Talk:Joette Katz

message: (01:52, 14 September 2007 68.14.84.60 (Talk) (5,378 bytes) (don;t soft soap the effect of these decisions. The legislature subsequently passed a "plain meaning" act after the death penalty decision) 
----------
My additions to your comments regarding the State v. Bell and State v. Johnson decisions were not, as you have stated, an attempt to "soft soap the effect of these decisions". Rather, they were motivated by the desire to make sure that the article is written from a NPOV. Judges often are required to make decisions that can appear to be very technical and seem removed from the human elements of the facts of a case. The role of appellate judges is to evaluate the law in a particular case and, perhaps, to determine the intent of those who crafted the law, but not to determine the facts of the case nor to create policy (though policy changes may result from such interpretation). To a degree, such determinations of law can appear, in the short term, to be callous and/or ill-conceived. This is particularly common in cases involving violent crimes (such as the horrible killing of a police officer or any other human being) and the laws that relate to them. To a degree, judges must approach such difficult, emotional matters as dispassionately as is possible and is appropriate, if they are to be able to professionally evaluate how a particular case relates to current law and/or the intent of its framers. This is similar to how doctors need to maintain a certain professional detachment if there are to provide patients with the best possible care. Hopefully, the long-term results of such decisions serve to benefit the citizens being represented and, if need be, result in the legislature clarifying problematic laws or crafting new ones. As I am sure that you are aware,  in the case of State v. Bell the Connecticut Supreme Court relied on the 2000 Apprendi ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Hartford Courant has pointed out in the referenced article "The Apprendi decision has sparked numerous appeals and affected laws in other states". This is by no means a novel issue nor apparently was the decision a radical or unusual one -- it was unanimous and the panel included justices crossing the political spectrum. The issue in question for this Wikipedia entry is not how you or I feel about this particular case, but accurately conveying what the decision was and, perhaps, why it was made. If there are clear, documentable consequences of such decisions (as in the case of the Kelo case) then these should also be accurately reported if they are relevant.
Comments that you have added regarding the opinions authored by this jurist seem to reflect your personal point of view and biases regarding the administration of justice and focus on the emotional aspects of these cases or your view/interpretation of their potential consequences. For example, your statement that "This decision effectively voided the state's persistent violent offender law" does not appear to be accurate and certainly has not yet been determined. It is my understanding that this law is not voided, but has now been clarified to require that juries (not judges) make the decisions about the determination of persistent violent offender status.  This follows a similar decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. You have also not provided any detail in the State v. Johnson case related to why the majority of the court, including some very law-and-order oriented jurists such as the Chief Justice at the time, Robert Callahan, reached the decision that they did given that 17 shots were fired. This detail and their concerns related to this matter was provided by the justices in their written opinion and was reflected in their questions at oral argument. You chose to leave this out of your description of this case. Again, while you and I might not agree with the decision, it should be characterized for such an encyclopedia in as neutral a manner as possible in order to be fair and accurate. I have not removed your text in these instances in order to do you the courtesy of giving you time to consider and, if you choose, respond to my reply to your ad hominem comment to me (01:52, 14 September 2007), however I reserve the right to further edit this entry at some point in the future and, if need be, bring the POV issue to the attention of Wikipedia administrators. I believe that to the greatest degree possible POV should not enter into the editing of such entries. I feel that you violated this on 6 September 2007 by a biased characterization of these 2 cases that previously was not there. I would hope that will decide to remove such comments as soon as possible. CT2008 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE:Joette Katz article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Joette Katz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011082318/http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-gaymarriage-1010,0,7812756.story to http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-gaymarriage-1010,0,7812756.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091204142527/http://www.connpost.com/ci_13900709 to http://www.connpost.com/ci_13900709
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091204010245/http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_13900709?source=rss to http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/localnews/ci_13900709?source=rss
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified