"Sentencing is a dispassionate Exercise."
I struggled mightily with that particular imo only partial truism we heard from the Judge yesterday. Still sitting with it all actually as I think it is an absolutely incomplete explanation of the sentencing process and I frankly disagree absolutely with sentencing being fully explained as being dispassionate. Wrong word and poor explanation imo.
I've seen too many cases where a jury gets things partially right or absolutely wrong based on the facts of the case and where the Judge has to 'adjust the scales' at sentencing but within the guidelines of course. If sentencing truly were dispassionate then why bother hearing from the VICTIMS? AND certainly why the farce with listening to hours of commentary about the DEFENDANT? WHY?
In a million years I will never understand the circus Judge Randolph let play out yesterday in his courtroom yesterday with a good 1/2 day or more of MT supporters allowed to speak.
WHY?
The Jury had rendered a verdict and imo by virtue of Judge Randolph permitting the circus of hearing from people that only knew MT for a short period of time and on rinse and repeat, it was as if he took a huge MUD PIE and smooshed it in the face of BOTH the Jury that worked LONG AND HARD and with great courage to convict on all six counts against MT and the VICTIMS who have to live with the consequences of the murder of JFD. The entire episode was imo made even more of a joke because any of those MANY people that spoke yesterday for MT could have been brought to her defence AT TRIAL and subject to cross examination. BUT, we didn't see any of that happen (not a surprise as to why). It was a feeble attempt by the Defence to simply ambush and hijack an event that is supposed to be about the VICTIMS.
Frankly imo yesterday was only worthy of something you might see in a banana republic which made the Troconis Family and Schoenhorn comments comparing the Stamford Courthouse experience of MT to the situation of justice in Venezuela quite ironic and darkly humorous. I know the situation in CT Judiciary is horrifically soft on crime but its not yet on par with Venezuela - getting closer every day but not all there yet!
IMO yesterdays presentation was a farce that was allowed by Judge Randolph. But more importantly I thought it was an absolute slap in the face and knife in the gut to the friends and family of JFD.
Since when are VICTIMS RIGHTS and CONVICTED DEFENDANTS RIGHTS EQUAL? MT had a trial and was convicted by a Jury of her peers, PERIOD THE END. IF the Defence wanted these people to speak then bring them to trial and have them subject to cross examination!
Maybe Judge Randolph was announcing that he wasn't one of these Judges that looks at the totality of the evidence presented and then compares it to the jury verdict and then sentences accordingly based on the guidelines established by the legislature? Colour me confused but I am with his entire long statement yesterday. He wasn't confused as he spouted out his ruling in a rapid fire way as if he just wanted it all just done. He imo absolutely DID exercise GREAT discretion with the concurrent ruling that imo effectively dismissed the Class D felonies in the 'lesser' charges. He absolutely DID exercise GREAT discretion in effectively suspending a good portion of the maximum sentence for the top charge of 20 years by reducing it to 14.5 years imo.
Nope to all of yesterday with the exception of the Victims statements. An ABSOLUTE NOPE imo to the extensive word salad heard from Judge Randolph. I had believed him to possibly be an individual of courage, integrity, wisdom and compassion and yesterday I saw none of these qualities as he seemed more than a bit defensive imo for his 'sentencing ruling' in the face of the demands for something quite different from the true VICTIMS of the MT crimes. I found Judge Randolph severely lacking yesterday because I don't believe he made any attempt within the wide discretion available to him to make ANY ATTEMPT to hear the Victims. NONE.
Am I surprised by Judge Randolphs choices yesterday? Nope. The man is a product of the system in which he operates and so I instead take issue with the system which as we have all seen is absolutely broken in CT. But, it did bother me greatly that he sought very much in my opinion to justify doing what he did but imo he hid his justification behind a false narrative that little to do with the actual wide discretion that Judge's possess. I just wish he had had the personal courage to be honest about it all and not choose to hide behind a word such as 'dispassionate'.
IMO it was a sad day for justice on so many levels and it disappoints me greatly that Judge Randolph didn't have the personal courage to stand up for VICTIMS and do so within the bounds of his judicial sentencing discretion.
MOO
If the process truly were dispassionate the role could be assigned to robots or computers and the Judicial role as it relates to sentencing dismissed. Perhaps the correct word might be unbiased as this seemed more along the lines of what he spent so much time talking about yesterday? IDK, but dispassionate in my mind implies so many other issues.
Judge Randolph seemed imo to be struggling mightily on getting across an idea on sentencing to the Courtroom that imo never quite made it or I didn't understand it. Perhaps he was attempting to explain that sentencing ought to align with the verdict provided by the jury of peers in a way that was consistent with established guidelines and wasn't capricious? Whatever his intent with all the word salad for me it fell quite flat. It also seemed that he was attempting to minimize his role or discretion in sentencing and I felt this was incorrect as well.
Judges have substantial discretion and imo we the public expect that this discretion will be properly, responsibly and fairly applied to mete out JUSTICE to those convicted. I would have respected Judge Randolph more if he had focused on the concept of JUSTICE and his role in that process rather than his robotic explanation of sentencing. I'm simply not sure how JUSTICE was served by anything done by Judge Randolph yesterday given that the VICTIMS (not the church clowns surrounding MT and the Defence) asked for the maximum sentence to be applied to MT. Judge Randolph COULD have done this BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO imo and this is where I'm calling BS on his argument about sentencing being a dispassionate exercise. ABSOLUTE BS.
Judge Randolph spoke at length about the many various 'inconsistencies' in MT behaviour that the jurors could have reasonably seen in rendering their verdict. His list of 'inconsistencies' was thorough and I just thought of a few others that probably weren't that material. that could have been added The thing with all the ones he mentioned though was that all involved very clear INTENT and diligent action by MT to accomplish and I wonder if this is why he listed the ones he did? I think Judge Randolph was attempting to build a bridge between the role of the jury verdict and their possible analysis of the evidence and his role as Judge in sentencing MT for the crimes but somehow remove him from having any role other than just reading the sentencing grids that are public for all to see. I think Judge Randolph saw the MT clear role in the crime of murder YET for whatever reason in his mind could not connect what he heard at trial and heard from the jury verdict with the maximum sentencing guidelines that clearly we available to him.
And I can shorten it up a bit too.
