So the SJC received the Cinquegrana report today and for all you legal scholars out there beware: jurisprudence is now a science according to the Commonwealth’s highest court.
If you don’t think the report is a piece of garbage than you must ask yourself: Why are they releasing it the Thursday before the big election? Not to mention the hurricane shutting down NYC?
The report is all about statistics and more statistics, naturally resulting in half-ass conclusions and worse, recommendations to even further chip away at the Bill of Rights and the Mass Declaration of Rights.
Cinquegrana was tasked by the SJC to
determine the rate of acquittal in jury-waived trials on charges of operating under the influence (“OUI”) of drugs or alcohol, and to examine whether that rate differs from the national average and from the rate of acquittal in other criminal cases in Massachusetts.
So that’s what he did. They guy hadn’t a clue what to do. Not his fault, the SJC hadn’t a clue either. But the Globe ran a Spotlight series so the Court’s hands were tied.
Cries of “There may be a Pulitzer in this for our friends at the Globe” were heard coming from the Adams Courthouse.
An assignment more appropriate for a mid-level type at Bain Capital, Cinquegrana went out and got some high-priced statisticians to “volunteer” to do the work.
Freakin’ conflicts of interest all over the place. But the Canons of Ethics don’t apply to the SJC.
Imagine the Pope sinning all the time and in open. He can, he’s the Pope. Huh?
Anyhoo, there are some statistical disparities among the courts and judges on OUI bench trials.
Jurisprudence should run like a widget factory goddamnit. Screw the individuals. And screw the Constitution. We want efficiency so who cares about reasonable doubt?
All because one out of twenty OUI arrests result in a not guilty finding after a bench trial. (shouldn’ they have researched data on other crimes adjudicated in the district courts?
In a letter released with the report the SJC said there is the appearance that some judges are lenient. “Lenient” used as pejorative I assume. The opposite should be worse, don’t you think?
I’d like to see a report on all the motherfuckers sitting on the bench handing out mean and nasty sentences and conditions of probation just because they can.
How about plea bargains that are shams resulting from judges severely punishing people for exercising their right to a trial. Different than a leaner sentence in return for the plea.
More like…”You can go to trial and hope the jury believes you and your buddy over the cop that beat the shit out of you and stole your money and is lying about the facts. If they don’t the judge is giving you significant jail time even though you don’t have a criminal record. OR you can lie and admit to it just as the cop says it happens, pay a fine, and go home.”
And in the district courts it’s the same abusive lying cops who are protected by some of these jerks in the robes.
But no, the SJC wants all finders of facts (judges and juries) to interpret reasonable doubt for all sets of facts in a more general way. How general? I’m not sure. You’ll have to ask the Globe. Or wait until the SJC asks them for all of us.