Some doozy decisions by our judges
February 26, 2013 · 6:00 PM
I always wondered why Shakespeare was so tough on lawyers. In Henry VI, he first wanted to kill them all.
I think I understand a little more now. Maybe it's because some lawyers become judges and he wanted to stop the source. Judges are indeed human and their mistakes are sometimes doozys.
First we have the wacky ruling by Judge Ronald Kessler that prosecutor Dan Satterburg could have "done more" to show mitigation for alleged police murderer Christopher Monfort. Therefore Monfort isn't eligible for the death penalty. Why is the burden on Satterburg to try both sides of a case? If any crime cries out for the death penalty, killing police does.
Next, we have an equally stellar ruling by Judge Jeffrey Ramsdell in the mass murder of a Carnation family. He said that Satterburg, "erroneously considered the strength of the state's case" against defendants McEnroe and Anderson. He should have looked for "mitigation." This tortured logic on the judge's part is patently ridiculous.
I don't necessarily agree with old Will Shakespeare, but I definitely think these two judges should not hold their office. How about a transfer to Social Services? Their philosophy at least might be understood there.
Denny Andrews, Bellevue