We haven't watched much of the coverage and perhaps that's a good thing, given what this observer writes.
...the judge's motherly patience, as if toward a wayward or recalcitrant child, seemed to be in evidence throughout the proceedings in Wisconsin. At first, it seemed to me that this was good because it would serve to reassure the critics of our justice system that justice could be served in a white-dominated trial. However, the idea that justice is served by our willingness to be manipulated as proof of our "love" is inherently false, and I have retreated from my original respect for the judge and the ever-patient prosecution. This is, I believe, a fruit of feminism, which sees motherly love as a model of the best behavior. A more severe/fatherly tone would have been better.
The defendant should not be allowed to repeat his endless objections to the proceedings. Rather, he should have been in the separated courtroom throughout and his microphone muted every time he made nonsensical objections. The judge should not feel that it is incumbent upon herself to meticulously explain her reasoning regarding many matters of law that Brooks does not understand and obviously does not want to understand. His attempts to argue with witnesses or with the judge should not only be explained to him as unlawful, but should not be allowed at all, since they only encourage the playacting and pretense of fairness — whereas the trial is, with his inordinate participation, more of a farce than a trial.
By being a patient big sister or mom, the judge has inappropriately diluted her role as judge despite the momentary appeal of her beauty and kindly tone of voice and moderation. Justice requires more manly sobriety and professionalism....
Since we've not watched, we're in no position to judge the judge. But we can tell you that the "mommy syndrome" is in play in many areas of education, including the peripheral ones. Frankly, it's cloying and probably damaging in the long run; not only to the kids, but also to the country as a whole.
3 comments:
I disagree.
If she didn't explain herself, if she didn't guide Brooks about the law, there would serious concerns about the appeal that will follow.
The fact that she didn't provide a back up attorney might be grounds for a successful appeal.
Here's that part that I noticed most:
The defendant should not be allowed to repeat his endless objections to the proceedings. Rather, he should have been in the separated courtroom throughout and his microphone muted every time he made nonsensical objections.
He can be in a separate room with comms available, until he acts like a ranting buffoon; then you shut him off.
We'll see about the 'backup' attorney; it's a good point.
If Dorow can manage the game to convictions with no legitimate grounds for appeal she should be put at the top of everyone's Christmas card list. She's getting the job done. Quibbling style over substance is a waste of time. What matters is moving Brooks along to an opportunity to meet Dahmer's fate.
Post a Comment