By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Over the years our host featured numerous articles presenting questionable, if not abusive, novel sentences for defendants convicted of crimes. Now, Smith County Texas Court Judge Randall Rogers hoisted himself to national attention for giving a man convicted of simple assault the choice between marrying his girlfriend within thirty days or going to jail.
At his sentencing hearing, Defendant Josten Bundy, before which he was convicted for an incident where he punched his girlfriend’s ex-boyfriend in the jaw, Judge Rogers provided a choice to avoid jail.
Mr. Bundy could either choose probation with a stipulation that he marry Elizabeth “Hanna” Jaynes, attend counseling, and write bible verses or submit to fifteen days in jail. He chose marriage despite misgivings of the conditions. He lamented:
“I just wonder what would have happened if Hannah said no, had we said, ‘you know judge, we would like to get married on our own terms.’ He offered me fifteen days in jail and that would have been fine and I asked if I could call my job [to let them know]. The judge told me ‘nope, that’s not how this works.’”
The humiliation was not limited to Defendant Bundy, Ms. Jaynes also was the recipient of Judge Rogers’ theatrics. While she was present in the courtroom, Judge Rogers asked Bundy, “Was she worth fighting over?”
“My face was so red, people behind me were laughing,” she said. “[The judge] made me stand up in court.”
Eighteen days afterward, the couple married before a justice of the peace.
(from Screen Shot of Source)
In the view of your author Judge Rogers should be sanctioned for this stunt. There is a good possibility that this is not the only unusual and non-judicial punishment he delivered in the past.
We live in a world where there is a strong and tragic social and legal tradition in some places where forced marriages are common; though certainly many girls and women face harsher ramifications that fifteen days in jail for which Mr. Bundy was in peril. This is not an acceptable form of justice in any enlightened society.
While it seems that our couple would have a strong case for annulling the marriage by reason of duress of one of the parties of they so choose, from a personal point of view this couple now must succumb to a wedding ceremony that they did not plan, and outside what was of their own choosing. A wedding is not a formality to please the whim of a lower court judge, or to satisfy a judgement of a criminal court.
By Darren Smith
Source:
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Paul C.
The only real TB blankets were cotton… Wool sheds sweat.
Paul C.
“Gen. Crook followed the Sioux after the Battle of the Little Big Horn and chased them back to Deadwood.”
= = =
Trump would call them names… and accuse them of bleeding feathers from their where evers.
Olly
“Nope Max. I would have failed the test and been rightly disqualified.”
= = =
Wha… Tha… ???
You failed to show your ID? Have no ID? Well then, how do you vote?
As far as registering with a political party, as indicated in my link to FairVote, in some states one must be registered with a party to vote in the Primaries, but not the General.
ninian,
We do not need to be party affiliated when we register to vote. I actually believe that identifying with a political party makes the party less responsive to the needs of the constituents.
ninian,
Set the paper? Does that mean pass the test?
If so, here’s a good site for a civics exam: It’s only 33 questions.
http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3B47-9675-41E0-9CF3-072BB31E2692
Olly: I got 23 correct. Is that bad?
In the General election, that is.
http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/presidential-elections/congressional-and-presidential-primaries-open-closed-semi-closed-and-top-two/
Ninian, one doesn’t have to register or declare membership to any political party in order to vote.
So why do people register?
Register to vote? Or register with a Party? Voting registration is required to prove one’s age, residence, etc.
Why is Registering to Vote Important?
When you register to vote, the elections office will look at your address and determine which voting district you will vote in. Voting in the right place is important because who you get to vote for depends on where you live. For example, if you live on one street, you may have one set of candidates for city council; if you live the next block over, you may be in a different council ward and be voting for completely different people. Usually the people in a voting district (or precinct) all go to vote in the same location. Most voting districts are fairly small, though in rural areas a district can stretch for miles. Whenever you move, you should register or re-register to vote in order to make sure you always vote in the right place.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/voterreg.htm
Nope Max. I would have failed the test and been rightly disqualified. I spent most of my voting years ignorantly believing I knew what I was doing; I was part of the problem. I’ve since taken the time to study and it gives me a lot of confidence to know how to identify bad policy and bad politicians. It’s also why I’m registered Independent because both of the two main parties are infiltrated with progressive ideologues. Also, I did have to provide a government-issued ID and still do although it’s not required now.
Olly: Please explain why you have to be registered with a political party. Why is there no right to privacy? Surely a voter can register and vote the other way should they choose? Doesn’t this mean registration is meaningless?
I can understand joining a party to vote for its leadsership etc but to be frank who you are and what you vote for is a private matter and relevant to the secret ballot. Is this not an anomaly?
Olly: Can I set the paper?
Paul C.
“The blankets were a one off”
= = =
Tell the human test animals of Tuskegee…
… Another ‘one off’ I presume?
Max-1 – you do know that the Tuskegee Experiment was supervised by black doctors. But it has nothing to do with the TB blankets. The CIA dosed people with LSD, at least on committed suicide. Still, nothing to do with the TB blankets.
Olly,
Didn’t you take that test when you registered?
… You did show proof then, didn’t you?
Max-1 – got 1 wrong. Can I vote?
I believe voting should be restricted to provable United States citizens that can pass the Citizenship Test taken by all prospective citizens. If passing that test is so important then why shouldn’t everyone have to prove they can pass it to qualify for voting?
Uh oh Ninian, the local Boys Club here will be after you will pitchforks and torches for such blasphemy, LOL.
I. ANNIE
Well at least I didn’t say:
“When God created Man, She was only joking…..”
Mike Huckerbee is obviously very enlightened and will give ultra liberal Donald a lesson in blowing his trump-et to win those crucial left wing votes.
It looks like he is pro gun and antihunting which is an original stance if ever there was one whereas Mr Trump appears to be game for anything.
So we are in for an entertaining time….
Max,
Huckleberry would make that be an Executive Order on day one, no doubt, because American women can’t be trusted to control their libidos, so he says.
Annie,
Mike Huckabee is the answer.
He’ll order the US military to bomb women’s clinics…
Ninian, I always thought the English expression “Keep your pecker up” which translates to the American ” Keep your chin up” hilarious.
I. ANNIE
When God Created Man, she created him in her own image…
Mr. forgetwhoiam wants to keep voting rights away from the masses and allow only the propertied elite the vote. What do you think Olly? Should only property owners be allowed the vote? How about women?
Paul C. Schulte: Jury Trials in UK.
Yes we have Jury trials as you well know. Our barristers wear wigs in court and our solicitors don’t. This dates from the times when most wore wigs as Syphilitic alopecia was not uncommon. It may be significant that the clergy stopped wearing wigs in the 18th century and the legal profession choose to retain their wigs to this day.
There are moves to change the jury system to a judge for minor cases and the legal profession are raising some objections to this…. Magna Carta don’t you know.
But I don’t think our judges behave in the same way as your Texas Judge, whose behaviour you seem to be reluctant to criticise for some reason.
ninny – your judges hold secret trials, gag defendants, etc. They have their own problems.
Paul C. Schulte: secret Trials
If they are secret how do you know about them?
ninny – your newspapers are kind enough to report on the trials occurring but cannot name the people involved.
I don’t read the papers because like Wikipedia nothing is true. Names cannot be mentioned because of the individual’s right to privacy and the Freedom of Information Act. Personal freedom is very important to us.
ninny – the last thing the British papers believe in is the right to privacy. Only the royal family is accorded that privilege.
What’s the difference between an immigrant and an immigrunt?
… Depends on which model of cell phone yo own.