Video: Freed accused child rapist does in fact speak English; Update: Prosecutors will appeal Update: Prosecutor video added
posted at 10:51 am on July 23, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
On The Big Story Sunday, Julie Banderas and James Rosen discussed the case of accused child rapist Mahamu Kanneh, released because the court couldn’t find a translator to interpret for him in his obscure language. Never mind that Liberia was founded by Americans and English is the official language of that country. Never mind the man completed high school and college in the US, in English.
A Fox producer reached Mr. Kanneh by phone and surprise! he does in fact speak English.
Link: sevenload.com
Exit quesion: Do we merely have an incompetent judge in this case, or a broken legal system.
Update (AP): The prosecutor is holding a press conference now to say that they’ll appeal. Carried live on Fox!
Update (Bryan): Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy announced the appeal a little while ago. Takeaways: There was a translator available for the trial, the burden of providing a translator is on the court, and the prosecutors did not stipulate that the defendant even needed a translator.
Link: sevenload.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Yes, I believe that one must use reason and good judgement in interpreting the Constitution and other rules and regs. A lack of such led to many of the silly SCOTUS rulings we have seen over the past 40 years.
I didn’t really mean to accuse you of “screaming” (you haven’t even used caps!). It was just an expression. Sorry.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 1:32 PM
See, this is what happens when you focus on process and not justice.
First, the delay was for his benefit and his alone. The State did not create the condition for the delay and the delay in no way harmed the Defendant. In fact, it accrued to his benefit.
Second, the Judge ignored the facts of the case. She ignored the fact his English was good enough for him to graduate from High School and College. Anybody who has achieved that level of academic achievement in English can be presumed to have a good mastery of the language.
Third, the Judge could have elected to continue with the trial and allowed the defendant to argue his issues on appeal. In that way, a least, some measure of Justice would have been served.
Instead, they allow an accused child rapist against whom the State seems to have had a strong case (witnesses and DNA) to walk. That’s not justice. That’s injustice.
TheBigOldDog on July 23, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Yes, I was speaking to the general, not the specific. I should have made clear.
In this case the defendant appears to trying to delay by his antics - I’m may well have been more eager for his trial had he been detained in prison. I don’t like releasing those accused of especially serious crimes back into the public sphere before their trail.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 1:33 PM
He only spent one night in jail.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 1:34 PM
This has nothing to do with justice or even the law. . . it’s simply liberal pandering at its worst.
rplat on July 23, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Granted, but that doesn’t mean the Liberian Embassy people knew the first thing about where to find them, if they had never had any need for their services. We share the same language…there wouldn’t be any more expectation of needing a translator there than in the British or Australian Embassies.
James on July 23, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Yeah, I’m still convinced that we don’t, at least not legally.
Esthier on July 23, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Also, and I may be going completely out on a limb here, but I always thought that the Constitutional right to a speedy trial was put in there because the Founders wanted to make sure that people accused of something weren’t kept in jail indefinitely while the prosecution diddled around building their case, a principle that I believe we can all agree on.
I never once suspected that the Founders’ intent was to provide the accused with a simple way of delaying proceedings with ridiculous claims and demands until the clock ran out.
But hey, I learn something new every day, it would seem.
Misha I on July 23, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Here I find myself in agreement with you completely. What I was attempting to say, is perhaps better left to Lincoln, addressing these specific concerns in his speech at the Young Men’s Lyceum in Illinois.
In the face of lynchings etc for “moral reasons”, he said this
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Sorry Allah, your argument doen not hold water. If he had only a rudimentary understanding of English he should and would have been tried. If you have only an 8th grade education in this country you can be tried and convicted. Look at the number of high schol dropouts that are convicted of murder, rape, arson, etc. And a high school dropout you could assume only has an 8 or 9th (max) grade comp. This guy had a high school diploma, and some college. All legal terms can be broken down to at least 10th grade english level (probable most at 8th grade). Indeed some contracts demand that, it may make them legthy, but they are in plain english. There is not a legal term that cannot be explained to a high schooler. If your statement and argument was fact, then there would be 1/2 the number of criminals in jail (or less). The judge, like pointed out so many times on O’R, just didn’t want to convict a child molester. This was the excuse she came up with.
The lawyers argue the technical details, the court is there to seek the truth.
Better to have gone ahead with this case, and see how much this rapist understood, then to let him walk and rape again. A case like this begins at a slow pace, the court then would have had time to seek out any specialized help. Presumbly he now has immunity for most any heinous crime.
right2bright on July 23, 2007 at 1:45 PM
Yes. A separate issue that also deserves scrutiny.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 1:45 PM
I was curious
Has he been convicted yet? Is anyone been convicted yet?
Is this America anymore?
Yes the crime is terrible was there DNA evidence, probably not since he was not in prison awaiting trial
He could be guilty and should be tried but three years?
EricPWJohnson on July 23, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Yes, there is always a risk of abuse/mistakes/… when we give discretionary power to someone. We trust that they will exercise their discretion wisely, but that is not always the case, as we have seen with a bunch of these rulings, lately. As amerpundit mentioned earlier, common sense seems to be thrown by the wayside by many of these judges whose reasonable discretion we rely on - our system relies on.
I like the lincoln quote, but this case is the contra-positive of what he was fearful of. He was scared of mobs taking over the job that the courts were charged to carry out. Here, we have the courts abdicating their responsibility and leaving no one but the mob. I think that Lincoln would have been more concerned with bad judges causing passions to rise in the mob, which becomes extremely dangerous and difficult to control.
If enough citizens get the impression that they cannot trust our legal system, then we are finished. And that is a much more important point, in my mind, at least.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 1:59 PM
This is pure laziness.
In a tough spot, requiring serious deliberation and fore-though, the easy way out is to just dismiss the problem.
Lazy judges like this ought to all be dispared.
Lawrence on July 23, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Hey, wake up.
He’s been walking around for 3 years doing who knows what.
Put a band aid on that bleeding heart.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 2:06 PM
They could have put the guy through a 6 week english course!
This is not how our system is supposed to work, this is what the lawyers have turned it into.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 2:08 PM
That’s why nations die. Systems become brittle with age, as we are seeing, and eventually they just crack. When the intentions behind laws is lost, it is not long before the effectiveness of the laws also goes.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 2:12 PM
There was DNA evidence and witnesses for this case. This is so disgusting. Why didn’t the Judge know the clerk couldn’t do her job? What about the child’s Rights? The poor pervert had to wait three years, boo hoo.
calgrammy on July 23, 2007 at 2:13 PM
THREE years! They could have put the predator through law school.
Sounds like the prosecutor agrees, the judge dropped the ball.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 2:16 PM
You bloggers completely forgot the 70’s where rape victims were asked if they enjoyed it and put on trial on the stands and a guy shot 4 thugs with knives and stopped New York City for a summer while he went on trial instead of them
Lets have a trial and see, if the evidence was there he would have been held for more that just a day
EricPWJohnson on July 23, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Yea, covers it all: addresses bad decisions, bad laws, and mob rule in his speech - all of which had raised it’s head in his day.
And again agreed. But I would contend the legal system’s first obligation is as it should be: to protect the defendant. When we rail against the accused without full knowledge then I think we undermine the system - which is the important point, as you say. (When I say full knowledge I don’t mean every detail, of course).
That is not meant in anyway to excuse crimes such as this man is accused off, nor the technicalities that might let him off the hook.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 2:20 PM
That’s a misplacement of priorities, imho. The legal system’s first obligation is to seek the truth, no? And it doesn’t look like the truth about the defendant’s English proficiency and its relevance was fully sought out.
Bryan on July 23, 2007 at 2:23 PM
This was not protecting the defendant, this was giving extra rights to someone who did not qualify for them allowing them to work the system and go free.
Everyone is entitled to a fair and speedy trial. The defendant and his lawyer dragged this out and then the judge denied the victim a trial.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 2:24 PM
If the judge dismissed the case because she was afraid of being overturned, she should be fired for that alone. It’s her job to try cases, not to look good. If she disregarded the psychiatrists report, and the conviction was overturned, we wouldn’t be in any different position that we are now, but there would have at least been the chance to get a sensible evaluation of the defendent’s understanding.
pedestrian on July 23, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Maybe he bought his way out with sexual favors etc…
This is just wrong. If the victim is a ‘relative’…, doesn’t it stand to reason that someone there speaks his language…? And if they gave a darn about their kid, wouldn’t those ‘relatives’ do something to help her or at least seek justice.
Rugged Individual on July 23, 2007 at 2:29 PM
No. The legal system’s first obligation is protect the rights and property of individuals.
I think you might be confusing the legal system with the T.V. show Mythbusters. (joking)
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 2:31 PM
I can’t agree with this. I think that the legal system’s first obligation should be to make sure that justice is carried out fairly. I son’t believe that this defendant was ever in danger of being treated unfairly in the trial. … although … after this ruling I’m much less confident of that, too!
I agree. I’m not railing against the accused. I have problems with the system and the judge (and the accused’s lawyer). The accused might have been acquitted in trial. But it came down to a question of his full understanding of the system, not of the system being fair in its workings, and that I believe is wrong when taken to this extreme.
I understand where you’re coming from. This is not a cut and dried problem. The judge certainly has some legal basis for the ruling, but it is only an academic one, IMO. This is counterbalanced by the damage to the system that such a ruling would incur - which is, again, a very debatable point, though I am pretty confident of my analysis of it.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 2:35 PM
This a secondary function of the legal system, one that would not exist without the primary function. Legal systems exist for a method of recourse for those accused.
Justice itself doesn’t need a legal system. Justice can be carried out without a legal system, hence the term: vigilante justice (which I don’t condone, merely here for example).
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 2:41 PM
I’ve got a growing issue with the prosecutor the more I think about it. You would think three years would be enough time to subpoena the principal of the high scholl this guy got a diploma from and a couple of the professors that taught any classes he may have passed, subpoena test grades and have all these people testify under oath that the guy had no problem with english or that they passed someone who was functionately illiterate. Then let the judge decide if she is going to hold the defendant and the defence lawyer in contempt of court.
But I guess I’m not a s smart as a lawyer.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I’ve been wondering about this too. Though it could be — we don’t know — that the judge didn’t permit any inquiries along this line, preferring the “expert” opinion of the psychiatrist over that of Kanneh’s educators, who would have known him longer than the psychiatrist did. Hopefully we’ll find out about this during the appeal.
Bryan on July 23, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Guess that’ll make it easier for them to find him then.
I mean, in theory.
Professor Blather on July 23, 2007 at 2:51 PM
If you’re talking about Bernie Goetz, it was 1984. And it was screwdrivers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz
Read the article for a couple laughs. Bernie is now - wait for it! - a vegetarian activist.
Like Jack Bauer with tofu.
Professor Blather on July 23, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Okay. We have a point of philosophical disagreement, here. I believe that fairness is the fundamental responsibility of the judicial system, while you think that protection of the accused is.
I don’t condone vigilante justice, either, since no society could remain stable if vigilantes were allowed to mete out justice when they saw fit. But this is why it is so important for the judicial system to be perceived as fair, to stop people from feeling the need to carry out what the courts wouldn’t.
Just because the defendant might not understand the workings of the system does not mean that he will be treated unfairly. That’s why he has a lawyer.
At some point, competent representation should really be enough, especially if there is no alternative other than dismissal.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 2:58 PM
The mission of the Court system is to provide the people an open, fair, efficient, and independent system for the advancement of justice under the law.
TheBigOldDog on July 23, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Teach him English and then prosecute him.
csdeven on July 23, 2007 at 3:00 PM
As a side note, anyone who takes the opinion of a psychiatrist or psychologist seriously needs to have his head examined. Bringing such voodoo specialists into the court as “experts” is generally a laughable enterprise. It even led one court to separately swear in two “personalities” of one person.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Hannity is talking about it on the radio now.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Let me mention this, and then I will leave our differences as they maybe on the table and we can disagree in good faith.
Recourse for the aggrieved is the foundational principle justifying the establishment of this nation. Our entire law is build on that foundation.
The Declaration of Independence was justified by the claim that they had no recourse for what was laid at their door. It was not a question of whether Britain was fair to them, Britain probably was all things considered, but the fathers had no way to appeal what they saw as the violation of law, other than rhetoric, which was discarded.
They were imposed upon (which is the violation of rights and property, which they have a right to defend themselves against) and drew up a declaration appealing to both the law of nature and the law of the land, justifying independence because there was no avenue for the defense of rights and property.
The inability for recourse is the foundational principle of the foundational document of this nation. As such the defense of the rights and the property of individuals is the key characteristic of what followed and remains the defining characteristic of our law and legal system.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I would think the judge deciding who was an expert and who wasn’t would be prejudicial.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 3:12 PM
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Spirit of 1776
The problem is that they “played” the legal system. If you don’t think that the defense lawyers weren’t watching the calender and didn’t make a motion for dismissal then you are being naive. It is supposed to be a legal process but it has turned into a game. Murderers spend 18 months in prison and Scooter Libby is sentenced to 30. There is no credibility in the system anymore, not because of the law but because how it is abused.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 3:17 PM
In theory. Then again, the man’s been free for the last 3 years. Either they support and agree with him, or they’re not interested in dealing justice outside of the courts.
There certainly is a lot about this trial that doesn’t add up. I’m not trying to lay blame anywhere specifically, but it really feels as though someone or several someones messed up in a very big way.
Esthier on July 23, 2007 at 3:18 PM
I woould take the opinion of a psychiatrist on the effects of psychoactive drugs very seriously, and the opinion of a psychologist on various other (recreational) drugs with a nod to personal experience, but as to their BS detectors, not so much.
pedestrian on July 23, 2007 at 3:25 PM
That’s a noble goal, I agree. Allow me to ask, would you support cameras at the roads that would automatically mail you a ticket whenever you are photographed above the speed-limit?
It would be open, fair, efficient, and independent of influence. And it would be just, as would be merely executing the law. Are you in favor of our judicial system undertaking this project to advance “the mission”?
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Yes, we disagree. Good discussion, though.
But the aggrieved are not the defendants. What you are addressing here is the right of the aggrieved girl to have justice served fairly.
The rest of your post, which I generally agree with, also discusses the inability to take someone to court - to get a fair assessment of the situation.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Who says it’s fair? In this instance, you can’t confront your accuser, and it relied more on who is supposed to be driving instead of worrying about who actually is driving.
Esthier on July 23, 2007 at 3:31 PM
What a strangely mature thing to find on the Internet. On a political blog of all things.
And I thought I’d seen everything.
Well done.
Professor Blather on July 23, 2007 at 3:35 PM
I have no problems with that. It’s fair - assuming proper calibration of the guns, …
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 3:36 PM
I said it was fair because it is impartial. Everyone is measured by the same analytical measurements. As for the other pretend you need a retina scan or a thumbprint to unlock your car. Soon enough cars will have some function similar to ‘remember’ the driver and driver’s preferences. Would that change your answer?
I’d say not, because you hit the nail on the head - you cannot confront your accuser - which is to say the system is there to protect the accused.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 3:40 PM
This has been a pretty decent discussion all around, I think. As far as any of these “letter of the law versus spirit of the law” debates go, it’s been pretty tame - as they can get out of hand quickly.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Sure, one assumes that the plaintiff is aggrieved by the defendant and so the reason for the case - but at this junction the aggrieved is the defendant because now it is the rights and property of the defendant that are in jeopardy. It is the defendant over whom the state has power.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Which is dead wrong. The quote I gave you comes from the Utah Court system. You can visit the web sites of every court system in the country and find pretty much the same mission statement.
TheBigOldDog on July 23, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Sorry to drag you back in, Spirit.
Yes, the rights and property of the defendant are put in jeopardy in trial, and they are to be protected - but to a point. When an accused murderer is arrested, he is presumed innocent, but might not get bail. There is a point at which the judge is tasked with deciding if the presumption of innocence is to be applied to the defendant or not - withholding bail being an indication that the person is assumed guilty, or not trusted to return to court (another assumption of guilt).
Now, anyone can read “innocent until proven guilty” and come to a correct logical conclusion that not only must all accused people receive bail - but that there should not even be a notion of bail, since they are all innocent until the court finds different. But that would be incorrect, even though it logically fits the letter of the law better than offering bail does.
The accused is protected in our system, but not to the extent that society is left unprotected. It is the discretion of the judge that we all rely on to decide who should be considered guilty before trial, and not receive bail, and who should be considered innocent and receive bail.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 3:55 PM
For some reason this reminds of a surprisingly funny “20/20″ segment on California car insurance scams (I think) a few years ago. When one of the perpetrators was cornered by the “20/20″ crew in the typical “investigative journalism” showdown, he started blathering that he didn’t understand English. Unfortunately for him, the reporter was John Quinones, who simply switched over to grilling the guy in Spanish. The look on the guy’s face when he realized his mistake was priceless.
Anyway, after a few questions en espanol, this guy suddenly remembered how to speak English, too.
Blacklake on July 23, 2007 at 4:07 PM
And how about contracts, has this guy bought anything in the last ten years? Does he have any credit cards that he signed agreements written in english? Has he bought a car? Did he negotiate in Kai? Hs he had a job in the last 10 years? Were his employers Liberian? No job? Has he been on welfare? Does he tell his case worker about the jobs he applied for?
The more I think about it there is something going on here that we don’t know about.
peacenprosperity on July 23, 2007 at 4:08 PM
I’m certain that is it to be found on all the courts of the land and probably most internationally as well. I already said to you that it was a good mission statement.
I asked you a question to see if you believed that it was the foundational premise of the legal system by the use of the quote you gave. I suggest to you that it is a part of the system that is secondary to the primary function, as has been elaborated on in this thread.
If you think that I am ‘dead wrong’ in the face of our history, then I there is nothing I could say that would move you I’m sure.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 4:08 PM
If you are saying that too often they forget their true mission then we are in agreement. I’ll also say that I have often seen it go completely the other way as in the Border Patrol Agent case. Too often it comes down to what suits their hidden agenda.
TheBigOldDog on July 23, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Heh. No worries, I’m happy to continue because we are not yet at an impasse.
Let me reframe your statement: the judge doesn’t waive the presumption of innocence, he/she measures the risk to the populace in the face of the present facts. Even in this, the legal system looks to the rights and property of others as the chief concern. ie it’s not presumption of guilt, it’s caution - measured concern for the rights and property of the populace.
And when we cry out why?! are they out on bail - we are calling for a presumption of guilt. Even in cases with repeat offenders, etc, we are not claiming their guilt as much as we are claiming they are a risk to other’s rights and property.
In regard to bail, which is a sticky subject of it’s own, I think that once the state takes the accused into custody, it is responsible to bring a speedy trial - I think bail merely serves as a mitigating factor for the inability to do so.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 4:32 PM
So that’s it?
Everything becomes legal as long as you can’t find an interpreter?
drjohn on July 23, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Then again, with radar guns that do not store information, there’s no way for a speeder to confront the accuser either. It seems we’ve already crossed that bridge, so my answer would need to change if my car provided one of the clues against me.
Though I certainly don’t plan on purchasing a car that would turn on me like that in any near future.
Esthier on July 23, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Another case for English being the official language of the USA. Another reason to demand that all immigrants speak English.
Guardian on July 23, 2007 at 4:48 PM
I would disagree with this. Keeping someone in jail, before they have been judged guilty, is clearly an assumption of guilt (at least more than an assumption of innocence). This is why they have to change these folks into street wear before they get into court - because the fact that they are sitting in jail is felt to be prejudicial to the jury, in favor of a guilty verdict (as I’m sure you are aware of).
Because we assume they are more likely guilty than innocent. Otherwise, there would be little risk to others in letting them out before, and during, trial.
I imagine that you must really despise the rape shield laws (I certainly do).
Again, I would disagree. If one were truly presumed innocent then there would be no need to jail him, at all, and therefore no need for bail before trial.
Pre-trial incarceration/bail is tough because it is a point where the letter of many laws come into conflict. This problem is resolved by common sense (possible pre-trial jailing/possible bail) - but it is common sense that does not fit logically with the more fundametal claims of the judicial system. One must choose between the letter of “innocent until proven guilty” (in the eyes of the court) and the need to jail certain people before adjudication is complete as reason would dictate.
That’s why I say that fairness is the foundation of our system, not the protection of the accused - which comes with a fair system, anyway.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 4:50 PM
To me this is indicative of the “soft racism” of liberals, especially those in power. I’ve heard too many people who share the judge’s and shrink’s ideology and social class proclaim (in a politically correct fashion, of course) that this is the sort of thing “those people” do, and it is part of their “culture”. A completely false and disgusting proclamation, but congruent with extreme PC multiculturalism.
Had the victim been any of the lily-white, upper-crust children out of her gated community, I bet the judge would have been a lot less sympathetic to the accused.
angryoldfatman on July 23, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Teach him English, then prosecute him.
csdeven on July 23, 2007 at 5:34 PM
This is a case of incompetance all the way across the board. Since when is a Psychiatrist a linguist anyway? The accused spent one night in jail before he bailed out on a $10,000 bond. He then waived his right to a speedy trial so the defense could conduct their own DNA tests. In recent weeks court officials had found a suitable interpreter, but Judge Savage ruled that too much time had already passed. He waived his right to a speedy trial.
The police, prosecutors, and defense are ready to proceed, and have been for quite some time. They found a suitable interpreter but then the judge suddenly dismisses the case because too much time had already passed after he waived his right to a speedy trial?
Apparently, the accused brutal rapist of a 7-year old little girl has a perpetual lifetime Get Out of Jail Free Card in the state of Maryland.
SilverStar830 on July 23, 2007 at 5:41 PM
My feelings exactly - the whole post.
Knew a Mauritanian guy who ran through five red lights in Tuscon, AZ and got off with the cop ’cause he claimed in his country there were no lights and he didn’t know what they were. Incredibly, that part was true, except that this fellow had been wealthy enough to have lived in several other countries, including the USA for a number of years and knew damn well what red lights were. He pulled the ignorant foreigner card, lied his head off and scooted out of a major,major ticketing. He’d missed the first light, knew he was gonna get it when the blue lights lit up behind him, so he drove through the next four lights with the cop behind him, to make it appear that he didn’t know what he was doing, then he delivered his story. He was Francophone, so he had a nice strong foerign accent to add credence to the tale.
A Liberian who has the credentials to get into US college can follow the court proceedings quite well. Colleges require a mandatory level of ESL to guarantee that the prospective student is capable of doing the required work in English.
The court screwed up. Too lazy to confirm the claim. Too ignorant about Anglophone immigrants to smell a fraud? As if people in dragged in front of a judge never lie, and this case was no simple traffic ticket. And since when does a pychiatrist determine foreign language proficiency? How’s this for the ignorant PC crowd: Africans are typically bilingual and tri-lingual, quite a number have a working knowledge of four or five languages. Not your local Maryland types at all.
naliaka on July 23, 2007 at 5:49 PM
SilverStar830 on July 23, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Oh! I needn’t have bothered to post - you summed it up nicely.
naliaka on July 23, 2007 at 5:50 PM
As to the foundation, the intent and derivation of our legal system, I refer back to the previous statement about the Declaration of Independence. I am content to rest on that illustration.
As to the other parts of your excellent argument, I would say two things. First, the execution of the law is not always the intent.
Second, when charges are brought against someone, the functional reality is that the state assumes control of the accused. Only the state has the authority to legally take life and every thing up to it. Hence Lincoln’s admonition to resolve complaints outside the legal system whenever possible, because the gravity of the situation once entered is great.
Taking a citizen to jail is not a assumption of guilt, it is the state taking control over the outcome of the citizen’s future.
We have, over the years, made those lines hazy, but it is still the distinction point. If it were about fairness, speed need not necessarily be considered. Go about your life, we’ll call you when we have sorted it all out. But it’s not just that. It’s the fact that the accusation puts the citizen’s life, his rights and property under the power of the state. Hence the need for speed.
Cognizant of the dangers of a tyrannical state, they set this whole system up to (first) limit the power of the state over the citizen while (second) not abdicating the responsibility of the execution of justice.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Astonishing! You would think such an excuse would be worthless - does AZ not have a driving test to get a license?
Color me disturbed.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Good enough, Spirit. We disagree about the primary “purpose” of our legal system, and will probably not come much closer on that account.
I’ll catch you on the next interesting thread. Good discussion, all.
progressoverpeace on July 23, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Roger that. Enjoyed the conversation.
Spirit of 1776 on July 23, 2007 at 6:30 PM
The plot thickens, dramatically…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290300,00.html
Click here to read indictment, docket (pdf)
SilverStar830 on July 23, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Well, consider the other circumstances - a foreign student enrolled fulltime at AU on a student visa, with an international license. If the cop had been able to travel abroad as much as this “poor” student, he’d have known it was a crock, but the cop wasn’t familiar with the state of traffic lights in desert realms, and with all the sincere acting to link the disparate pieces together, the guy bluffed and won.
Think of the theatrics possible if one was facing even more serious charges. Perhaps one could drop the American accent and slather on the Pidgin riff and act like one didn’t understand even what the EXIT sign meant.
naliaka on July 23, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Apparently the prosecutors can’t refile these rape charges and can only appeal the judge’s decision. Tom Tancredo has sent a letter to Alberto Gonzales asking that federal civil rights violation charges be filed against Kanneh if the judges ruling isn’t overturned. Kanneh can only be deported if convicted of a felony.
Everytime I turn around Tancredo is doing something right.
Buzzy on July 23, 2007 at 9:30 PM
It is absolutely insane what these judges will do to destroy this country!! We have to take this country back!Child rapists get off scott free,Terrorists are given rights as if they were citizens,Illegals are made legal.. How the hell can they go home at night and look at themselves in the mirror??? Talk about mental midgets. This judge is a classic example!
build the wall on July 23, 2007 at 10:33 PM
With all due respect AP, someone fracked this up. Bigtime. If it is the system itself that is broken, someone had to break the system.
After all, I’d almost rather see this guy walk on a technicality, knowing that our justice system called him for the human filth he is. Recidivism with these kinds of offenses is almost a given, and you know when he ends up violently killing someone in a fit of mollestation, the first question that conservatives are going to ask is, How the hell did this guy get off?
After all, in my homestate, the definition of “speedy trial” is something that a judge can play fast-and-loose with. I’ve been through the system, and it ain’t pretty.
gryphon202 on July 24, 2007 at 3:13 AM
The judge is a fool.
The prosecutor did a poor job protecting the community.
The psychiatrist is not qualified to give an expert opinion concerning the defendant’s ability to understand English.
slp on July 24, 2007 at 6:14 AM
Three facts:
1. CO2 causes global warming.
2. Mahamu Kanneh exhales CO2 daily.
3. Judge Katherine D. Savage exhales CO2 daily.
If Montgomery Countians were serious about reducing their carbon footprint …
Ali-Bubba on July 24, 2007 at 7:07 AM
Perhaps it’s just me, but I smell the fumes of PC and sensitivity here.
In fact, by looking at the judge’s picture, she seems to be infected by PC.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
The False Dervish on July 24, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Could it be : The soft bigotry of low expectations.
Immigrant African is assumed to be of a lower educational standard. Immigrant, multi-lingual well-educated African uses this assumption to his advantage.
naliaka on July 24, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Efforting is a term of art in the broadcast industry that is used to describe trying to get people for interviews. They use it all the time behind the scenes but rarely on the air.
rivlax on July 25, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Maybe where he’s from this is just a date. I think we need to be more sensetive to his cultural heritage. *sark off*
I bet this judge gets re-elected!
Mojave Mark on July 25, 2007 at 8:01 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]