Stan Geiger

Puttin' on the Ritz

Oklahoma Representative Mike Ritz is proposing a law that would give the Legislature the power to overturn a judge's sentence in a criminal case. I'm left to wonder if Ritz has ever heard of a little constitutional thing called separation of powers.

Educators showed their lack of constitutional knowledge two or three years ago. The OEA (teachers' union), along with a couple of school districts of which Jenks was one, sued the state, attempting to get a court to order the Legislature to boost common education funding by a billion dollars a year.

A trial judge dismissed the case with prejudice. The Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, and in its opinion made it quite clear that the Oklahoma Constitution gives the power to decide levels of education funding to the Legislature exclusively; the courts have no say in the matter.

Now we have a lawmaker that seeks to, in essence, give the Legislature the power of an appellate court.

Ritz's proposal stems from a deal cut in a recent case. A child molester (I guess I don't have to use the word "alleged" since the case has been resolved) was given a 20-year sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. All but one year of the sentence was suspended. People, naturally, were appalled that a guy that raped a 4-year-old girl will only do one year in the can.

Bill O'Reilly got a hold of the story and put it out on the national airwaves. Oklahoma was, most certainly, put in a bad light.

But what O'Reilly doesn't know, what I don't know, and what you don't know, is anything about the strength of the case against the molester. See, everybody can "know" the guy did it. But getting a conviction in a court of law requires tangible proof, enough tangible proof to erase any reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors.

The judge and the prosecutors knew the strength of the case. The defense attorney knew as well, otherwise he or she wouldn't have even dreamed of getting such light treatment for the molester.

It's quite possible that all the prosecutors had to work with in this case was the testimony of a traumatized little girl. And if that's all you've got as a proscecutor, you're walking on pretty thin legal ice.

It's quite possible the prosecutors and the judge felt the molester, if taken to trial, had a good shot at an acquittal. If acquitted, the guy would have gotten nothing. And, of course, double jeopardy would have attached. Post acquittal, he could have admitted to the molestation on the courthouse steps and the law would not have been able to touch him.

As it is, the guy is in the system as a convicted child molester. He is in prison for the next 20 years. Yes, he will only physically serve one year---if he stays clean when he gets back on the streets. But, technically, he's in prison for 20 years. If the guy screws up at all after getting out, the judge can stick him in a cell and order him to stay there for the remainder of his sentence. No due process necessary; he's already been given that.

In the legal biz, sometimes you just have to hold your nose and do what is best under the circumstances.

---