Just read the Judge Voy article. Great work by him and he is really committed to turn these kids around, but it is always struggle with a broader issue.
That issue is the constant tension between attempting to rehabilitate these kids and set them straight, or to take a more punitive oriented approach–which is what they will face in a year or two anyway once they are 18.I always have mixed emotions, and there is a significant pull by both theories.
I generally think that we should avoid certification as adults except for repeat offenders, or for offenders where there is real violence involved.
I guess the conflicting philosophies are best served by analyzing the facts of each case.
There are some real little monsters who I believe should have been certified, but were not. But there are other case where it appears the DA is too aggressive about asking for certification in questionable situations.
So, again, rather than formally adopting a more rehabilitative type approach or a more punitive/protect society approach, is best determined case-by-case, IMO.
Some are tempted, including me, to criticize Voy as being so side-tracked and enamored with all these programs to benefit the juveniles, that he may occasionally lose objectivity and not recognize a bad apple that is beyond redemption and really needs to be tried as an adult.Also, he doesn't generally recognize or concede when certain programs are a large waste of money and resources, and prove to neither rehabilitate children nor protect the public.
But every time I am tempted to criticize him on such matters, I remind myself of a few things. First, he's far from some bleeding-heart liberal, so if he insists a program is beneficial, we should assume he is focused on its effectiveness to protect the public in the future, and that he can properly balance the need to salvage as many of these kids as possible vs. the need to protect the public. Secondly, his exemplary commitment over the last 10 15 or so years to juvenile law, along with his passion for these programs stamp him as a true public servant in my book and not just some judicial type with their show piece program for public/media consumption. He seems to only truly care about effectiveness a program demonstrates as to rehabilitating offenders. I don't believe he would ever advocate for funds for a program that looks good to the public and media, but is ultimately not too effective
But, again, he is such a true believer that it may be fair to wonder if he ever loses objectivity. As said, he would only advocate for continuation of a program if he trully believes it is truly effect.But since he is such a true believer in his mission, and some of these programs are truly his babies, does he always have the objectivity to recognize when one such program turns out to be an ineffective waste of money?
All that said, I love true believers like that who have that kind of focus and compassionate commitment. But let's also be committed to the public we need to protect from some of these kids.
Guest
Anonymous
May 4, 2018 8:09 pm
What about Apu Nahasapeemapetilon?
Apu: It may not be glamorous, but it's good honest work.
Customer: How much is this quart of milk?
Apu: Twelve dollars.
I agree with a lot of what 1:04 indicates but disagree on the main point the poster makes.
If a program is ineffective, the poster seems to put far too much weight on whether those behind such program have their heart in the right place.
Even if they do, and even if they believe(or try to convince themselves) that the program is largely effective, if it in fact is largely ineffective, the subjective(but ultimately wrong) view point of some official that it is effective, does not really matter.
Guest
Anonymous
May 4, 2018 10:57 pm
How did I miss this story?
Law360, New York (May 4, 2018, 4:41 PM EDT) — A New York jury on Friday issued a split verdict in a trial over a multifaceted $300 million market manipulation scheme, clearing Las Vegas attorney Kyleen Cane of any wrongdoing, but convicting former financial services firm OmniView Capital Advisors LLC CEO Abraxas J. Discala on fraud and conspiracy charges.
A jury in Brooklyn acquitted Kyleen Cane of securities fraud and two counts of conspiracy, but found Abraxas Discala guilty of securities fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy. Shown is the Eastern District of New York courthouse.
Trying to get ahold of Lemper's office for some billings (already got the records) and I'm having a heck of a time getting through to anyone at his office. Stopped by his office today about 3'ish and the office was not only closed, but looks like it was abandoned.
Anybody know his current contact information and location? I want to get this demand letter out pronto.
Guest
Anonymous
May 5, 2018 7:19 pm
Ethics for sale? Real cheap
Guest
Anonymous
May 6, 2018 7:40 pm
Ross Miller, Gerri Schroder and Debra March are endorsing Steve Wolfson who lost 42k in campaign money while he was District Attorney. Nothing to see here.
Welp, I think you done gone and killed the blog.
Just read the Judge Voy article. Great work by him and he is really committed to turn these kids around, but it is always struggle with a broader issue.
That issue is the constant tension between attempting to rehabilitate these kids and set them straight, or to take a more punitive oriented approach–which is what they will face in a year or two anyway once they are 18.I always have mixed emotions, and there is a significant pull by both theories.
I generally think that we should avoid certification as adults except for repeat offenders, or for offenders where there is real violence involved.
I guess the conflicting philosophies are best served by analyzing the facts of each case.
There are some real little monsters who I believe should have been certified, but were not. But there are other case where it appears the DA is too aggressive about asking for certification in questionable situations.
So, again, rather than formally adopting a more rehabilitative type approach or a more punitive/protect society approach, is best determined case-by-case, IMO.
Some are tempted, including me, to criticize Voy as being so side-tracked and enamored with all these programs to benefit the juveniles, that he may occasionally lose objectivity and not recognize a bad apple that is beyond redemption and really needs to be tried as an adult.Also, he doesn't generally recognize or concede when certain programs are a large waste of money and resources, and prove to neither rehabilitate children nor protect the public.
But every time I am tempted to criticize him on such matters, I remind myself of a few things. First, he's far from some bleeding-heart liberal, so if he insists a program is beneficial, we should assume he is focused on its effectiveness to protect the public in the future, and that he can properly balance the need to salvage as many of these kids as possible vs. the need to protect the public. Secondly, his exemplary commitment over the last 10 15 or so years to juvenile law, along with his passion for these programs stamp him as a true public servant in my book and not just some judicial type with their show piece program for public/media consumption. He seems to only truly care about effectiveness a program demonstrates as to rehabilitating offenders. I don't believe he would ever advocate for funds for a program that looks good to the public and media, but is ultimately not too effective
But, again, he is such a true believer that it may be fair to wonder if he ever loses objectivity. As said, he would only advocate for continuation of a program if he trully believes it is truly effect.But since he is such a true believer in his mission, and some of these programs are truly his babies, does he always have the objectivity to recognize when one such program turns out to be an ineffective waste of money?
All that said, I love true believers like that who have that kind of focus and compassionate commitment. But let's also be committed to the public we need to protect from some of these kids.
What about Apu Nahasapeemapetilon?
Apu: It may not be glamorous, but it's good honest work.
Customer: How much is this quart of milk?
Apu: Twelve dollars.
I need a Squisheee!
I agree with a lot of what 1:04 indicates but disagree on the main point the poster makes.
If a program is ineffective, the poster seems to put far too much weight on whether those behind such program have their heart in the right place.
Even if they do, and even if they believe(or try to convince themselves) that the program is largely effective, if it in fact is largely ineffective, the subjective(but ultimately wrong) view point of some official that it is effective, does not really matter.
How did I miss this story?
Law360, New York (May 4, 2018, 4:41 PM EDT) — A New York jury on Friday issued a split verdict in a trial over a multifaceted $300 million market manipulation scheme, clearing Las Vegas attorney Kyleen Cane of any wrongdoing, but convicting former financial services firm OmniView Capital Advisors LLC CEO Abraxas J. Discala on fraud and conspiracy charges.
A jury in Brooklyn acquitted Kyleen Cane of securities fraud and two counts of conspiracy, but found Abraxas Discala guilty of securities fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy. Shown is the Eastern District of New York courthouse.
https://www.law360.com/trials/articles/1040501/breaking-atty-acquitted-ceo-convicted-in-300m-stock-fraud-trial?nl_pk=ab31df53-eb20-4919-954d-ce5f9714a997&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=trials
Sharks in 6
Boo this man!
Apparently not.
Totally unrelated —
Trying to get ahold of Lemper's office for some billings (already got the records) and I'm having a heck of a time getting through to anyone at his office. Stopped by his office today about 3'ish and the office was not only closed, but looks like it was abandoned.
Anybody know his current contact information and location? I want to get this demand letter out pronto.
Ethics for sale? Real cheap
Ross Miller, Gerri Schroder and Debra March are endorsing Steve Wolfson who lost 42k in campaign money while he was District Attorney. Nothing to see here.