Well, Ken, you certainly are in an uproar about this. The problem I have though, is that if the Carter decision were really not what the legislature intended, why didn't the legislature codify their objections to that case when they revised the statute three times ('03,'04, and '05)after Carter was decided in 2002?
The fact that they modified the statute in other respects, restricting further its mandatory sentencing provisions, but not exempting juvenile adjudications from its scope, indicates their agreement with the Court of Appeals'interpretation.
The very last argument in defense of an opinion which is difficult to defend: it may be wrong, but the legislature didn't fix it so now it's right.
I await your defense of the actual decision and how it can be rationally explained against the plain language of the statute.
In case anyone out there doesn't know, Tom was the prosecutor on the other side of this case. As such, he will be writing the reply in opposition to the petition for appeal.
2 comments:
Well, Ken, you certainly are in an uproar about this. The problem I have though, is that if the Carter decision were really not what the legislature intended, why didn't the legislature codify their objections to that case when they revised the statute three times ('03,'04, and '05)after Carter was decided in 2002?
The fact that they modified the statute in other respects, restricting further its mandatory sentencing provisions, but not exempting juvenile adjudications from its scope, indicates their agreement with the Court of Appeals'interpretation.
The very last argument in defense of an opinion which is difficult to defend: it may be wrong, but the legislature didn't fix it so now it's right.
I await your defense of the actual decision and how it can be rationally explained against the plain language of the statute.
In case anyone out there doesn't know, Tom was the prosecutor on the other side of this case. As such, he will be writing the reply in opposition to the petition for appeal.
Post a Comment