Remember My Earlier Post on Judges Taking Kickbacks to Send Children to Jail

The post, from February, is here.

In any case, a judge, the aptly named Arthur Grim, has reviewed the case files, and come away shocked:

The judge who studied Luzerne County's "cash-for-kids" scheme said yesterday that children's constitutional rights had been denied and justice perverted "in ways that I would never have dreamed possible."

Judge Arthur E. Grim of Berks County, who reviewed transcripts of about 100 cases of juveniles caught up in the scheme, said the scandal grew out of "unfettered power, greed, opportunity, and intimidation."

here is the kicker though:

Lawyers, court employees, and school officials knew of the scheme, but winked at it for convenience or self-preservation, Grim testified.

This isn't just a couple of bad judges. Pretty much every lawyer, and every school administrator in Luzerne County ad to know about it.

What's more, the school administrators used it for their petty vendettas:

He said many school officials supported Ciavarella's "zero-tolerance" policies toward teenagers no matter how minor the offense.

"When a misbehaving kid was brought to school authorities, they immediately picked up the phone and called the police," Grim testified. "They did this because they knew that if they did, that child would go before Judge Ciavarella and would be out of their hair as a problem."

When Hillary Transue was sent before the judge by a vice-principal who pressed charges of harassment about a spoof Facebook page that had her [the vice-principal] collecting Johnny Depp's used underwear, this person, educator is not the right word, and whoever in the DA's office who decided to continue with this, knew, that this was going to get a girl thrown in jail because the judge was taking bribes.

The Judge Grim notes:

"We know the people in this community did not consciously choose to stand on the side of injustice at the expense of children. But what was it that made it so hard to do the right thing? Were people afraid? Were they intimidated? By whom? What protections would they have wanted? Where would they have wanted to take the information they had?"

The judge has it wrong. People wanted this. This is what "tough on crime" and "zero tolerance" means. It means disproportionate, destructive, evil application of the law, and judges Mark Ciavarella Jr. and Michael Conahan could do this because this is what the people of Luzerne County wanted.

The prosecution loves a "hanging judge". The principals wanted judges would make problem children go away. The voters wanted "tough on crime" and "zero tolerance".

They all wanted to hurt children, so long as it was someone else's child.

Atrios calls them, "Really awful people." I'm not sure if he means just the judges, or the DA's office, or perhaps also the school administrators.

Me, I mean everyone in that whole damn county.

If that vice-principal is still working for the school district, the good people of Luzerne county, both of them, should organize an angry mob.