(08-30-2017 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-30-2017 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I trust that the judge carried out justice correctly.

I think that's the issue where there is a difference of opinion.

Just like with guilt, I will presume innocence/competency (e.g. carrying out a sentencing correctly) when I don't have enough information to assume otherwise.

But here there is sufficient information at least to cast reasonable doubt upon the issue of whether the sentencing, or indeed the judgement itself, was proper in the circumstances.

Quote:If there was concern that the verdict was incorrect, appealing would have been a more appropriate action, no?

It's a judgement, not a verdict. Juries reach verdicts. Judges give judgements.

I believe they are still in the time frame when it could have been appealed. The pardon essentially pre-empts the appeal process. If there is a belief that it would have been overturned on appeal, then a pardon is not improper in any way, shape, or form. Saves time and resources.

Quote:They're kind of doing that, post-pardon by challenging the admission of guilt by accepting the pardon, so we'll see how that plays out.

For the record, I think civil contempt, not criminal, was the right outcome.