Freedom.

[scottobear]

Went to Suzy's hearing today, and it started off bad... but the end results were good... she's going home today, with a reinstatement of her probation. Did she learn anything from this? Nope, I don't think so. I, however, learned that our court systems are incredibly lenient, and that odds are good that the innocent are very unlikely to be crimed for things they did not commit.... as are criminals who did do something, you really have to be able to prove that the bad guy did something. I'm not saying all of our laws are good, or even valid... but if you break the law, someone has to try very hard to get you in trouble for it. (apparently there are a lot of people trying very hard, though... look at our prisons!)

Anyhow. Suzy free (as free as probation, anyhow.)

no more collect calls from jail, or taking messages for her friends. (so called.... they wouldn't even visit.)

I'm guessing she should be back in a cab, driving, by next Monday.

As for myself, I suppose going to the DMV, getting a new photo ID was a good thing... I can now not get bothered when cashing my check, and so on.

Talked to the brother last night. Going with him to a new gym on Sunday.. I'll be ready for some serious working out, now that he's joining me. I look forward to being stronger, healthier, and looking a little better than I've been lately.

Yipes

Comments

[papoose.livejournal.com]

glad your friend got out.

me too!

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

thanks!

innocence

[eebomb.livejournal.com]

i think it depends on the situation. my sister has been in legal battles for the past two years just for the opportunity to spend time with her 4 children. she never committed any crime or did anything to harm her children but her husband was the first to throw accusations and get a restraining order so my sister has had to be on the defence ever since and has had to fight for every minute of time with her kids (the youngest was 3 when it all started). she never did anything wrong but has been at a distinct disadvantage because she has been assumed to be guilty.

Re: innocence

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

that is unfortunate. what was he using as proof? I'm surprised that the assumption of guilt is there...maybe it's a knee-jerk reaction to protect kids. were they hurt by anyone in the family?

Re: innocence

[eebomb.livejournal.com]

the kids were never hurt in any way by my sister. whereas i don't even want to think about the damaged that he has caused through the psychological toll of being separated from mommy and being told about how bad she is.

as far as i know the only proof he had was an email message to her psychologist where she did some venting about the kids but this is the kind of thing that should not be admitted as evidence as it was not a statement of actual intent but it was.
he also had an advantage because he started the whole thing off by getting her thrown in jail for a few days due to a fight with him.
also they were both drug and alcohol abusers and when accused my sister admitted it and has been getting help and has stopped "using" whereas he denied accusations and continues to use drugs and drink but is not an druggie in the eyes of the court.
I really don't understand how all this has gone on for so long but it has changed my ideas about innocence and the legal system.

ouch...

[scottobear.livejournal.com]

I can certainly see your point. My recent perspective had me seeing it in another direction, but perhaps stuff like this is truly on a case-to-case basis.