"Subject: Jerked Around" [October 27]
Fascinating article. Our legal profession really takes a beating (if you wish) by Erin E. Hogan. She indicts defense, prosecution and judiciary. Nevertheless, I did find the article fascinating (as I do most cover articles in the Reader).
My question is, why bother? Is there some evidence that "Wand Wavers" (that's what we used to call them) present some imminent danger to society? The unanswered question, would she do it all again to save herself and other delicate eyes from such depraved behavior?
I found parts of the article very Chicago Tribune-like. One sentence required rereading several times to make sense of it: "She has cases she can cite . . . " In addition, the apparent disregard for preemption of state statutes over city ordinances is mostly disregarding. The poor use of the subjunctive casts some doubt on the standards of grammar acceptable for University of Chicago students.
Finally, the author suggests that an assistant state's attorney should attempt to sandbag the judge on the question of state preemption. Please review the mission of the "people's attorney." Their role is quite different from that of a defense attorney; the latter has no mandate for fairness to all.
Hank Browne, attorney