Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsRetaliation

Judge Karlin Fights Back

March 08, 1992

It is understandable that an appeal would be filed in the Latasha Harlins-Soon Ja Du case over which Judge Karlin presided.

Looking at the case from a rational basis it is understandable why Karlin gave Soon Ja Du probation instead of prison time. What is not understandable is why a group wants that decision to have been based on retaliation instead of legal precedents.

The appeal is only being pressed because Reiner wants pre-election publicity. In spite of also being up for election, Judge Karlin based her sentencing on legal precedents, not a group's outcry for retaliation.

Just because a group doesn't agree with a judge's sentence, it doesn't mean that judge's decision is legally incorrect.

A group's outcry for retaliation has no business entering a judge's decision. When a judge has to base a decision on a group's cry for retaliation, or fear of political ramifications or pre-election publicity, rather than on legal precedents--then not only does the judge lose, we all lose!

CHRISTY M. HAYS, Canoga Park

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|