Viewpoints » Letters to the Editor

Subscribe

Was the goal to game the justice system?

  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • Post a Comment
  • •
  • Favorite
  • •
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close
  • •
  • Originally published July 29, 2008 at 4:32 p.m., updated July 29, 2008 at 4:32 p.m.

Editor, the Advocate:

On July 15, four city councilmen long after premature public release of details of the Ratcliff investigation, passed an ordinance, which “finds” that the purpose of the revelations was to warn citizens that a suspected sex offender, an employee of the district attorney, had access to law enforcement information systems, holding “sensitive data” on citizens. This belated “finding,” in an amendment drafted by Mr. Miles Risley, the current city attorney, also “finds” that the release was to provide “police protection and control,” a governmental function.

The “findings” rest on the false assumption that city officials or employees are entitled to second guess the DA’s motives or his methods, in safeguarding any such systems or data or in retaining the suspect as an employee during the state-run investigation.

Citizens rightly resent city officials taking sides in felony prosecutions of city officials or employees. Not only has the council voted $200,000 of our money for the defense, but it has failed to suspend the indicted defendants pending trial and has now clearly sought to create a rationale for spending the money, a defense for the men or both.

Premature public revelation of a suspect’s identity or other information relevant to a felony investigation, which is in progress, risks subverting the investigation and prejudicing the suspect’s constitutional rights. Speculation as to “potential” risks or disclosure of “sensitive data” on citizens is a vague and specious rationalization for now claiming the purpose was the exercise of a governmental function.

Risley admitted communicating with the defendants and their attorneys ( not, the DA) to assume their acquiescence in the proposed amendment. Whose idea was this belated assertion of the supposed defense? Was the goal to game the justice system?

A prudent, ethical DA avoids public debates regarding pending cases. Unfortunately, this allows the defense, its surrogates or friends to publicly attack him or otherwise seek to undermine his case.

Jack A. Mullins

Victoria



  • Print
  • •
  • •
  • Post a Comment
  • •
  • Favorite
  • •
  • Report an error Report error
    • Thank you for your submission.
      Error report or correction
      Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  
      Sending report
    • Close
  • •