The Piercing Truth

This is right from the dictionary and seems to describe Albuquerque, Berry and Schultz. Fascism (f ash ,izem) noun An authoritarian right wing system of government and/or social organization. (in general use) extreme right wing, authoritarian, chauvinistic and/or intolerant views or practices. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one group over another, national, ethnic, especially social strata or monetarily; a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. Compliments of one of our Eyes

Oct 21, 2008

16 Reasons

We're beginning to understand just what the problem in the 2nd Judicial District Attorney's office is... The DA's primary concern is with preserving the system. Granted, our judicial system suffers from a chronic lack of funding and heavy case loads. However, that fact in and of itself does not justify moving criminals through the system as the main goal of "New Mexico's largest law firm."
At least 13 people sentenced to probation in the past five years have been charged with committing homicide while serving their sentences, according to a survey of court records.

Two of them have been charged with multiple killings while on probation, bringing the total number of deaths to 16.
Even more disturbing is that the DA didn't seem to know that so many of her sweet plea deals had ended up going sour.
"I'm surprised by that number," she said. "I would be interested to know what the circumstances are. Whenever something like that happens, I want to go back and say, 'What happened? How did we miss it?' "

Clifton Bloomfield is the poster child for bad pleas killing no less than four people while out on probation - the result of a plea deal that reduced a potential 40 years in prison to 200 days of community arrest. Yeah, that's what we thought.

To make matters worse, our Eyes tell us that Bloomfield's most recent plea that saves him from the needle and moves him out of state, actually sends him to Idaho to be closer to his Aryan Brotherhood cohorts. Bloomfield is allegedly bragging that he has committed 1o additional murders that authorities don't know anything about.

There's little doubt that extending plea bargains is part of what the DA does. However, Brandenburg makes the system her top priority while ignoring the safety of her constituents.

Moving criminals through the system places them right back in society endangering innocent people. Like it or not, incarceration is a far better solution. At the very least prisons keep criminals away from their victims and their potential victims.

There are as many as 16 people who lost their lives simply because the DA put the criminal justice process before our protection, 16 families who mourn the loss of their loved ones, and 16 reasons to send Brandenburg on her way.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

That is absolutely pathedic. Kari needs to go. How sad that there is still a chance that Kari may win a third term due to her name recognition. I am a staunch democrat and will vote democrat for all the races except the District Attorney race. Torroco for DA.

Anonymous said...

I'm voting for Kari .... It seems the eye is unfocussed on justice sometimes .... of coarse, that is Marty, Shultz and their enforcement officer's way of looking at things too ... Guilty before having a trial to prove their innocence ... strange that the U.S. constitution guarantees something different.

Anonymous said...

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

Anonymous said...

Eye - enough with the DA race already. Did you totally run out of things to write about?

Anonymous said...

Like I said before, if I were a defense attorney, I would be trying every case. Why? Everytime Kari makes a plea deal, she tells the media, " We may not have gotten a conviction." or " There were problems with the case." Why do a plea deal when a worthless D.A. can get your client off scott free!!!

Anonymous said...

The inference the “eye” wants us to draw is that but for Kari Brandenburg’s “sweet pleas” these defendants would have been in jail and 16 people would be alive today.

As is the case with most nonsense that passes for truth on this blog, this inference has no relationship with reality. To illustrate the point, let’s discuss the Bloomfield case:

The “sweet deal” the DA offered to Mr. Bloomfield did not guarantee that he wouldn’t go to prison. It merely guaranteed that he wouldn’t go to prison for any more than 3 years. The person who kept him out of prison was the sentencing judge. Let me repeat—it was the judge, not the DA, who unlocked the prison door to Mr. Bloomfield.

It’s not leap of logic to conclude that even if the DA would have tried Mr. Bloomfield, and even if she would have convicted him, he still would NOT have gone to prison. He’s convicted just the same after a trial as was after the plea. If he didn’t go to jail after admitting guilt, there’s nothing to suggest he would have if a jury ascribed that same status to him. He’s convicted just the same. The fact is that NOTHING the DA could have done would have prevented the outcome of that case.

Regrettably, the Bloomfield case is not an aberration. The unpleasant fact is that the overwhelming majority of offenders are not sentenced to prison. This reality is not lost on the DA, who must tailor pleas in this defendant-friendly environment not of her own making. It is nonsensical to risk an adverse outcome at trial, knowing all along that even a favorable verdict won’t result in prison, when that Defendant is willing to take a plea that guarantees the conviction and a similar sentence.

It’s nothing more than political expediency for critics to latch onto the Bloomfield case to support their self-serving interests. It’s certainly not an honest assessment of the culture of the criminal justice system, and it’s assuredly not a valid criticism of the DA who handled the case. Opponents of Ms. Brandenburg have disregarded their moral compass and concocted a sour Kool Aid they hope lay voters will drink. One should ask themselves if they want to elect a DA so willing to engage in this sleight of hand to lead a DA’s office, an organization whose leader *should* hold the moral high ground. I would suggest that Ms. Torraco has failed the voters spectacularly in that regard.

None of this is to suggest that sentencing is not a problem in the courthouse. Every player in the criminal justice system knows that lenient sentencing is the criminal justice system’s dirty little secret. But, that secret isn’t hidden in the DA’s office, it’s on full display in the courthouse every single day. Just walk in to pretty much any courtroom on any given day and you’re likely to see a defendant getting a stern lecture followed by a soft slap on the wrist. The DA isn’t complicit in this dance, as the Bloomfield case demonstrates. She’s a helpless bystander. Once she gets the conviction—and she does 95% of the time–it is the court’s responsibility to sentence offenders.

It’s the reluctance of judges to exercise discretion that’s created the problem. Finding judges who are more willing to impose justice is the only thing that will solve it. So long as judges are unwilling to bring down the hammer, it doesn’t matter if Atilla the Hun is the DA. Nothing will change.

In the meantime, I would respectfully suggest that electing a DA who has so enthusiastically adopted a “let’s sacrifice truth at the alter of political expediency” attitude does little right the ship.

Anonymous said...

What a shame when the focus shifts away from personal responsibility for one's actions to "who might have let it happen"! It's the criminal who has committed the crime, not public officials, whether you agree or disagree with how they do their jobs. No DA, judge, jury, probation officer, or police officer can possibly insure that criminal won't commit crimes. All they can do is respond within the law to investigate, apprehend, prosecute or monitor the ones who commit the crimes. Let's never forget that it's the criminal who's responsible, since the day we do that we excuse the rapists, murders, thieves and child abusers who broke the law and we're all sunk!

Anonymous said...

October 22, 2008 9:11:00 PM MDT

.... Dana Pabst is a perfect example of this ... He was the killer of a family retuning to Vegas, not the chevron station, airline, or company he worked for ... also, everyone who drinks is not a killer because of his crime and they should not be held responsible for it. The real killer and responsible party is the one who died in the same crash as the family that he ran into, not everyone else! When will our law makers pull their head out of their asses and see how stupid their legislation regarding "blame" really is?

Anonymous said...

You must not be like the hypocrites ... He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone ....

Anonymous said...

Had Bloomfield gone to trail and been convicted of a home invasion robbery, you think he would not have gone to jail?
You're not serious are you?
He'd be looking at a dime, minimum.

Anonymous said...

I concur with the last post. It is the crooks fault and responsibility. They will all answer to their maker. I would suggest that it does appear that Brandenbergs administration has made it a bit easier for the crime rates to climb. It is apparent that law enforcement is doing their job, why not the DA's office and the judges?

Anonymous said...

Wow, this topic sure brings out the people who can turn a phrase and use those big words!

Anonymous said...

October 23, 2008 11:43:00 AM MDT

Crime rates will continue to climb as long as corruption continues to exist in the anals of our legislative, government, and law enforcement agencies .... They show the public and it's curious citizens how crime is not exclusive to the "so called" criminal!