• octopus_ink
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Does that very old case (which seems a really odd basis for this seemingly minor point of law - and I’m skeptical this 1983 decision is weighing on this judges mind) also stipulate that someone should get only a single hearing for multiple infractions?

    I still don’t see the logic anywhere showing “hey, we’ll let folks do this OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER but it would be jumping the gun to do more than slap his wrist until they’ve done it, say, twelve times.”

    This just seems like an example of a judge being lenient in a specific case, and not especially relevant beyond that.

    Really it doesn’t matter. He’ll do it again, and I’ll be shown correct when they fine him another nickel, or he’ll do it again, and I’ll be wrong, but he’ll actually be inconvenienced by his actions by a very short stint in jail so that will be OK, I guess.

    Edit - with no snark intended, this is seeming less true, not more, as we continue.

    NY law is very specific about how this works.