Gothamist: Judge Scoffs at Alleged Slaveholders' Bail Plan

Dave Hogarty

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:55:59 -0500

Actually, I initially mis-read what the judge was saying. He was actually complaining only about the lack of sufficient security to keep them confined to their home. My above comment [3] is thus completely moot and irrelevant. And I need to brush up on my speed-reading comprehension skills.

Dave Hogarty

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:46:18 -0500

To let the couple pay for their own "guards" and confining themselves to their home reminds me of the cozy treatment drug lord Pablo Escobar received in Colombia. And if it was the proposed terms of their imprisonment after trial, it could rightly be considered outrageous. But the judge's ruling seems to run counter to the presumption of innocence that is the basis of our legal system. If this pair of sadistic-sounding weirdos is found guilty, I say lock 'em up and throw away the key. But until then, why shouldn't they have a tea party, or any kind of party, as long as they are detained until their trial, which is the whole concept of bail? My first instinct was to cheer "right on!", but this judge seems to have unilaterally decided that these people are guilty and need to be in jail right now. This decision might make people happy today, but it should frighten them by the precedent it could set.

guest

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:54:43 -0500

This couple should rot in jail - to set an example for all the other rich people who feel they can use and abuse their servants!

guest

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:33:52 -0500

I dont believe it...so the maid says it happened the boss was probably a rich, spoiled, whatever, but the papers are making this out to be some tabloid story...