Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Dixon Convicted

As you know by now, Mayor Dixon has been convicted of one of the six counts brought against her in the first trial. She was acquitted of three and the jury was hung on two. In case you were not aware, the jury must be unanimous for either conviction or acquittal.

I really feel that with all the dirt Rohrbaugh has received over this trial, it could do a lot of good for the city. You never like to see "example-setting" justice (mostly due to the harshness with which it is administered) but if a message needs to be conveyed, Dixon is the one to get it across. As far as I am concerned, "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to legal terms. I believe Dixon was guilty of much greater depths of corruption than were allowable in court due to the ridiculousness of legislative immunity. She clearly cared about her position (the Sun suggests this was care for the "city," ha), but knew where the lines could be "fudged." This had nothing to do with race, although it will certainly be painted as such. This had to do with lax ethics and a culture of corruption. A wall was placed between the elected officials and the public, and Ronald Lipscomb was the crack that tore the wall down. I see london, I see France, I see Baltimore's underpants.

Unfortunately I feel that politics has become a "Players' Game" that excludes those that truly care and have the mind to make a difference. The only good news is that at least one of those Players is suspended indefinitely.

4 comments:

  1. Things are changing. As the older generation expires and the youngsters tap into online resources, you'll see less and less corruption.

    But I am troubled by the juror who gave a televised interview and said they didn't want to convict on anything significant because it was like the death penalty, what with deciding the remainder of a person's life. EXCUSE ME? Their job was to hear the facts, follow the rules and obviously that was never going to happen.

    One conviction is a step, though. It speaks volumes to justice, racism, reverse racism, and the direction we're heading.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm curious at this point to see what happens in sentencing. Is the trial itself really where her fate lies, or is it in sentencing?? In the end, the quality of this expensive process lies in the penalties one faces and not the conviction, or am I wrong? 'A step in the right direction' with a conviction will be a really expensive waste of time if she isn't made an example of in sentencing...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks Anon & Dave.

    As for sentencing, Sweeney knows he has to boot her from office. That was implicit in the jury's conviction. They didn't want her to go to jail, but they also didn't think she should be mayor any longer. I agree that it is a waiting game and is the most important "next step," but if Judge Sweeney doesn't boot her, it would be a shock.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't have too much insight into the true costs associated with a trial like this, but I know it surely isn't cheap. And hopefully over time, not paying that $80,000 pension for life will put a dent in that...

    ReplyDelete