Grace la la land
As a comment below points out, Prof. Kerr at VC points out that Grace has had her ass handed to her on a platter by the 11th Circuit. This does not come as a bit of a surprise. I took note of a 5th Circuit opinion last year that admonished the DOJ for impropriety and compared that to Grace's philosophy of justice. This is a good chance to go on a post-exam harp on how much I STILL hate Nancy Grace (not the previous sentence will probably attract a bajillion hits based on google searches...to those fellow Grace-hater [Graters?] I say rock on!)
First I'm not so sure if it's Grace who pisses me off more or the callers with the southern twang singing her praises (while not having a substantive question to follow up). Umm I think it's Grace. I think Grace was one of those people in law school who has a specific goal in mind and all they do here is just confirm their previously held biases and beliefs and march on into the real world. The following concepts are completely alien to Nancy Grace as best as I can tell:
1) Innocent till proven guilty. I mean really, the prosecutor says they have the right guy...do they REALLY need to do anything more to get a guilty verdict? (Remeber, confirming biases).
2) Adequate representation of counsel. Typically the arguments run like this:
Some Defense Attorney on Larry King: "Umm Jackson's defense shouldn't allow testimony about battered women's syndrom."
Grace: "How can you say that Bob? This is what the case is about all along. Jackson's lawyers would practically be molesting the victim themselves if they fought this evidence. They're evil."
3) Criminal acts--harm against society, civil action--harm against people. The distinction blurs for Grace. Somehow the concept of what the victim would want, feel, ask for, enters her mind frame. Now don't get me wrong, this is an IMPORTANT part of criminal justice, i.e. making sure victims are not harmed even more through investigation process, or that they have no fear about cooperating and testifying, or using their or their family's testimony during the sentencing. BUT, I don't think the entire criminal justice system is a sort of quasi-private retribution deal. The harms that are criminalized are against SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. That's who Grace and other prosecutors are supposed to represent. I really don't know how many times I can stress this to those who are gung-ho about becoming prosecutors, it is THE PEOPLE v. criminal name. Not Grace v. Jackson, or Grace v. Peterson. Somehow the concept of just sending everyone arrested to jail for the maximum amount of time becomes the underlying assumption of the profession and takes off from there.
As Kerr has said before, she's just uberannoying.
First I'm not so sure if it's Grace who pisses me off more or the callers with the southern twang singing her praises (while not having a substantive question to follow up). Umm I think it's Grace. I think Grace was one of those people in law school who has a specific goal in mind and all they do here is just confirm their previously held biases and beliefs and march on into the real world. The following concepts are completely alien to Nancy Grace as best as I can tell:
1) Innocent till proven guilty. I mean really, the prosecutor says they have the right guy...do they REALLY need to do anything more to get a guilty verdict? (Remeber, confirming biases).
2) Adequate representation of counsel. Typically the arguments run like this:
Some Defense Attorney on Larry King: "Umm Jackson's defense shouldn't allow testimony about battered women's syndrom."
Grace: "How can you say that Bob? This is what the case is about all along. Jackson's lawyers would practically be molesting the victim themselves if they fought this evidence. They're evil."
3) Criminal acts--harm against society, civil action--harm against people. The distinction blurs for Grace. Somehow the concept of what the victim would want, feel, ask for, enters her mind frame. Now don't get me wrong, this is an IMPORTANT part of criminal justice, i.e. making sure victims are not harmed even more through investigation process, or that they have no fear about cooperating and testifying, or using their or their family's testimony during the sentencing. BUT, I don't think the entire criminal justice system is a sort of quasi-private retribution deal. The harms that are criminalized are against SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. That's who Grace and other prosecutors are supposed to represent. I really don't know how many times I can stress this to those who are gung-ho about becoming prosecutors, it is THE PEOPLE v. criminal name. Not Grace v. Jackson, or Grace v. Peterson. Somehow the concept of just sending everyone arrested to jail for the maximum amount of time becomes the underlying assumption of the profession and takes off from there.
As Kerr has said before, she's just uberannoying.
Labels: Nancy Grace
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 11:00 PM
2 Comments:
Nancy Grace is a poor excuse for a human being. She's a hater. Just look at those eyes, there's nothing there. The face moves but the eyes show no emotion. Junk yard dogs show more facial emotion. She badgers people into submission by sheer intimidation. How would you like to wake up next to that moosh every morning? German Shepards are friendlier. Pardon the reference to Xavier Hollander. Boot Nancy Grace off Court TV. BTW on the Court TV message boards no one is permitted to say anything negative about Nancy. They immediately get banned. So, for all you right fighters, Nancy can give it but can't take it. Don't mention anything truthful about Nancy on Court TV message boards you will be eaten alive.
Hackers beware. You will be hacked to death if you mention Nancy Grace.
Nancy Grace is a leech, feeding off the mass hysteria she creates in her "lemming" like followers in her lame attempt to report facts. She consistantly manipulates, and even chastises those who disaggree with her position on the subject.
This woman should reconsider the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty..."
Post a Comment
<< Home