Couple of things
- It's Bobby Saxon's world, and we're just living in it as the chairman of the Jackson County Democratic Party challenges Rep. Paul Broun.
- Though I'm critical - and rightfully so I think - I take a look at the good faith efforts on addressing residential speeding.
- Are we going to let Florida beat us in this too? Come on folks ... we can do better than this.
- As we all suspected, Michael Vick is indeed guilty and, as a result, his days with the Atlanta Falcons should be over. Get through a year of Joey Harrington, draft a quarterback next year and move on.
- At Peach Pundit, Andre asked about party registration in Georgia, and I disagree with him. As good of a Democrat as I am, if I had a strong connection to a particular Republican candidate and the circumstances were so that I had the ability to help him or her out in their primary, why shouldn't I be afforded the opportunity to do so? And what of independent and moderate voters? And, as we were until a few years ago, what of local elections where the 'real' battle is in a particular primary. All these types of questions are why I supported non-partisan elections in Athens-Clarke County a few years back.
- Grift has traveled to Gettysburg and put up a ton of pictures, along with some historical commentary, and it's pretty interesting. Feel free to go to his blog and check it out.
- Is it wrong that I'm irrationally excited about the fact that Travis Tritt's new CD came out today ...
- Understandably, I've been busy with a new job and, of course, fatherhood, so my blogging has waned as of late. I was a bit curious, however, to see how I had been doing on those influential blogger rankings ... and, prior to the brief hiatus, I had been ranked No. 3 by BlogNet News for July 29 and August 5.
- Though I'm critical - and rightfully so I think - I take a look at the good faith efforts on addressing residential speeding.
- Are we going to let Florida beat us in this too? Come on folks ... we can do better than this.
- As we all suspected, Michael Vick is indeed guilty and, as a result, his days with the Atlanta Falcons should be over. Get through a year of Joey Harrington, draft a quarterback next year and move on.
- At Peach Pundit, Andre asked about party registration in Georgia, and I disagree with him. As good of a Democrat as I am, if I had a strong connection to a particular Republican candidate and the circumstances were so that I had the ability to help him or her out in their primary, why shouldn't I be afforded the opportunity to do so? And what of independent and moderate voters? And, as we were until a few years ago, what of local elections where the 'real' battle is in a particular primary. All these types of questions are why I supported non-partisan elections in Athens-Clarke County a few years back.
- Grift has traveled to Gettysburg and put up a ton of pictures, along with some historical commentary, and it's pretty interesting. Feel free to go to his blog and check it out.
- Is it wrong that I'm irrationally excited about the fact that Travis Tritt's new CD came out today ...
- Understandably, I've been busy with a new job and, of course, fatherhood, so my blogging has waned as of late. I was a bit curious, however, to see how I had been doing on those influential blogger rankings ... and, prior to the brief hiatus, I had been ranked No. 3 by BlogNet News for July 29 and August 5.
posted by Jmac at 6:49 AM
11 Comments:
I'm not necessarily against the open primary...but I don't understand how it squares with the intent of the primary, which as I understand it is to let the major parties winnow down their candidates. If that is the case, it doesn't matter how it works out, or what the results have historically been -- a closed primary is the only thing in keeping with that purpose.
Non-partisan, blanket, or cajun style primaries are good for voters, and not so good for the parties.
With closed primaries you tend to get a right wing republican, a left wing democrat, and not much in the way of practical governance.
I'm all for the political parties having a nominating system -- but they should do it on their own dime, and it should be a separate process from the state election.
Michael Vick is guilty? Or Michael Vick pled guilty? There's a difference.
Not in the eyes of the law.
Plus, isn't that a weird distinction to make? Isn't the act of pleading guilty an attempt to take responsibility for your actions? Isn't it accepting the blame?
Michael Vick is guilty? Or Michael Vick pled guilty?
Plus, isn't that a weird distinction to make? Isn't the act of pleading guilty an attempt to take responsibility for your actions? Yes.
One of the reasons that people plead guilty in federal court is that the sentencing guidelines give the defendant credit for accepting responsibility. By comparison, Bill Campbell received an enhanced sentence because even after being convicted he wouldn't accept responsibility for his actions.
The way that the plea proceeding works is that the judge (or prosecuting attorney) will go through the indictment one count at a time; ask the defendant if he committed the acts as alleged; and ask the defendant if he agrees that the government could prove to a jury the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has to answer these questions himself in the affirmative, not through his attorney. If the defendant equivocates in any answer the judge will not accept the plea.
By the time the whole process is over, there's not much doubt that the defendant is guilty by his own admission.
The only exception to this procedure would be an "Alford plea", which is not going to be involved here.
One significant difference between the state and federal systems is that in the state system, the defendant and state routinely agree to a certain sentence. The judge is not bound by that agreement, but if he rejects it, the defendant may withdraw his guilty plea, and anything he said in the plea process cannot be used against him.
In the federal system, there is no agreed time; the agreement is that the prosecution will recommend a certain sentence. The judge is still not bound by the agreement, but if he rejects the "recommendation", the guilty plea still stands ( the defendant can't withdraw it), and the defendant has to serve whatever sentence the judge hands down. Federal judges are not shy about rejecting the recommendation. That's why sentencing of Vick will be a real crap shoot.
Isn't the act of pleading guilty an attempt to take responsibility for your actions? Isn't it accepting the blame?
No, dude. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it's merely a recognition that you can't win the case and that you're likely to get a lighter sentence on the recommendation of the prosecution if you make their lives easier.
Sometimes it is, and sometimes it's merely a recognition that you can't win the case and that you're likely to get a lighter sentence on the recommendation of the prosecution if you make their lives easier.
a/k/a "Alford Plea"
Which Ookie isn't doing.
OK, but it is still a legal admission of guilt.
Vick pled guilty and, on top of the mounting evidence he was facing and the statements in which he took responsibility for his actions, that means he is guilty.
Don't get me wrong, I think Vick is a scumbag and guilty as sin. But JMAC's last post reminds me of the Billy Bragg line (can't remember the song): "This isn't a court of justice, son; this is a court of law." A guilty plea is a legal admission of guilt, and to accept it the DA has to be convinced it's a truthful plea, but that doesn't mean it isnt'y also a plea some defendants use for the very reasons Hillary stated.
Johnathan, if you want to say a legal "is" is the same as an "is," that's fine with me, but in that case you've got to admit that OJ's not guilty. Because, after all, he is... legally...
Post a Comment
<< Home