Jack Lynch wrote:
I certainly agree, it is statements made by the arbiter, not by the defendant, which concern me.
"That is not an RfC, it's a rant by a known troublemaker. I see no reason to participate in such a clearly broken process." (regarding an RfC initiated by Silverback) \ Let's check the outrage at the door and discuss this reasonably, ok? Hyperbolic screaming does not benefit your cause. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Geez, you really *are* a lawyer, aren't you? A magistrate acknowledging that someone has prior convictions is not the same as predjuding their guilt or innocence. Granted, records of past offences should not influence the outcome, but they *do* play a strong role in sentancing.
Besides which, I have to agree with Kelly here; attacking the entire judiciary won't get you anywhere.