Comments on: Polson Judge Assumes Barkus Case
By Firebeam on 10-20-09
Hopefully the prosecutor is carefully making this move to ensure Barkus can’t call in favors or otherwise “play the game” to escape these charges.
I appreciate the innocent until proven guilty premise of our legal system, but in the case of politicians, they seem to escape more often than not, because of their positions. I would favor a law that AUTOMATICALLY suspended these politicians upon filing of criminal or felony charges and that suspension would last until the politician is cleared of charges or convicted and subsequently expelled from office.
Can anyone show me an instance where a poltician WASN’T afforded special treatment or DIDN’T throw his weight around to escape the full force of the law. Its all-too-common that they are slippery in the hands of law and courts and I’m sickened by it.
By TallTree on 10-21-09
Since this is a high profile case, and he is an elected official, I feel Mr. Corrigan, the County prosecutor who requested this change, should explain to the public his reason for a change of judges. It is important to be transparent and open in order to stop rumors and mistrust.
By Firebeam on 10-21-09
We’re still wondering WHY the prosecutor requested the change. Don’t ya think that’s an important part of the story?
By Whitefish on 10-22-09
This is why.http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_0c2d5278-bba6-11de-b6a0-001cc4c03286.html
By wouldb1 on 10-22-09
Geez, when I mentioned (Barkus’ attorney) Glazier’s DUI arrest, my post was removed. I guess Glazier couldn’t stop the Missoulian from publishing the truth. I wonder how he sleeps at night, much less how he defends other drunk drivers, knowing that the officer who arrested him is dead because of a drunk driver. What a guy!
By TeeAitch on 10-22-09
Thanks, “Whitefish,” for your post. I read the Missoulian article and it was enlightening. Currently, our system gives DUI convictions a kind of hierarchy. One’s not so bad, so only gets a fine, one day in jail, and DUI school. Two is worse, with more of a penalty, and so on until many DUIs later, it becomes a felony, and they (hopefully) put the driver in prison to keep him off the road.
But sometimes the simplest solution is the best. Considering that it is legal, adult drinking may be a sort of “right” as some Montanans apparently believe. But driving isn’t. Driving at all is a privilege. How about just taking away the privilege of driving for a significant time (20 years? Life?) for one DUI conviction?
First, it would be a definitive statement that driving drunk is completely unacceptable, at all, ever. With such a law in place, you could count on extremely vigorous defenses, and the prosecutors would have to step up and really do their jobs. But then, we could be reasonably assured that convictions were legitimate and that the convicted were actually guilty. We could reserve prison sentences for those who drove while under the prohibition, and make it a crime to lend a car to a convicted DUI offender.
I am myself a victim of a drunk driver, in pain every day for that person’s negligence, and I confess that I have driven under the influence myself in the past. I use my experience and knowledge to come to the conclusion that DUIs will continue unless and until drivers are sufficiently afraid of the consequences as to avoid a conviction at all costs (hopefully not driving drunk.)
Without a compete ban of both alcohol and cars, we’ll never completely stop drunk driving, but just as most people don’t commit most crimes for fear of consequences, we can lessen DUI offenses to the fewest possible. Maybe.
By senator blutarski on 10-22-09
I find it amazing that Barkus’s attorney was able to keep his law license after his conviction. I recall a case several years ago of a Kalispell attorney who lost his law license for possession of 2 grams of a harmless plant! His soon to be ex wife turned him in as part of a bitter divorce. I consider drunk driving a much more serious offense.
By wouldb1 on 10-22-09
For the good Senator Bluto: Glazier was charged with DUI, but since the arresting highway patrolman was subsequently killed by a drunk driver (before Glazier went to court) it was dropped - no officer to testify, no trial. Of course had Glazier been a man, he would have pled guilty and taken his punishment. Sadly, he’s a lawyer, not a man.
By kalispelling bee on 10-23-09
Senator blutarski, the attorney to whom you referred did not lose his license. He lost his contract as a public defender, but still practices law.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.