to provide an example to demonstrate that such behaviour is Unacceptable with a capital U.

No public official affiliated in any way should have a profit interest in law enforcement. For companies like this, zero-tolerance and mandatory sentencing policies are a bonanza (think of prison interests lobbying for harsh laws - say, for Arizona's immigration bill, tough drug laws in general and so forth - as them showing entrepreneurial spirit by 'aggressively entering into emerging markets'). The effectiveness, not to mention the fairness, of the approach in general is highly dubious. But it is good business, and reliable business since it is paid for with taxpayer dollars. After all, which politician wants to appear soft on crime in America? He'll have callous and defamatory attack ads up his ass in no time.

 

This is from the area where I grew up, and I can tell you that the not-so-Honorable Mark Ciavarella is going away for a long time. What wasn't mentioned in the article is there were a few other associate judges in on the deal too. They all pled guilty and turned state's evidence on Ciavarella (who was the worst offender) in exchange for lesser sentences. The other judges are expected to be put away for several months upon sentencing. Ciavarella is going away (if convicted) for about 20 years.

 

It's a shame that the money filling their pockets was more important to these judges than realizing the consequences of the judgements they issued would have on these kids. I truly hope none of these kids are permanently scarred from the ordeals they endured. It stinks that in order to prosecute they let others cut a deal, though their actions were just as despicable. Such is nature of the beast, but it still leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

 

I highlighted your spelling mistake. This mistake proves that you know nothing about anything anywhere. I learned that from an earlier thread!

As for the second excerpt, I would really, really like to see an ad shoved up a politician's ass. Do they do things differently in Germany?

Finally, in all seriousness, I have no problem with children being punished for acting like smug little bastards. I don't care if the girl was an "honours student", that's not a licence to flip off a cop. Betcha the little brat won't do it again. The disturbing part is that the judge was getting money off it. For that, he too needs punishment -- serious punishment. The 20 years sounds good to me. But not for the harsh sentences. He deserves it for taking bribes.

 

LKD - So she flipped off a cop Big damn deal. Freedom of expression. This isn't Iran, or China. At least I don't think it is.

 

I agree. Last I heard, flipping someone off - cop or otherwise - is considered rather uncouth, but not illegal.

 

In the UK you can spend a night in for verbally assaulting a police officer, including gesturing

There's a fabulous instance of a man being arrested for calling a Police Horse 'Gay' though the court dropped the case

 

You learned well from your master, apprentice of whose-name-I-am-not-going-to-spell-out.

 

I don't think expecting decent behaviour out of people means you have a totalitarian state a la China or Iran. IMHO, you stop antisocial crap early before it snowballs into worse stuff. Freedom of expression is important, but no freedom is absolute.

 

Oh, I agree. But the punishment was WAY over the top, for reasons that had nothing to do with the actual offense, obviously. Besides, how can you teach young people to respect authority, when the result is something like a legal system that promotes "kids for cash?" I once heard that "respect is earned." A system that has a lack of integrity deserves little respect from our young people.

 

Chandos, the system always deserves respect, as it is our guiding light here in the States, or should be, as I believe our grandfathers would think so. Our young should be taught to respect it, but also to strive to improve it and question it when they don't understand or agree with it, to better understand it or fix wha tis wrong with it.

 

Nicely said, Blades. This is the problem with a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. We tell out kids in Western societies: "You have freedom! You can do whatever you want!" and then we neglect to tell that that part of being a member of society involves certain rules that must be obeyed. Teens in particular are at a stage where they often cannot reconcile the fact that their freedoms don't mean that they can flout the societal structures that, in fact, safeguard their freedoms.

I have ranted on this before, and I have to say that I have seen the tragic results of consequence free environments. The message kids often get is that they can deliberately break rules, mores, and norms and get away with it because "kids make mistakes" -- a mistake is when you don't know any better. Deliberately doing it, hoping you can weasel out of it later by claiming "I didn't know it was wrong", is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. It merits severe punishment. These kids need to be taught a lesson.

Now, these cases may have been a little out of proportion, fair enough, and I've already made my feelings clear on the judge's motivations, but dammit kids need to know that they can't behave like idiots and get away carte blanche.

 

No, really, it doesn't always deserve respect, especially in this instance. The kids that LKD are ranting about were terribly let down by a system that was supposed to protect their rights and treat them with fairness. In the end, there's no excuse for it, no matter how many platitudes you heap upon it.

 

Chandos, I agree that in this case the kids were served a plate of unkindness and unfairness. No arguments here. I simply meant that even after this, we shouldn't teach our kids to look past our system and treat it as it were nothing. I mean, no system will ever be perfect if those that apply it are imperfect. In this case, they were more than imperfect. They were monsters. But another in the same position can and will do better, hence improving the sytem. It's the individual that caused those terrible things that doesn't deserve their respect.

 

BoV - I agree with the basic notion of what you saying. And I certainly agree with the notion that the system needs to be respected to move it forward towards reform. The only point I am trying to make is that if the system is broken, that it is difficult to say to our young ones that the system is worthy of the respect that we would like to see from them.

 

Sure, no one means carte blanche - although as I don't know the situation, I can't quite say how excessive the girl's reaction in this case was. However, when otherwise harmless disrespect for the "organs" can get you more than a hefty fine or a day or two community service, perhaps we are going too far. I'd say the young lady might mind her manners more if she had to pay, say, 500 dollars out of her pocket - or, via her parents, her pocket money.