Cases vacated and records expunged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us/27judges.html?hp

If you want to have your blood heated a bit, I suggest reading the report by the special master linked in the article.

From the article,

“But some of the children — many who, like Phillip Swartley, are now young adults — have become jaded and believe that their cases were tainted in Ciavarella’s courtroom.

After being sent to boarding school, Phillip, now 15, became withdrawn and depressed, his mother says.

“What do these kids see of the legal system and of authority figures?” Amy Swartley asked. “These kids see people who abuse their power. Now, we have a whole county and generation of children who have lost trust in the system.”
____

This, among other governmental abuses, is how disintegration starts. Private prisons are one of the stupidest ideas in the long sad history of stupid ideas.

Put a face with the crime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html

Again, if she were my kid, that bastard had better run hide in a hole in the ground.

>Just watched a show with Rachel Maddow, the buzz->cut “journalist” (disk jockey?) who spent nearly an hour >engaging in hatespeech and ridicule against conservative >Americans, Republicans, and American soldiers. I thought I was >going to get news.

First of all, whatever Rachel said to upset your poor widdle feewings, it’s always been my observation that Rachel is far too kind to “conservative Americans and Republicans”. To my mind, the GOP and its adherents deserve no more than the country’s collective disdain and disgust.

Secondly, Rachel has NEVER maligned American soldiers which fact makes you a liar.

Third, Rachel is a news COMMENTATOR, not a reporter or even a jpurnalistHer job is COMMENT on the news as do O’Reillly and Hannity, except with a brain. From Wikipedia: Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994. At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (styled a DPhil) in political science from the University of Oxford. Yeah, a real bonehead.

I can tell you why they are so early, Mike.

FEAR

I said it before . . .

“Buddha Is Laughing, February 11, 2009 at 6:17 pm

And it’s shit like this that guarantees it’s going to get ugly.

CITE OMITTED (linked to this same story @ HuffPo)

I bat about .850.

I stand by my assessment.”

But that bit about Ciavarella’s “outrage” on MSNBC? Is he insane?

That’s begging for mob justice, just begging. I know for a fact if he’d railroaded my kid for profit, he should be terrified to leave the house let alone spew that kind of self-serving egoistic crap in public.

Ciavarella, you never screw with a man’s kid or his dog and not expect payback – I don’t give a damn what your “title” is. And let’s be clear, there is a HUGE difference between YOUR JOB AS PROPERLY DONE and screwing with someone. You WAY crossed that line, sport. You’ve entered “thumpin’ territory”.

Did you never watch “Big Jake”? You know, John Wanye, 1971? The tag line on the posters was “They wanted gold. They gave them lead instead!” – http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066831/ – Really. Get a clue, you criminally venal jackass. And thanks for helping to destroy the fabric of civilization so you could afford the naked lady tees instead of the standard tees at the golf course. It shows character. Neocon character.

Professor,
When I read the story my first reaction mirrored yours. What went on there for many years must have involved many people, whether directly culpable or merely unwilling to whistle blow.
The plea deal and light sentences were done quickly to hush this up ASAP, especially given the heavy media coverage. In truth this requires a close review of the Juvenile Justice system in PA and their contracting out what should be a government service.
My sense to is that there would be grounds for many lawsuits with good possibility of success. Am I correct in believing proving money damages would be a piece of cake in many instances?