|Is Terronez Being Treated Justly?|
|Commentary/Politics - Letters to the Editor|
|Written by Richard Boalbey|
|Saturday, 05 May 2012 08:37|
Much has been published about the penalties imposed upon (now former) Rock Island State’s Attorney Jeff Terronez for purchasing alcohol for an underage girl.
“He who makes judgment without hearing both sides, though the judgment be just, is himself unjust.” (Ancient legal maxim.)
The Illinois Constitution states: “All penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship. No conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate. No person shall be transported out of the state for an offense committed within the state.”
We should, first, look at the seriousness of the offense. Have there been others who have purchased alcohol for her? Has she purchased alcohol for herself? How serious was the purchase of alcohol by this offender? Was it merely part of many instances when she acquired alcohol? Is this young girl more mature than her years?
The General Court of Virginia (1772) said: “The laws of nature are the laws of God and they are immutable. For these are the laws infused into the hearts of man, by the finger of God, at the time of creation for his direction and his protection.”
The Illinois Supreme Court has said: “The law recognizes that we have weaknesses.”
Were the laws of nature (God) involved in this action?
If the Illinois Supreme Court orders Terronez to forfeit his license to practice law, will it destroy him or will it restore him to useful citizenship? Will it be justice or will it be retaliation?
The U.S. Constitution (the Bill of Rights) states: “Excessive bail shall not be required. Nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.”
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted by Christian people. All of the states under the Articles of Confederation required that you be a Christian in order to serve in their state’s legislature. During the (1787) convention, Charles Pinckney, governor of South Carolina, campaigned to have that requirement omitted from the new Constitution, and he was successful. This did not change the law of the land; it merely allowed non-Christians to take part in their government.
Are penalties heard and decided in a court of equity or a court of law? A court of equity would not enter a judgment that is unconscionable or that will create an unconscionable result.
Let’s hear from the people that demand justice!
Tags See All Tags