I do not normally curse. The subject of this post is a time however when there is no other set of words that adequately express my sentiment over the incredible miscarriage of justice that judges in Hong Kong regularly inflict upon the the victims of crime.
There is really no way to describe the anger that the justice system in Hong Kong causes me to feel. Four years! Four years! For a premeditated act of violence of the worst kind. This girl never approved this and was not even his "girlfriend" at the time. She didn't ask for it, want it or deserve it. To not only rape a girl but to do it with your friends watching and to then post a video of it on Youtube is so reprehensible that only the most calloused, heartless and vicious individual could even conceive of it.
I don't give a Hairy-Hot-Damn how much this piece of dog shit's relationship with its parents has improved. I couldn't care less if it has matured. I don't care how much remorse it faked in the courtroom. I don't care if any of the remorse was even real. I don't care if it plead guilty though since the it put the video of itself raping a girl up on Youtube I can't imagine how he could have done otherwise.
This God Damned, sub-human, evolutionary throwback simian (apologies to real Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans) should, at the very least be castrated, have the words "I'm ya'lls ho" tattooed on his forehead and then be forced to wear a short skirt with no underwear in a prison for the rest of his life; and I hope it lives to be a 100. Would that be harsh? Yes. But it would be closer to justice than the sentence handed down.
There are some crimes where you cannot simply "I'm sorry" and have the sentence reduced. This was one of them. Personal forgiveness from the victim is beside the point. This sub-human is the very definition of an anti-social monster. Yet in Hong Kong the judical system regularly gives these knuckle dragging apes lighter sentence for saying "I was a bad boy" in court. Make an example of it. Toss it into a deep dark hole and then throw away the key. In truth, given the attitude of criminals to offenders like this, the most humane punishment would be to execute these bastards but our justice system gave up humane punishment in favor of coddling years ago.
Once again, I come back to Nancy Kissel. She murdered her husband, who she may have had some cause to be afraid of and gets life. This POS performs a brutal rape and gets four years. The difference? There are two. One, Nancy Kissel pleaded innocent and judges don't like that here. Two, Nancy Kissel killed a well paid Caucasian banker and this girl was a 16 year old poorly educated Chinese.
The moral: If you want to do a crime but not do the time in Hong Kong - commit the crime against a Chinese woman who doesn't have much money.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who does not normally curse
Showing posts with label Hong Kong Legal system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hong Kong Legal system. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Pedophile gets record 45 years in jail
Unfortunately, this didn't and wouldn't happen in Hong Kong. Here the slime would have pleaded guilty, showed remorse, and then be given 9 months in prison an a date with nice 20 something year-old female social worker who had just graduated from HKU.
The courts in Hong Kong should take a few lessons from the Israelis.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The blogger who does not have any sympathy for child molesters
The courts in Hong Kong should take a few lessons from the Israelis.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The blogger who does not have any sympathy for child molesters
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Another Alcoholic Judge
This is not a joke.
Eric Au-Chun Kit side-swiped a car then careened down the road and rear-ended a motorcyclist who died at the scene. He refused to be tested for his blood-alcohol level until an hour after the accident and was, at that time found to be still three times over the legal limit .
This was not his first offense. He is a habitual drunk driver.
He was given what amounts to a slap on the wrist yesterday for this crime given his obvious disregard for the law and the safety of others. He had his driving license suspended for 5 years. He was also fined. He was then given a 4 year in prison term. Tell me, do you need a driving license in prison? So how is that different from a 1 year suspended license?
The man he killed had a wife and two small children. Do they get off in four years? Yet this brother of a "Rising Canto-pop Star" according to the SCMP offered a paltry $70,000 to compensate the victims; which is probably not even the cost of the motor cycle the man he killed was riding.
After the accident he claimed the sun was in his eyes and that the motorcycle just suddenly appeared in front of him. In other words because he was drunk his pupils were dilated and his reactions were slowed. What a moron! He is so stupid that he does not even know what the sysmtoms of being drunk are.
There is a movement in the US to charge people who kill someone while driving drunk with murder. Though in Hong Kong the prison sentence for murder would be about the same unless you are Nancy Kissel. Yet still such a measure here would at least say that slime bags like Eric Au-Chun Kit are not welcome in this society.
I can't help but wonder if the apparent pathological leniency of the judges in Hong Kong in cases like this isn't because they are all boozers themselves?
Eric Au-Chun Kit. You are slimy, no good, self-centered, ignorant bastard and you you should be put in prison for the rest of your natural life for your crimes. Your wealth should be confiscated and given to the children of your victims. If you received justice then maybe Nancy Kissel would feel better because then she would be able to see that the courts were not picking on her.
Eric, if I were you, I'd hang myself in shame of what I'd done. But you have have no shame. You're just a drunken brat. At least you'll be off the streets for 4 years.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who believes that justice is seldom served in Hong Kong.
Eric Au-Chun Kit side-swiped a car then careened down the road and rear-ended a motorcyclist who died at the scene. He refused to be tested for his blood-alcohol level until an hour after the accident and was, at that time found to be still three times over the legal limit .
This was not his first offense. He is a habitual drunk driver.
He was given what amounts to a slap on the wrist yesterday for this crime given his obvious disregard for the law and the safety of others. He had his driving license suspended for 5 years. He was also fined. He was then given a 4 year in prison term. Tell me, do you need a driving license in prison? So how is that different from a 1 year suspended license?
The man he killed had a wife and two small children. Do they get off in four years? Yet this brother of a "Rising Canto-pop Star" according to the SCMP offered a paltry $70,000 to compensate the victims; which is probably not even the cost of the motor cycle the man he killed was riding.
After the accident he claimed the sun was in his eyes and that the motorcycle just suddenly appeared in front of him. In other words because he was drunk his pupils were dilated and his reactions were slowed. What a moron! He is so stupid that he does not even know what the sysmtoms of being drunk are.
There is a movement in the US to charge people who kill someone while driving drunk with murder. Though in Hong Kong the prison sentence for murder would be about the same unless you are Nancy Kissel. Yet still such a measure here would at least say that slime bags like Eric Au-Chun Kit are not welcome in this society.
I can't help but wonder if the apparent pathological leniency of the judges in Hong Kong in cases like this isn't because they are all boozers themselves?
Eric Au-Chun Kit. You are slimy, no good, self-centered, ignorant bastard and you you should be put in prison for the rest of your natural life for your crimes. Your wealth should be confiscated and given to the children of your victims. If you received justice then maybe Nancy Kissel would feel better because then she would be able to see that the courts were not picking on her.
Eric, if I were you, I'd hang myself in shame of what I'd done. But you have have no shame. You're just a drunken brat. At least you'll be off the streets for 4 years.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who believes that justice is seldom served in Hong Kong.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Strange hit counts
I find it really odd that most of the hits I get on blog come from my post on Nancy Kissel.
The exception is a post I removed but said up front I would if I was wrong on US politics.
I have been thinking that there is a strange correlation between Nancy Kissel and Nina Wong. Of course the local constabulary could never prove the Hatchet-Face-in-Pig-Tails (HFPT) killed her ChinaChem sugar daddy though it is obvious that she had him killed even if she didn't do the deed herself.
Suppose, Nancy Kissel had pulled the same ploy? Suppose after doing the doping & clubbing two step she'd taken a copy of the South China Morning Post and then carefully using gloves and a new tube of glue, cut out words to make a fake ransom note that was then mailed to the police or the deceased husbands employer? Something like "pLAce 30 mIlLion uNmarked Hk dollars In A yellow bag and lEave in Aberdeen cOuntry park BBq areA at 11:30 Pm Thurdsday. If we even think SoMeOne is WatcHing yOur hUsband Dies"
Then even if the ransom was paid she could have claim that the kidnappers had simply murdered him. Mr. Kissel's body would still be in that storage room.
Once again, I think that Nancy Kissel is guilty. I think that in a nation with a judicial system that functioned properly her sentence was just. Indeed, given the evidence against her I'd not object to a death sentence. But, I do not believe that Hong Kong is in possession of such a system. If Nina Wong walked for murdering her husband in cold bold and with no motive except the theft of his millions then Nancy Kissel should go free as well.
The exception is a post I removed but said up front I would if I was wrong on US politics.
I have been thinking that there is a strange correlation between Nancy Kissel and Nina Wong. Of course the local constabulary could never prove the Hatchet-Face-in-Pig-Tails (HFPT) killed her ChinaChem sugar daddy though it is obvious that she had him killed even if she didn't do the deed herself.
Suppose, Nancy Kissel had pulled the same ploy? Suppose after doing the doping & clubbing two step she'd taken a copy of the South China Morning Post and then carefully using gloves and a new tube of glue, cut out words to make a fake ransom note that was then mailed to the police or the deceased husbands employer? Something like "pLAce 30 mIlLion uNmarked Hk dollars In A yellow bag and lEave in Aberdeen cOuntry park BBq areA at 11:30 Pm Thurdsday. If we even think SoMeOne is WatcHing yOur hUsband Dies"
Then even if the ransom was paid she could have claim that the kidnappers had simply murdered him. Mr. Kissel's body would still be in that storage room.
Once again, I think that Nancy Kissel is guilty. I think that in a nation with a judicial system that functioned properly her sentence was just. Indeed, given the evidence against her I'd not object to a death sentence. But, I do not believe that Hong Kong is in possession of such a system. If Nina Wong walked for murdering her husband in cold bold and with no motive except the theft of his millions then Nancy Kissel should go free as well.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Bang that gavel down, case closed
Nancy Kissel officially lost her appeal yesterday.
According to ATV last night, the judge evidently spent only a few minutes to completely dismiss the case. I thought this would happen. I am surprised he/she/they/it took this long to deliver the opinion.
The Kissel legal team is going to appeal to a higher court (Equivalent of the Supreme Court in the US) but I don't think that will go anywhere either.
I know my position on this case is strange because I think Nancy Kissel is guilty as Hell but should still be released. I think if she'd had legal council that really understood the Hong Kong legal system and gotten her to plead guilty, show some remorse, set out the extenuating circumstances and thrown herself on the mercy of the court then she'd be a free woman today. When a third-strike child molester gets 8 years in prison and government social workers start lining up to vainly try and "rehabilitate" him from the day gets locked up then Nancy Kissel's sentence is unjust.
I will admit however, to losing a little sympathy for her after this last court appearance. I was sympathetic towards her situation because I feel that the legal system in Hong Kong is capricious and that very often the punishment does not fit the crime. That, to me should be the basis for her appeal. Instead her lawyers are trying to argue legal loopholes. This is not the US. Hong Kong does not have anything close to the US "Bill of Rights." As far as I can tell from reading the Basic Law, we do not have the presumption of innocence in court either. It just seems to me that Nancy's legal team are simply chasing butterflies.
To compound this problem, there was Nancy's mother on TV talking about how her daughter has developed "health problems" in prison and is now often too weak to walk. Maybe it really is true but I do not know many, non-paralyzed 50 year old women that require a wheelchair. Whatever else the prisons in Hong Kong may be, they are not like those in the non-SAR bits of China, Thailand, Cambodia or Mexico. This "developed health problems while in prison" bit looks like a cheap stunt to get her term reduced to time served. If I am wrong about this I sincerely apologize. I just can't see how she isn't faking. If that is the case, maybe she was lying about being afraid of her husband in her first trial.
I'd feel better about releasing her if she'd come to court fit, maybe tanned and looking like she spent time in the prison weight room trying to flirt with the guards and said. "I am innocent because that man threatened me and my children and getting him away from my kids was the best thing I ever did. I sent him to Hell and he deserved it!" Instead, she tries to make me feel sorry for her and that's not going to work.
I've been call cynical before.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who still thinks that the HK legal system is broken and blames the British
According to ATV last night, the judge evidently spent only a few minutes to completely dismiss the case. I thought this would happen. I am surprised he/she/they/it took this long to deliver the opinion.
The Kissel legal team is going to appeal to a higher court (Equivalent of the Supreme Court in the US) but I don't think that will go anywhere either.
I know my position on this case is strange because I think Nancy Kissel is guilty as Hell but should still be released. I think if she'd had legal council that really understood the Hong Kong legal system and gotten her to plead guilty, show some remorse, set out the extenuating circumstances and thrown herself on the mercy of the court then she'd be a free woman today. When a third-strike child molester gets 8 years in prison and government social workers start lining up to vainly try and "rehabilitate" him from the day gets locked up then Nancy Kissel's sentence is unjust.
I will admit however, to losing a little sympathy for her after this last court appearance. I was sympathetic towards her situation because I feel that the legal system in Hong Kong is capricious and that very often the punishment does not fit the crime. That, to me should be the basis for her appeal. Instead her lawyers are trying to argue legal loopholes. This is not the US. Hong Kong does not have anything close to the US "Bill of Rights." As far as I can tell from reading the Basic Law, we do not have the presumption of innocence in court either. It just seems to me that Nancy's legal team are simply chasing butterflies.
To compound this problem, there was Nancy's mother on TV talking about how her daughter has developed "health problems" in prison and is now often too weak to walk. Maybe it really is true but I do not know many, non-paralyzed 50 year old women that require a wheelchair. Whatever else the prisons in Hong Kong may be, they are not like those in the non-SAR bits of China, Thailand, Cambodia or Mexico. This "developed health problems while in prison" bit looks like a cheap stunt to get her term reduced to time served. If I am wrong about this I sincerely apologize. I just can't see how she isn't faking. If that is the case, maybe she was lying about being afraid of her husband in her first trial.
I'd feel better about releasing her if she'd come to court fit, maybe tanned and looking like she spent time in the prison weight room trying to flirt with the guards and said. "I am innocent because that man threatened me and my children and getting him away from my kids was the best thing I ever did. I sent him to Hell and he deserved it!" Instead, she tries to make me feel sorry for her and that's not going to work.
I've been call cynical before.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who still thinks that the HK legal system is broken and blames the British
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Nancy, Nancy, Nancy! You've got it all wrong
My favorite Hong Kong murderer, Nancy Kissel was in court again yesterday appealing her life sentence for whacking her low life but very highly paid drug addict husband over the head five times after doping him with sedatives. Lizzy Borden look out; you've been upstaged!
The appeal is based upon, according to the papers and TVB the fact that the judge's summation took over 2 hours and was in English and that the jury were Chinese speaking locals who had jobs to get back to and were therefore more inclined to make a quick vote and get back to work plating dumplings at the dipaidong. To quote Bugs Bunny; "What a Maroon." Doesn't she know that judges in Hong Kong are infallible? They could never give improper instructions to a jury in a language they didn't understand.
During the first trial I came away with the feeling that neither Nancy or her legal representation were the brightest bulb in the lamp and this appeal sort of confirmed those suspicions.
A few relevant points.
Raising these claims in a divorce court would have netted Nancy 1/2 her husbands 18 million dollar fortune and he would have been liable for the court cost. Not to mention probably costing her loutish husband his high profile job. As the saying goes, don't get even get a lawyer. She could have then moved to Montana, married her Internet boyfriend and lived the high life for ever after.
Instead, Nancy doped her husband with a triple dose of sedatives, bashed his brains out with a rolling pin, wrapped his body in a rug and hid his mortal remains in a storage room. When caught she claimed that she killed him in self defense.
It must have been tough to defend herself against an unconscious man! The self defense argument only works when you're in imminent danger which at the time she wasn't. After she drugged him her husband was not a danger to anyone. Therein lies the first point in my argument that either Nancy or her lawyer is an idiot. Given the known leniency of the Hong Kong judiciary if Nancy had pleaded guilty, shown remorse, been just a little contrite and agreed to attend anger management classes she would be a free woman today.
Please do not misunderstand; I think in many ways her sentence is just; or would be in a place with a sane judiciary. But it should be obvious that in a Hong Kong court pleading guilty, showing even contrived remorse and playing a bit of kiss-ass with the judge will get a serious crime reduced to the level of a traffic infraction. In Hong Kong pleading innocent gets you a longer sentence! Why didn't she pleade guilty and take the slap on the wrist? The only answer is that either she or her lawyer are idiots or that she really believes that she was threatened by her husband.
If she'd been a little smarter she could have walked away from this altogether. How? Easy. Dope the slob enough to ensure that he was off his guard, invite him out on the balcony for a BBQ and then whack him over the head once with the rolling pin to disorient him and then push his sorry Armani covered ass over the balcony rail. After he'd fallen 40 stories she could have called the police and reported an accident all the while playing the part of the hysterical tai-tai. In a city with less than 12 murders a year the police would probably not have assumed fowl play. The fact she planed the murder but not the disposal of the body tell us that she was scared of him and not really concerned with what happened afterwards. If she'd been a little more cold blooded about this she'd only be troubled by her conscience.
Who is a greater danger to society; The Hong Kong child molester who lured at least 12 preteen girls into a warehouse with McDonald's toys and raped them or Nancy Kissel who murdered an abusive husband? Who got life in prison and who got 8 years? Who showed "remorse" in court and who claimed they hadn't committed a crime? Who pleaded guilty and who didn't?
Nancy should have been smart enough and certainly her lawyer should have been wise enough to point out these things to her and convince her to plead guilty but with extenuating circumstances. You don't beat an unconscious man to death and claim self defense. So, again I say that either Nancy Kissel or her legal representatives are idiots. Or she really was scared of the guy and thought it was a form a self defense.
Now having set the stage so to speak, I think Nancy deserves an appeal and she deserves to have a her sentence reduced. In fact, because this is Hong Kong I think she should be let out of jail after having the rest of her sentence waived; but not for the reasons her lawyers are using. Instead, her legal team should be doing just what I have done above. When you compare her case with other recent high profile cases in Hong Kong her sentence is unjust by comparison.
Let's review some of the cases I written about in this blog and compare them with Mrs Kissel:
I ask you; how is Nancy Kissel's sentence fair? She has already served more time in prison than almost any of those listed above. She isn't a habitual criminal. She is not a high risk case. Indeed, if they let her go she'll probably move to the US; so who cares? She is out of Hong Kong's hair.
How can we free Tibet when we cannot even free Nancy Kissel?
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who thinks that justice is not a concept that judges in Hong Kong understand
The appeal is based upon, according to the papers and TVB the fact that the judge's summation took over 2 hours and was in English and that the jury were Chinese speaking locals who had jobs to get back to and were therefore more inclined to make a quick vote and get back to work plating dumplings at the dipaidong. To quote Bugs Bunny; "What a Maroon." Doesn't she know that judges in Hong Kong are infallible? They could never give improper instructions to a jury in a language they didn't understand.
During the first trial I came away with the feeling that neither Nancy or her legal representation were the brightest bulb in the lamp and this appeal sort of confirmed those suspicions.
A few relevant points.
- She could have made a credible claim that her husband was physically abusive - before she killed him.
- She could have made a credible claim that her husband was emotionally abusive - before she killed him.
- She could have made a credible claim that her husband was addicted to Cocaine - before she killed him.
- She could have made a credible claim that her husband was a serial philanderer - before she killed him.
- She could have made a credible claim that her husband was a danger to their children - before she killed him.
Raising these claims in a divorce court would have netted Nancy 1/2 her husbands 18 million dollar fortune and he would have been liable for the court cost. Not to mention probably costing her loutish husband his high profile job. As the saying goes, don't get even get a lawyer. She could have then moved to Montana, married her Internet boyfriend and lived the high life for ever after.
Instead, Nancy doped her husband with a triple dose of sedatives, bashed his brains out with a rolling pin, wrapped his body in a rug and hid his mortal remains in a storage room. When caught she claimed that she killed him in self defense.
It must have been tough to defend herself against an unconscious man! The self defense argument only works when you're in imminent danger which at the time she wasn't. After she drugged him her husband was not a danger to anyone. Therein lies the first point in my argument that either Nancy or her lawyer is an idiot. Given the known leniency of the Hong Kong judiciary if Nancy had pleaded guilty, shown remorse, been just a little contrite and agreed to attend anger management classes she would be a free woman today.
Please do not misunderstand; I think in many ways her sentence is just; or would be in a place with a sane judiciary. But it should be obvious that in a Hong Kong court pleading guilty, showing even contrived remorse and playing a bit of kiss-ass with the judge will get a serious crime reduced to the level of a traffic infraction. In Hong Kong pleading innocent gets you a longer sentence! Why didn't she pleade guilty and take the slap on the wrist? The only answer is that either she or her lawyer are idiots or that she really believes that she was threatened by her husband.
If she'd been a little smarter she could have walked away from this altogether. How? Easy. Dope the slob enough to ensure that he was off his guard, invite him out on the balcony for a BBQ and then whack him over the head once with the rolling pin to disorient him and then push his sorry Armani covered ass over the balcony rail. After he'd fallen 40 stories she could have called the police and reported an accident all the while playing the part of the hysterical tai-tai. In a city with less than 12 murders a year the police would probably not have assumed fowl play. The fact she planed the murder but not the disposal of the body tell us that she was scared of him and not really concerned with what happened afterwards. If she'd been a little more cold blooded about this she'd only be troubled by her conscience.
Who is a greater danger to society; The Hong Kong child molester who lured at least 12 preteen girls into a warehouse with McDonald's toys and raped them or Nancy Kissel who murdered an abusive husband? Who got life in prison and who got 8 years? Who showed "remorse" in court and who claimed they hadn't committed a crime? Who pleaded guilty and who didn't?
Nancy should have been smart enough and certainly her lawyer should have been wise enough to point out these things to her and convince her to plead guilty but with extenuating circumstances. You don't beat an unconscious man to death and claim self defense. So, again I say that either Nancy Kissel or her legal representatives are idiots. Or she really was scared of the guy and thought it was a form a self defense.
Now having set the stage so to speak, I think Nancy deserves an appeal and she deserves to have a her sentence reduced. In fact, because this is Hong Kong I think she should be let out of jail after having the rest of her sentence waived; but not for the reasons her lawyers are using. Instead, her legal team should be doing just what I have done above. When you compare her case with other recent high profile cases in Hong Kong her sentence is unjust by comparison.
Let's review some of the cases I written about in this blog and compare them with Mrs Kissel:
- If you let a 13 year-old illegally drive your van and kill a 7 year-old boy you get 10 months in jail and a suspended driver's license.
- If you kill a cyclist while driving on a road that was closed to traffic while speeding and talking on a cell phone you receive a slap on the wrist jail term and fine that is less than the cost of the bicycle the man you killed was riding.
- If you run over an old couple while illegally reversing your car at high speeds the wrong way up an entrance ramp you lose your drivers license and get a suspended sentence.
- If you beat a cat to death in an elementary school lunch room you go to jail for two years. (This was actually a just sentence because everyone knows that you should strangle a cat; you beat jackasses.)
- If you are a child molester and open an after school tutorial center so that you have a ready supply of little kids to molest you get a few months in jail
- If you lure a dozen or so little girls into a warehouse and rape them then you receive an 8 year prison sentence
- If you use your position as the CEO of one of the largest banks in Hong Kong to engage in insider trading and illegal stock market manipulation you get invited to THBT's office for lunch
- If you murder your abusive husband you get life.
I ask you; how is Nancy Kissel's sentence fair? She has already served more time in prison than almost any of those listed above. She isn't a habitual criminal. She is not a high risk case. Indeed, if they let her go she'll probably move to the US; so who cares? She is out of Hong Kong's hair.
How can we free Tibet when we cannot even free Nancy Kissel?
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who thinks that justice is not a concept that judges in Hong Kong understand
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Odds and Ends
Another judge issued an outrageously lenient decision here the day before yesterday. I've been fuming about it for a couple of days. A Boy Scout leader was letting two 13 year-old scouts drive his van when they ran over and killed a 7 year-old boy riding a bicycle. He then lied to the police about who was driving to protect the kids that he had irresponsibly allowed to do this. He received a whopping 10 months in jail for this crime and lost his drivers license for 2 years.
The judge basically pissed on the grave of this little kid and the bereaved family was understandably furious. The judge then issued the same stinking self-loathing platitudes acquired in his second class British University or HKU (Sycophantically British in methods and curriculum) about how "You can't bring the child back to life" bla-bla-bla that HK judges always spout after they let an obvious criminal off with a slap on the wrist. Someone needs to tell these pompous twerps that it isn't about bringing the child back to life. It is about punishing wrong doers.
Indeed, this whole incident isn't about the perpetrator at all in one sense. It is about justice for the little boy's family. I do not care how contrite man was. I do not care that he pleaded guilty. I do not care that he is a low risk to do this again. How many people are high risk for this type thing? It is about people driving automobiles having courtesy and respect for people not in their cars. It is about a safe and fear free society. It is about remembering that "mercy to criminals is injustice to victims."
After the trial the boys father said on camera that "he would be waiting when the man got out of prison and would kill him" Since threatening to kill someone is an offense this judgment has already caused another crime to be committed. The boy's father probably won't do that but if he does then both the murdered man and the murderer's blood should but on the judges hands.
Humans have an innate sense of justice. The scout master needs to believe that he has made recompense for what he did. The father of the boy needs to know that the man who was responsible for killing his son has been punished. The two boys in the van need to know that it wasn't their fault. Nobody got justice in this decision. Nobody gets closure Not the plaintiff, defendant or the accessories. The judge gets to go home and feel that he is a progressive, enlightened person.
May he someday know what it is like to have injustice thrust upon him.
The man sentenced should have been put away for 3 to 5 years. While heinous this was an accident and not premeditated murder. It was a mistake but, there are some mistakes that you shouldn't make. If you want to teach a 13 year-old how to drive then great, do it where nobody is going to get killed. He is not only responsible for killing a 7 year-old but traumatizing two 13 year-old boys for life. How would you have liked to be the 13 year-old driver? More than that it would allow him to come to grips with a terrible mistake. It would also give the boy's family time to accept their son's death and to forgive someone who has hurt them badly.
Injustice being masqueraded as justice is nothing new in Hong Kong. Especially if the crimes committed are against bicyclist, children or the elderly as I have so often pointed out in this blog. Indeed, if letting criminals off with a wink and a nudge were an Olympic sport Hong Kong would probably be a favorite for the gold medal.
Which brings me my other topic today.
I don't like the Olympics. I gave up on them several years ago. When I was a child they were special because it was amateur sport. The Olympics were also special when I was a kid because it was a chance to see how non-professional US athletes could compete with and often win against those from Iron Curtain nations who everybody knew took hormones (Today we call them steroids)and were professionally trained. You always groaned in the figure skating events if more than one of the judges was from East Germany because you knew that your nation didn't have a chance.
Now all the teams, players and athletes can be seen on ESPN playing for their regular professional team. So what makes the Olympics such a big deal anymore? It never occurred to me that the Olympics were not a political event. They were all about politics. Cold War political slogans were almost etched into the medals. That is why I find the posturing of both sides of various groups wanting nations to either boycott the Olympics or not kind of silly.
It is simply inconceivable to me that the IOC chairman could sit there with a straight face and say "We are not about politics" BS, pure simple BS is all that was. But did these French doctors who want to free Tibet ever advocate boycotting Olympics in other places besides China that have equally abysmal records on Human Rights? Did they support Jimmy Carter for making the US team boycott the Moscow games? Did they ever complain about judges from Communist nations that obviously fixed various events in the name of politics? No. So, why start now?
That said, I hope that if I were a 28 year-old bicycle racer who had made the US team Olympic cycling team that I'd have the moral courage to skip these games. I think that if a significant number of athletes refused to go on their own accord it would be a much more meaningful protest than if their nation simply refused to issue them a visa. If the government of The-Socialist-Paradise of (Insert any EU member) bans it athletes from going the PRC can chalk it up to politics. If athletes refuse to go because they don't want to be associated with a regime that is repressive, cruel and corrupt then the PRC could still chalk it up to politics but couldn't hide the fact that it isn't.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who has never been to an Olympic event
The judge basically pissed on the grave of this little kid and the bereaved family was understandably furious. The judge then issued the same stinking self-loathing platitudes acquired in his second class British University or HKU (Sycophantically British in methods and curriculum) about how "You can't bring the child back to life" bla-bla-bla that HK judges always spout after they let an obvious criminal off with a slap on the wrist. Someone needs to tell these pompous twerps that it isn't about bringing the child back to life. It is about punishing wrong doers.
Indeed, this whole incident isn't about the perpetrator at all in one sense. It is about justice for the little boy's family. I do not care how contrite man was. I do not care that he pleaded guilty. I do not care that he is a low risk to do this again. How many people are high risk for this type thing? It is about people driving automobiles having courtesy and respect for people not in their cars. It is about a safe and fear free society. It is about remembering that "mercy to criminals is injustice to victims."
After the trial the boys father said on camera that "he would be waiting when the man got out of prison and would kill him" Since threatening to kill someone is an offense this judgment has already caused another crime to be committed. The boy's father probably won't do that but if he does then both the murdered man and the murderer's blood should but on the judges hands.
Humans have an innate sense of justice. The scout master needs to believe that he has made recompense for what he did. The father of the boy needs to know that the man who was responsible for killing his son has been punished. The two boys in the van need to know that it wasn't their fault. Nobody got justice in this decision. Nobody gets closure Not the plaintiff, defendant or the accessories. The judge gets to go home and feel that he is a progressive, enlightened person.
May he someday know what it is like to have injustice thrust upon him.
The man sentenced should have been put away for 3 to 5 years. While heinous this was an accident and not premeditated murder. It was a mistake but, there are some mistakes that you shouldn't make. If you want to teach a 13 year-old how to drive then great, do it where nobody is going to get killed. He is not only responsible for killing a 7 year-old but traumatizing two 13 year-old boys for life. How would you have liked to be the 13 year-old driver? More than that it would allow him to come to grips with a terrible mistake. It would also give the boy's family time to accept their son's death and to forgive someone who has hurt them badly.
Injustice being masqueraded as justice is nothing new in Hong Kong. Especially if the crimes committed are against bicyclist, children or the elderly as I have so often pointed out in this blog. Indeed, if letting criminals off with a wink and a nudge were an Olympic sport Hong Kong would probably be a favorite for the gold medal.
Which brings me my other topic today.
I don't like the Olympics. I gave up on them several years ago. When I was a child they were special because it was amateur sport. The Olympics were also special when I was a kid because it was a chance to see how non-professional US athletes could compete with and often win against those from Iron Curtain nations who everybody knew took hormones (Today we call them steroids)and were professionally trained. You always groaned in the figure skating events if more than one of the judges was from East Germany because you knew that your nation didn't have a chance.
Now all the teams, players and athletes can be seen on ESPN playing for their regular professional team. So what makes the Olympics such a big deal anymore? It never occurred to me that the Olympics were not a political event. They were all about politics. Cold War political slogans were almost etched into the medals. That is why I find the posturing of both sides of various groups wanting nations to either boycott the Olympics or not kind of silly.
It is simply inconceivable to me that the IOC chairman could sit there with a straight face and say "We are not about politics" BS, pure simple BS is all that was. But did these French doctors who want to free Tibet ever advocate boycotting Olympics in other places besides China that have equally abysmal records on Human Rights? Did they support Jimmy Carter for making the US team boycott the Moscow games? Did they ever complain about judges from Communist nations that obviously fixed various events in the name of politics? No. So, why start now?
That said, I hope that if I were a 28 year-old bicycle racer who had made the US team Olympic cycling team that I'd have the moral courage to skip these games. I think that if a significant number of athletes refused to go on their own accord it would be a much more meaningful protest than if their nation simply refused to issue them a visa. If the government of The-Socialist-Paradise of (Insert any EU member) bans it athletes from going the PRC can chalk it up to politics. If athletes refuse to go because they don't want to be associated with a regime that is repressive, cruel and corrupt then the PRC could still chalk it up to politics but couldn't hide the fact that it isn't.
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who has never been to an Olympic event
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Shanghai residents protest maglev train
I've been to Shanghai. It is so dirty and so polluted that I am amazed everyone there doesn't die of some dread disease by the time they are 35. I guess all those cigarettes protect them from the other air pollutants. It just seems to be a strange thing to get worked up about. But then these are the same people that call a Feng Shui master to tell them how far to open their windows.
Kind of reminds me of the chief justice in Hong Kong complaining yesterday that there has been too much public criticism of the amount of leeway given to judges in sentencing criminals here. (This has been a recurring theme on this blog and I have emailed every post to his office. I wonder if he read them?) He seems to think that judges are some sort of special persons whose opinions and work are above question. So, I guess that sentencing one man to years in jail for killing a cat and another to community service for running over two old people makes perfect sense to ho him.
This is a soapbox I've been preaching on for sometime. The justice system here isn't a justice system at all. When child molesters rape 10 or 12 little girls and receives about 18 months on average for each rape and a reckless driver almost no jail time for killing a cyclist in the regional triathlons then justice isn't served. I find it amazing that he can't see the problems with his own judges.
I wish that he would see the need for mandatory sentencing
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who thinks that no man or judge is above the law
Kind of reminds me of the chief justice in Hong Kong complaining yesterday that there has been too much public criticism of the amount of leeway given to judges in sentencing criminals here. (This has been a recurring theme on this blog and I have emailed every post to his office. I wonder if he read them?) He seems to think that judges are some sort of special persons whose opinions and work are above question. So, I guess that sentencing one man to years in jail for killing a cat and another to community service for running over two old people makes perfect sense to ho him.
This is a soapbox I've been preaching on for sometime. The justice system here isn't a justice system at all. When child molesters rape 10 or 12 little girls and receives about 18 months on average for each rape and a reckless driver almost no jail time for killing a cyclist in the regional triathlons then justice isn't served. I find it amazing that he can't see the problems with his own judges.
I wish that he would see the need for mandatory sentencing
Until Next Time
Fai Mao
The Blogger who thinks that no man or judge is above the law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)