I was aghast after reading The Free Press editor's column titled "Contempt for Court." Mr. Murphy was responding to a comment by Judge Ray in a hearing to determine whether the media should "have access to the trial" of Robert Jobe, the man accused of killing Police Detective Keith Dressel.
Mr. Murphy quotes Judge Ray as saying; "The court finds the actions of the Free Press to be horribly inappropriate and extremely offensive to the judicial process," Mr. Murphy's response? "Ray's public declaration forces me to come out swinging" and then he quotes Bugs Bunny!?! Maybe Mr. Murphy should put his career on hold so he can gain another 20 years of life experiences so he can become a seasoned journalist. Or maybe he should just go to work for WSPD.
Murphy:"In early March, I wrote a column inspired by more than 200 Toledo Free Press readers, WSPD listeners and Fox Toledo watchers who heard me argue my opinion that Jobe, 15, should be tried as an adult."
In a previous post I expressed my opinion that Mr. Murphy was exhibiting a lynch-mob mentality in his first editorial. So I won't rehash that point here. However, if we take his figure of 200 people and divide it equally between the three media outlets he mentions, that averages out to less than 70 for each outlet. Mr. Murphy claims The Free Press has a circulation of 150,000. That figures out to be about 1/20%. This is hardly a ground swell.
Murphy:"The callers and e-mailers expressed outrage, grief, fear and frustration at the case and were looking for a place to make their opinions known."
Were these people expressing their emotions "at the case" or at the act? It is my recollection that Mr. Murphy's first two editorials were published before the court took any action other than to say that they would need a couple of weeks to review the case, which I supported.
Murphy:"I gave it to them by publishing the number to Ray's office, and the e-mail address of Dan Pompa, Juvenile Court administrator, both of which are readily available at www.co.lucas.oh.us. This is public information, not personal access info."
Since this is public information, did Mr. Murphy publish it because his readers are not capable of looking it up? Or did he think his readers wouldn't be committed enough to take the time.
Murphy:"But it's foolish, and dangerous, to deny the implied chill the judge sent my way"
What is Mr. Murphy implying? Is he in some sort of danger from Judge Ray? Is this responsible journalism?
Murphy:"I can't suddenly soften my stance or squeak quietly in a corner, or my right, and your right, to fair comment will crack like a door frame in the mayor's office caught between WSPD reporters and the mayor. It's not pride or ego; it's the essence of the First Amendment and the dwindling number of people who seem willing to defend it."
As to Mr. Murphy rehashing his point about Mr. Jobe being tried as an adult and invoking First Amendment issues he very likely misses the intent of Judge Ray's comment. I have only the aforementioned quote to go by but I have a decidedly different take on what the judge meant. I don't think Judge Ray would want to restrict any "fair comment" as Mr. Murphy implies. It is more likely his blatant attempt to incite his readers to action is what Judge Ray finds "horribly inappropriate and extremely offensive to the judicial process."
Usually when someone says it's not pride or ego, it is. As to the perceived dwindling number of people willing to defend First Amendment rights, I think that when frivolous attempts to manipulate public opinion are the order of the day serious people look the other way, in disgust.
Murphy:"If people had faith in the judicial process, I would not have needed to write that column, and 200 Toledoans would not have contacted me seeking to vent. The legal system makes deals and cuts bad guys loose and seems to work harder to protect drug dealers and murderers than it does to protect widows of slain police officers."
Which is it? Did 200 contact the Free Press or did 200 people contact the Free Press, WSPD and Fox Toledo?
Mr. Murphy seems willing to judge and condemn Judge Ray's court even before the trial begins. Is it any wonder Judge Ray said what he said? If this trial were to proceed in a manner that would suite Mr. Murphy, Jobe's "unimaginative" lawyer would likely have grounds for a mistrial.
I find Michael S. Murphy guilty of assassinating the printed page and the judicial system and sentence him to a bucket of cold water in the face, as needed, and 2 years of observing the various courts in our county.
Not Murphy...
Chico you are clearly ignorant in the means of the press.
70 people is actually a large response in a circulation of 150K. The reason being is only a small part of the population is ever willing or motivated enough to pursue responding to a column.
Few columns do actually elict responses. Most that do are commentary or editorials. These are printed precisely to envoke a reaction. Many editors will tell you that they get mail from both sides of the issue and most times it goes AGAINST what is written because conflict generally arouses more of a response. Hate mail is almost always more common than Praise mail with such articles.
So a large number of responses from a small section of the public that is inclined to respond in FAVOR of the editiorial is a much bigger deal.
And as Lisa pointed out his name is Miller. Genuinely if you want to be taken seriously you should do some type of fact checking when clearly you had the article at your disposal.
MikeyA
We have a free press. (Aptly named here in Toledo). The paper published an opinion piece regarding a horrific happenstance and the Judge did not like it.
Sorry Judge, you lose on this one. You work for the people. People have a right to their opinion. You have no right to attack opinions in the public you do not 'approve' of, from the bench.
It's a misuse of the office.
Did Chico really just write a very lengthy rant about some guy named Michael Murphy? A suggestion --- get your facts straight before going on a rant, especially if you want people to take you seriously.
And really....the whole purpose of an OPINION column is to give your opinion. Exactly what Michael Miller did. And if you don't like his opinion, well, that's your right. You can give us your opinion --- just get the names right first. Otherwise you just look stupid.
Your right, it does make me look bad. My apologies to Mr. Miller and to Mr. Murphy, a person from my past. I will be more careful in the future.
Mr. Miller has the right to express his opinion. I would welcome, from someone in his positiion, a a better quality presentation where he doesn't contradict himself. Also, to imply that he may be in danger is reckless. If this quality of work is acceptable from an editor of a major news publication it doesn't bode well for print journalism. I will continue to hold Mr. Miller to a higher standard than the average caller to a talk redio program expressing his opinion.
As to the number of people redponding to this issue. I have no doubt that 70 is a much larger number than Mr. Miller is used to getting. In terms of mass marketing a 2 or 3% response is considered good. A small fraction of a per cent is not. I am sure the vast majority of advertizers in The Free Press would substantiate this and Mr. Miller knows this.
for all time werst speller :-)
spell check!
Spell check? Murphy is spelled correctly. Reference check? There ya go. Damn, you knew what Chico was referring to, just respond. MikeyA had about 20 misspellings in his defense of the military/smoking post I just happened to read, get over it.
"Sorry Judge, you lose on this one. You work for the people. People have a right to their opinion. You have no right to attack opinions in the public you do not 'approve' of, from the bench.
It's a misuse of the office."
Perhaps from the bench it wasn't the best approach, but certainly Michael Miller's opinion is rather a shitty one. Sure, what happened was tragic, but to suggest everyone to call the court and demand Jobe be tried as an adult? This isn't American Idol where public opinion matters. It doesn't matter. Oh, and the Judge doesn't work FOR you. You don't get a say or get to tell him what to do. His directive is from the law and the Constitution, you know, that little piece of paper some dudes scribbled on a couple hundred years ago. Laws you do have a say in. Perhaps you can rally around a law forbidding judge's giving opinions, and while we're at it, I may put in a line against bad journalism. Whose starting to sound like the Blade now, trying to sway public opinion and all. Shame, shame.
On that note, it would have been better had the judge exressed HIS opinion on his own time, rather than the public's time. At the same time, court cases are usually all based on opinion and circumstance, and this is really not anything groundbreaking here.
is an appropriate place to express an personal opinion. A judicial bench is not.
Not having the full statement from the court, just a snippet, but for me the snippet says it all and I didn't read it is as personal opinion but one of ethics by the court and the ethics of the populace.
People have a right to be outraged and upset and want just justice but to petition the court directly for a result skewed to some of the publics sentiment is just that, inappropriate to the judicial process.
Mr. Miller could have just vented in his column and said what he wanted to say and not ask people to try and sway a court to view the case or the statement of facts as we know them to be for the purpose of influencing the court.
Justice is blind, has long been the norm and also deaf too to the clamor from the public square.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
1. Societies pass laws concerning the minimum behaviors they expect from people who live IN them. They also pass laws prohibiting specific behaviors and those laws classify offenses by type and what level the crimes offend them. These laws are created by the people, written by the legislature that they choose and passed by office holders selected, elected and paid by the tax paying public.
2. The people in the society pay for and maintain public safety enforcement staff to control people in that society that are unable to conform to the minimum standards that the society has put in place. The society/tax paying public pays for and IS RESPONSIBLE FOR the security enforcement.
3. Security officials pass through offenders to the court system when they pass far outside of the norms that society has set. These proceedings are under the guidance of judges who are elected and paid for by society. Some levels of this system are appointments made by the judiciary that society elects and pays for with the intent that the judges will enforce the standards that society has determined.
The people/society/tax paying public pay for all of the above, in most cases by direct election, fill these seats on the bench.
Judges do indeed work for the tax paying public. They are direct employees mandated with enforcing the standards of a society.
Amen to that neighborhoodconcerns.
It seems to me that there is a distinction that can be made. Yes, judges are paid by and are responsible to the people through enforcing the laws we have made. Hopefully. it can be said that our laws were created through a more rational and not emotional process.
When emotions run high (lynch-mob mentality) we have a standard to follow that we can trust to carry us through highly charged times. Judges should be insulated from the heat of public outrage. History tells us that the public's outrage is best channeled by the process of changing the laws. In a culture of instant gratification it appears many have lost sight of this.
I know that I am an eternal optimist so I will continue to expect more from Mr. Miiller. The Free Press is a good publication but there is always room for improvement.
They apply the law to the facts as presented and rule on the facts with the application of the laws.
Police and other agencies enforce the law.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Did express his and many other similarly voiced opinions throughout the community. While deciding the case should not be influenced by public opinion, I think it's important that the Judge know that there is a real concern over whether or not he will be tried as an adult.
There is a critical difference in the amount of time that the system will be able to keep control over him and if he's tried as a juvenile - I believe that time would end in 6 years.
Alot of people I know are concerned that this wouldn't be a fair repercussion for his crime and AS IMPORTANTLY - that we don't find the idea of his being back out among the public in 6 years to be acceptable.
We have a right to voice those concerns and the Judge has a right to decide whether or not he will take them into consideration. But to say that the public should not have an opinion or that they Judge should not be able to choose whether or not the publics' safety should weigh into how he opts to try the case (we are NOT talking about the verdict decision here) is wayyyy out there.
Canon 2
A JUDGE SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE
...between being AWARE of public sentiment and letting public sentiment INFLUENCE your actions when making decisions from the bench.
Well said.
Neighborhood Concerns - Actually, I agree with the distiction you make. There's always room for improvement.
"What could be improved upon to make an impartial judiciary better? One that follows the public discourse?"
Obviously a judge cannot and should not give in to the desires of any ancillary particular party/ies - but how can human beings live in a community, have an opportunity to enforce the laws and then so many criminals get turned back out onto the street AND so many we find later - never committed the crimes they were accused of.
So I am answering with more questions. Which isn't fair - but on this issue also - wouldn't some inspection of the process be in order? Maybe reviewing and training judges better before they take the bench?
It's like the elephant in the middle of the room no one wants to talk about. The LAWS are to protect people from harm. When people violate the laws they face a Judge who is supposed to enforce the rules or place people where they can not BE a harm to society. When people aren't protected b/c the laws are discriminately or improperly applied, or people believe, based upon past behavior that they WILL be misapplied - and they voice those concerns...
Well then we have things like this.
"So I am answering with more questions." - discussion is great.
"....wouldn't some inspection of the process be in order? Maybe reviewing and training judges better before they take the bench?"
People who want to become Judges have very high hurdles to cross to become one.
http://www.ohiojudges.org/index.cfm
"The LAWS are to protect people from harm. When people violate the laws they face a Judge who is supposed to enforce the rules or place people where they can not BE a harm to society."
Therein lies the conflict.
A judge adjudicates the laws or applies the laws to the facts.
"When people aren't protected b/c the laws are discriminately or improperly applied, or people believe, based upon past behavior that they WILL be misapplied - and they voice those concerns..."
Well if judges are doing this or are doing so, then they would and should be removed from the bench.
A judge reads the laws and applies the laws to the facts.
If the law is loosely written and is vague and does not give the judge rules to follow or is silent or has no intent noted then in most jurisdictions judges are allowed to use their discretion.
The problem(s) is really the writers of the law, the legislatures.
But then again how can we write a law that encompasses everything at all times?
Laws are living documents that need to be revisited.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
and legislation needs to make some changes also. MY big complaint/fear is that I do not see the penalties that are in place to punish criminals is not being followed.
When we have control of someone who's committed heinous crimes and then they are just let to go back out among us - and they re-offend. It is a well established fact that a very small percentage of the population commits the large majority of the crime - so why not keep control of that percentage to your utmost.
They write the laws, the police enforce the laws and the courts apply the laws.
Representatives and Senators need to hear the voices of the people.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I think it was important for the judge to point out that the judicial system can not respond to what Michael Miller suggested. I think he could have done it in a better manner but I have still not seen the full statement, only the small snippet quoted in the Toledo Blade. It would be helpful to have been given Judge Ray's full statement.
I am not sure to which post this is intended and keeping with my mantra of discussion I would offer that the judiciary is working for us but they are free from the influence of us.
The courts read the law and interpret the law and the legislative intent and apply the law to the situations being brought before the court.
There seems to be, and I very well may be wrong and all in the sake of discussion, an inference that as the judges work for us then they also should listen to what we say and want and if so then the neutrality of the judiciary is lost.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
T++ the only reason I am responding is because you did mention me by name.
First off, I never criticized Chico for spelling only fact checking abilities. I knew he what he meant and didn't criticize but I did suggest what he should to to be taken more seriously. I know you probably weren't accusing me of such but I did want it pointed out.
Second, I never have said I don't write in correct proper english when I post on here. I normally post in internet speak which gives freedom for misspellings, gramatical errors, and first and second person conversational tones. If I were writing a point paper I'd write much differently.
Thirdly, I think we have a decidely different view of who works for who in the government. While I'd say you're correct that the judge works for the Constitution the founding fathers would argued that the Constitution is created to work for us. They and Thomas Locke both took the stance that the government works for the people through a mandate from the people. So they would argue that when the Constitution no longer worked for the people the people would be obligated to ignore and create a new form of government.
Thus the Judge most definitely must be accountable to the people because the Constitution must be accountable to the people. I'm not writing this to attack or anything else just to highlight the philosophical difference we have on the issue.
MikeyA
The canons are rules and ethics that judges by taking the oath of office have sworn to follow.
They are the laws that the judges have to follow.
If they break or fail to follow the canons that can and have been removed from the bench.
What could be improved upon to make an impartial judiciary better? One that follows the public discourse?
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
"Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch as one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government. The other two are the legislative and executive branches."
"The Founding Fathers of the nation considered an independent federal judiciary essential to ensure fairness and equal justice for all citizens of the United States. The Constitution they drafted promotes judicial independence in two major ways. First, federal judges are appointed for life, and they can be removed from office only through impeachment and conviction by Congress of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Second, the Constitution provides that the compensation of federal judges "shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office," which means that neither the President nor Congress can reduce the salary of a federal judge. These two protections help an independent judiciary to decide cases free from popular passions and political influence."
http://www.uscourts.gov/about.html
"An independent judiciary is one free of inappropriate outside influences. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law."
http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mcjc/canon_1.html
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog