Remy returning to the booth

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,966
Boston, MA
Rovin, tremendous posts, thanks. I read that article yesterday and was incensed. I concluded that Jared is and was a worthless piece of shit, a coward and a murderer. I think his parents enabled him....but are not in any way responsible for his thuggish and murderous acts beyond imbueing (sp?) him with a sense of entitlement (Re "murderous acts": I understand that a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but in the court of SOSH, I've rendered my verdict based on the evidence I have). Neverthless, your thoughtful posts shed some needed perspective on the criminal justice system in general and society's instinct to blame without really being willing to be accountable (i.e. via more tax dollars for the court system, mental health treatment, etc.). I'm guilty of ranting without thinking too at times.

With all of that, I still think it's legitimate for people here to curse the choices of Jerry Remy and protest his presence on NESN telecasts. He clearly sought to protect his son....at the expense of his victims, in all circumstances. Yes, there was the comment in the article about him telling Weston police that they should maybe show Jared that there are consequences to his acts. But Jerry never (at least according to the article, which I know you find flawed) decided to act to impose those consequences. And of all the players here, Jerry was the one who had the best way to effect Jared by cutting off his financial lifeline and he chose not to. As rundugrun noted above, as a father, after several of these incidents, I hope I'd have the strength to let my son sink or swim with his decisions, noting how violent he was. Jerry Remy didn't have that strength...and while Jerry is not responsible for Martell's death, he bears some responsibility for keeping his son out of jail again, and again, and again. While understandable on some level, it too has consequences on reputation and desire to see his smiling face on Red Sox telecasts.
 

yep

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2006
2,465
Red Sox Natin
Rovin Romine said:
...I just dislike it when rhetoric gets employed like this to no good end.  Does anyone not think Jared is fucked up?  Does anyone not think he murdered Martel?  So why the article?  Where does the finger of culpability "point?" Honestly, it points at all of us.  Failure to spend tax dollars on identifying and helping emotionally disturbed kids.  Glorification of athletes.  Failure to condemn steroid use.  Tolerance of misogyny (in all it's subtle and overt forms).  
 
But instead discussing this, the article has gotten people to want to call a judge and blindly criticize them over a decision they know little or nothing about.   Sometimes a situation is fucked up because we've all enabled it to happen in some way.  Sometimes there's no single fix for it, such as blaming any single factor - parents, drugs, a culture of violence, etc.   
 
I think you are a little off the rails here, RR. 
 
The article exists because this is a newsworthy story for a whole bunch of reasons, that brought a ton of new information and detail to light. Reporters investigate and report. We can unpack every little nit and argue over whether this or that event was more gray than the article implied, but this isn't a trial, it's journalism. And overall, it's an excellent piece of journalism, and a well-sourced one. And unlike in court, journalists *are* allowed to dig into your divorce and school history, and just as there is value in the legal protections given to criminal defendants, there is also tremendous societal value to the protections given to the press. 
 
 
The press' role in the exchange of ideas and information is not what you seem to be implying it should be, and the public square is not a courtroom. It's okay, in a newspaper article, to say "this is the best we can tell so far". 
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,535
right here
Myt1 said:
I guess I'm asking for a description of what should have happened here as far as the criminal justice system is concerned. To the extent that the protections aren't sufficient, the building with the golden dome seems more to blame.
Specifically?
this sequence kind of stood out to me:
March 13, 2001 "Remy is allowed to stay out on probation this time with the stipulation the next violation will have clearly defined consequences: 60 days in the House of Correction."
April 12, 2001 "Back in Dedham District Court on another probation violation before Judge Lynda Connolly, she finds probable cause for a probation violation but agrees to waive the previously proposed 60-day House of Correction sentence to allow Jared Remy to continue with probation and counseling, court records show."
 
How about when you're told "next time it's jail" and the next one happens less than a month later you actually go to jail instead of getting more probation? For starters?
 

CantKeepmedown

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,581
Portland, ME
Christina Hill, Martell's friend and neighbor, is on with Mut and Lou right now. She said that she saw the text message that Phoebe Remy sent to Martell a night before Martell was going to extend the restraining order. It said, "if you don't extend the restraining order, I'll take Jarod's key to the apartment. "

She also said that she saw a text that Jenna Remy sent to Martel saying, "I'm afraid that my brother is going to kill you."
 

Bozo Texino

still hates Dave Kerpen
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
11,730
Austin, Texas
After completing the Globe article, count me among those who hope advertisers put some serious pressure on NESN.  It's time for Remy to go.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,582
South Boston
The Napkin said:
Specifically?
this sequence kind of stood out to me:
March 13, 2001 "Remy is allowed to stay out on probation this time with the stipulation the next violation will have clearly defined consequences: 60 days in the House of Correction."
April 12, 2001 "Back in Dedham District Court on another probation violation before Judge Lynda Connolly, she finds probable cause for a probation violation but agrees to waive the previously proposed 60-day House of Correction sentence to allow Jared Remy to continue with probation and counseling, court records show."
 
How about when you're told "next time it's jail" and the next one happens less than a month later you actually go to jail instead of getting more probation? For starters?
I think that would have been great.

At the same time, it's 2 months. And, as a society, we're pretty lousy at changing people's behavior once it's gotten to this point.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
rundugrun said:
As a dad, I would have completely cut off my son from any any assistance (cash, lawyers, bail money, cars, jobs) about 15 years ago. I will venture to say that without Daddy providing a top defense attorney, Jared would have ended up in jail and Martel would still be alive since she never would have met Jared.
 
Although some attorneys may howl upon hearing me say this, "it does not really work like that."  Cases are what they are.  Facts are what they are.  The law is what it is.  Sure - there's differing levels of skill among attorneys, and a gross mismatch usually favors the more experienced and skilled attorney.  However, spin and skill can only take a case so far.  
 
In general, what a good lawyer does is try to make sure their side of the case is maximized, (i.e., your client does not lose the case by doing something stupid, nor fail to win the case by neglecting to do something.)  But it's the case itself that usually drives.  Given a neutral fact-finder, approximately equal party resources, and equally committed and prepped parties, the actual ability of an attorney to wow a judge, independent of the facts, is far less than you might think.  It is there, and shows up in evenly balanced cases, but the more weight a case has for one party, the less likely it is that even the best attorney can tip the balance back in their favor. 
 
In criminal cases, the prosecution and the defense (public defenders and private bar) often aren't that far apart in terms of knowledge and skill.  Sometimes the prosecution or public defenders don't have the resources (in terms of time/hiring experts, etc.) to fully prep a case.  So the private defense bar may have some advantages in a situation where they're presenting information about their client (bail or sentencing) and can muster a lot of witnesses in front of a judge.  (And that's what we're talking about here, not something like vehicular homicide where a rich defendant hires multiple experts).  Also, the private defense attorney may simply know his client better, through longer association.  
 
Practically speaking, you can bring family, friends, employers, and psych/drug/medical evaluators of various sorts to try to sway the judge.  None will really cost you but the last, and public defenders often have access to them for their indigent clients.  But is there such a difference between an average, competent defense attorney and a "top" one?  I mean, to the extent that it implicates the system?  Or means Jerry Remy took extraordinary measures in his son's defense?  In this situation, not really.  
 
It's just another easily misapplied stereotype of the court system.  
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
Bleedred said:
And of all the players here, Jerry was the one who had the best way to effect Jared by cutting off his financial lifeline and he chose not to. As rundugrun noted above, as a father, after several of these incidents, I hope I'd have the strength to let my son sink or swim with his decisions, noting how violent he was. Jerry Remy didn't have that strength...and while Jerry is not responsible for Martell's death, he bears some responsibility for keeping his son out of jail again, and again, and again.
 
It's awfully easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback and say, "if that were my son", when you are viewing this from the perspective of an outraged outsider with the benefit of hindsight on how badly things turned out, and no personal attachment. Actually try and pitcure yourself as someone who actually has to deal with a dangerous and violent loved one who is going to keep showing up at your doorstep. You and I and others probably would have done SOME things differently, but it's hard to say what we might have felt was best knowing the individual.
 
As far as why Jerry would have motivation to try to keep his son out of jail after the previous incidents, prison doesn't exactly have a strong track record for rehabilitating people with obvious mental issues, and there was probably the fear that after Jared eventually got out after a few months, he would be even more dangerous or further damaged. Their estimation, whether right or wrong, probably was that their best hope was to keep trying to manage Jared themselves as best they could, rather than turn him over to the prison system. This is a much more complicated issue than people seem to think. If I try to picture myself in their shoes, the first thought that comes to mind is how many specialists I would have consulted to best understand my son and how dangerous he truly was and make sure I was following the best course.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,582
South Boston
And I'm really not being flippant to Nap. RR and I are on sort of opposite sides professionally, but I agree with him that the tool we're trying to use isn't particularly suited for the job we're all talking about.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
yep said:
 
I think you are a little off the rails here, RR. 
 
The article exists because this is a newsworthy story for a whole bunch of reasons, that brought a ton of new information and detail to light. Reporters investigate and report. We can unpack every little nit and argue over whether this or that event was more gray than the article implied, but this isn't a trial, it's journalism. And overall, it's an excellent piece of journalism, and a well-sourced one. And unlike in court, journalists *are* allowed to dig into your divorce and school history, and just as there is value in the legal protections given to criminal defendants, there is also tremendous societal value to the protections given to the press. 
 
The press' role in the exchange of ideas and information is not what you seem to be implying it should be, and the public square is not a courtroom. It's okay, in a newspaper article, to say "this is the best we can tell so far". 
 
Eh.  I hear what you're saying, but I think you're misreading my intent in posting.   I don't think the reporter violated any cannons of journalism (from what little I know of them) and I think the structure of the piece is great as rhetoric.  However, it is argumentative and does have a bias.  
 
Insofar as the bias is "Jarod is a creep, etc." it's hard to really argue with that.   Insofar as the bias is that "the court system failed," I do take issue with it.  
 
I think it's fair to say that the journalist intended people to respond to the article by saying (in some way) "How can it be that he wasn't stopped/caught/punished before this?"
 
I also think it's fair to say that the journalist basically pointed the finger at the police/court system.  It's not like this was a critique of the school system, or the mental health system, or the kinds of people Jarod surrounded himself with, or even, to an extent, steroids.  It's focused on potentially illegal acts, including his traffic record.
 
Let me ask - do you think the article is unbiased
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,966
Boston, MA
RR -- there is a huge difference between a public defender and a very experienced defense lawyer who knows the system, has the resources to pursue every angle and can pursue them. I don't know if it was his lawyer's skill, his lawyer's contacts or the fact that he had Jerry's money to make clear that they weren't going away; but there's no doubt in my mind that the fact that Jared Remy had a "top" defense attorney absolutely made a difference in whether or not he served time earlier.

There's another point I think you're missing here; or maybe electing not to address. Jerry Remy had a choice, after the umteenth violation for violence, to cut his son off from his resources. I'm not saying it was an easy choice, in fact, I'm sure it's not. But it's a choice he could have made, and he clearly had thought about it way back when where he told Weston police that he felt his son maybe needed to learn a lesson that his actions have consequences. If Jerry believed that, he himself never had the strength to impose the consequences himself. For that, one can choose to be quite critical of Jerry Remy as an enabler. Again, that choice for any parent is not easy, but it is a choice.
 

Dead Balls

New Member
Jul 18, 2005
103
The people calling for Jerry Remy's head are seriously underestimating his appeal to the general public.  They see him as a person who did everything he could for his son and nothing more.  They see themselves doing exactly the same thing.
 
Look at the numbers of people who tune into Dennis and Calahan to listen to them spew hate and garbage.  Heck, there are even a lot of Aaron Hernandez apologists out there.  There are even rational people who don't blame him at all.  
 
I will be utterly shocked if he is not in the booth for years to come. There are a lot of people who think completely differently about the situation than those partly blaming Jerry Remy for it.
 
I'll be shocked if he gets pushed out of the booth.  Maybe (hopefully) some of the guilt gets to him and he just opts to resign, but short of that, I don't see it happening.  Talk to your average Sox fan.  Not the hardcore type, the masses.  Almost every reaction I received when I brought it up was, "Why would they fire him?  He didn't kill anybody."  I'd love to see Eck or somebody else replace him before the murder.  But most of "Red Sox Nation" likes the guy.  I've actually even heard a tremendous amount of sympathy for him.  I don't see a public outcry coming.  
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Myt1 said:
And I'm really not being flippant to Nap. RR and I are on sort of opposite sides professionally, but I agree with him that the tool we're trying to use isn't particularly suited for the job we're all talking about.
 
I think it's safe to say the vast majority of attorneys who have DV experience (prosecution or defense) would agree.  
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,582
South Boston
Bleedred said:
RR -- there is a huge difference between a public defender and a very experienced defense lawyer who knows the system, has the resources to pursue every angle and can pursue them. I don't know if it was his lawyer's skill, his lawyer's contacts or the fact that he had Jerry's money to make clear that they weren't going away; but there's no doubt in my mind that the fact that Jared Remy had a "top" defense attorney absolutely made a difference in whether or not he served time earlier.
There is a difference. But we're not talking about a white collar crime case with millions of pages of documents and an incredibly detailed criminal statute. We're talking about domestic violence and other A&Bs. There aren't a lot of moving parts.
 

drtooth

2:30
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 23, 2004
11,305
Someone's Molars
 
 
The next few days will determine Jerry's fate.  If a couple of NESN sponsors say they want off the Sox broadcasts if Remy's still around, or if this issue starts looking like it'll distract from Opening Day, that'll be it.  
 
 
 
THIS is going to decide Remy's fate, not our (or the public at large) opinions of his son's behavior.  This FO is very PR and savvy and if sponsors threaten to bail, Remy will not be around.
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,535
right here
Myt1 said:
And I'm really not being flippant to Nap. RR and I are on sort of opposite sides professionally, but I agree with him that the tool we're trying to use isn't particularly suited for the job we're all talking about.
Oh believe me, I'm guessing I know better than most on here how terrible of a job the system does in DV cases/situations. It stinks and it sucks and it stinks. But I see repeated slaps on the wrist or less and "we mean it next time!" turn into more probation and then 5 years later when you beat up your gf it's tossed aside as no big deal and "just another year of probation" and my blood starts to boil. And the only reason we know about this one is because he has a famous father.
 
I look forward to the first "NESN ROCKS! Hey RemDawg - I got charged with a DV, what's your lawyer's #?" sign at Fenway.
They can make it witty and stuff. Maybe something like:
 
..........Need.
.....JarEd's..
.defenSe.....
..AttorNey....
 
Or perhaps the caricatures people draw of Don and Jerry can have blood dripping from Jerry's hands.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
It'd be great to have a great remy poster on one side then as soon as they're on tv flip it over and have the DV question on it.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Bleedred said:
RR -- there is a huge difference between a public defender and a very experienced defense lawyer who knows the system, has the resources to pursue every angle and can pursue them. I don't know if it was his lawyer's skill, his lawyer's contacts or the fact that he had Jerry's money to make clear that they weren't going away; but there's no doubt in my mind that the fact that Jared Remy had a "top" defense attorney absolutely made a difference in whether or not he served time earlier.

There's another point I think you're missing here; or maybe electing not to address. Jerry Remy had a choice, after the umteenth violation for violence, to cut his son off from his resources. I'm not saying it was an easy choice, in fact, I'm sure it's not. But it's a choice he could have made, and he clearly had thought about it way back when where he told Weston police that he felt his son maybe needed to learn a lesson that his actions have consequences. If Jerry believed that, he himself never had the strength to impose the consequences himself. For that, one can choose to be quite critical of Jerry Remy as an enabler. Again, that choice for any parent is not easy, but it is a choice.
 
The "very experienced defense attorneys who know the system" include public defenders.  Many of them just do crim law, all day, every day, for decades.  (No worries about overhead, hiring secretaries, etc.)
 
The point about Jerry's choice.  Hmm.  I think reasonable minds can differ.
 
 It seems like at some point Jarod settled down a bit, in the sense he had a temper but wasn't getting arrested or in trouble for a period of 7 years?, then there was the escalation right before the murder.   Perhaps Jerry's financial support (we know he bought Matel a new car) helped Jarod adjust, and gave Jarod the best chance during those years?  I don't really know.  Maybe if Jarod was cut off completely in his 20s, he would have snapped and killed someone back then.  Maybe not.  Maybe he'd be more stable now.  We can't really know. 
 
Ultimately, absent more evidence, I don't think Jerry did anything grossly unreasonable as a father.  Meaning, many fathers could have easily acted as he did.  The article suggests Jarod had diagnosed MH issues, and that's always a hard thing to deal with.  (To look at it from another angle, I don't think there was a hue and cry for Jerry to do something he failed to do.)
 
I think that in retrospect, people say "he should have cut off his son" because they feel it would have prevented a murder, *not* because it's the obvious thing to do when a father is faced with a son like Jarod at any point in time.  
 

The Napkin

wise ass al kaprielian
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2002
28,535
right here
Wonder what would happen if I email the Red Sox and ask them if they'll give me a job driving around the WS trophy if I agree to beat up my gf.
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
Jnai said:
 
I find it hard to believe that all three kids didn't have a model for abuse. Who knows if it's Remy, maybe it's his wife. But I can't imagine growing up without learning never to lay a finger on women. Obviously, no one gave these kids that lesson.
 
Do you have a degree in clinical psychology or some other background that leads to this conclusion? I do not myself but I know that having a model for abuse is only one of many possible causes. The fact that all three Remy children have had significant behavioral issues as adults and teenagers actually doesn't strengthen the case either way. This all could be a clue, or it could be a false lead, but too many people are making the easy assumption that Jerry and Phoebe must have been exceptionally awful parents. Whatever their parenting flaws may be, I'm leaning towards the conjecture that they had other factors working against them as well.
 
I take this position not to be an apologist for Jerry Remy, as I have no attachment to him as a broadcaster and have no feelings to vouch for him as a person either. I just think people are rushing to simplistic conclusions with limited background. I think they might be surprised at how easily they or someone they know well could find themselves in the Remy's shoes.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
Bleedred said:
RR -- on balance, I think you're right about Jerry's actions as a father. He didn't do anything grossly unreasonable.
 
The article doesn't attribute a whole lot of actions to Jerry personally. Much of what was done was attributed to Phoebe.
 
But I will say this. If we live in a society where it's not grossly unreasonable to not do something when your kid has multiple instances of violence against women, then this society is in worse shape than I thought.
 

yep

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2006
2,465
Red Sox Natin
Rovin Romine said:
...I also think it's fair to say that the journalist basically pointed the finger at the police/court system.  It's not like this was a critique of the school system, or the mental health system, or the kinds of people Jarod surrounded himself with, or even, to an extent, steroids.  It's focused on potentially illegal acts, including his traffic record.
 
Let me ask - do you think the article is unbiased
 
I would say that the article has a point of view, and seeks to draw out a narrative from a messy and complex set of facts. And I think it mostly does so in a fair and responsible way, even if the perspective of the piece remains debatable or unproved.
 
I'm not sure that "biased" or "unbiased" is a meaningful scale, in this context. The article may be factually wrong, or incorrect in the causality of its narrative or implied conclusions, but I think that is allowable in journalism.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
The Napkin said:
Wonder what would happen if I email the Red Sox and ask them if they'll give me a job driving around the WS trophy if I agree to beat up my gf.
I'd probably add in you don't have a license. That'd probably qualify you over other applicants.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
jcd0805 said:
I think the most galling example was the judge who sent him to live with his parents, with a CURFEW, as punishment.  At 24 years old. Sorry, that's lame and three's really no excuse for that kind of "justice". 
 
That's not what happened.  
 
This is another example of the article's bias. 
 
The article begins by suggesting that's what happened:
 
 
But he continued to walk, with judges extending his probation or finding creative solutions to help him avoid jail, like ordering him to move home with his parents and observe a curfew — a measure common in juvenile courts, but rarely employed for adults.
 
But the article later clarifies the situation. 
 
 
 
Noting the string of cases, Judge Flynn of Waltham at an arraignment that Monday, July 7, allowed Remy to avoid jail but ordered him to move home with his parents and observe a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew while awaiting trial.
 
That means the judge made this a condition of his pre-trial release (I think there is a presumption in MA? - meaning the judge is likely supposed to let him out).  It's not a punishment for a crime he was found to have committed.  
 
So instead of letting Remy do whatever he wanted, the judge ordered him to live with his parents and be home inside at 6pm to 6am.   It seems to me like it's a form of house arrest.  
 
There was probably an argument made that it was a safe environment away from everyone else involved in the case.   It's also very reasonable if it removes an accused person from a problem environment.  
 
There were probably other conditions, but they weren't reported by the paper. 
 
edit - one of which being that Remy would have to show up later to deal with the pending charges
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
Serious question, how do they enforce that? Is it by an ankle bracelet they can track or based upon him not getting arrested during those hours?
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,582
South Boston
The Napkin said:
Oh believe me, I'm guessing I know better than most on here how terrible of a job the system does in DV cases/situations. It stinks and it sucks and it stinks. But I see repeated slaps on the wrist or less and "we mean it next time!" turn into more probation and then 5 years later when you beat up your gf it's tossed aside as no big deal and "just another year of probation" and my blood starts to boil. And the only reason we know about this one is because he has a famous father.
I completely agree with you from a retribution perspective, which is one of the reasons we punish people. To the extent that we're talking about incapacitation or rehabilitation goals of punishment, which to me play more in the "cause" issues we were discussing above, I think we're much more up against it.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
This whole situation is absolutely deplorable.  Jerry and his wife definitely have to take a ton of the blame.  This pattern of behavior started at an early age and should have been corrected well before he murdered someone.  But, Jerry enabled this to continue on and on by ignoring a lot of signs and putting blinders on to how bad his son was.  The justice system is to be blamed for giving him bullshit sentences.  81 days in jail is an insult.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
NortheasternPJ said:
Serious question, how do they enforce that? Is it by an ankle bracelet they can track or based upon him not getting arrested during those hours?
 
Today (where I practice, FL) it's usually a GPS ankle bracelet, but they can also do random telephone checks to a land line, specific times to call from a land line, and show-ups (officer goes to the door.)  Surrender of a passport is common, as is a "no travel outside the county rule."
 
It really depends on the situation.  If there's not a huge concern, courts just issue "stay away" orders and trust you'll obey.  Courts can be very creative in terms of what they want people to do.  The purpose of conditions of pre trial release is usually to ensure that the status quo remains (no witness tampering, contact with the alleged victim, etc.) and to ensure that the accused will show up for trial.  So, theoretically, a court court order a curfew, but just rely on you to keep it.  
 
Courts will sometimes order a release into someone's custody.  In practical terms it means that person is the watchdog for the court and would report a violation of conditions to probation.  That's getting rarer though. 
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
3,962
Florida
I can't figure out how to quote you RR but thanks for setting me straight on the "curfew" issue, the way you put it definitely makes it seem more like standard procedure than a special favor granted because of who he is. 
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Not to add fuel to the fire, but here's a globe editorial that basically just agrees.  http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/22/jared-remy-and-cycle-violence/JrIPM5QEc0IBccdcNjkFSI/story.html
 
 
 
But the failures began long before last summer. The courts also had a duty to Remy’s previous victims, including Tiffany Guyette — whom Remy savaged as she held their baby, the police report describing the hand prints around her neck — and to Ryan McMahon — whom police said Remy beat and threatened to kill. There were plenty of clear signs both women were in mortal danger. Back in 2001, Guyette said as much in court. But again, a judge set Remy free over a prosecutor’s objections, failing to protect her, and the unfortunate women who came after her.
 
This is the sort of thing I'm on about ("Come and see the violence inherent in the system!")
 
First off, if the women were in "mortal danger" back in 2001, they clearly weren't killed, whatever the court did or didn't do. 
Second, one of the factors for a court not having prior sentences to consider is that Guyette testified for Remy during at least one incident.  (Which can hardly be laid at the feet of the prosecution or of the court.) 
Third, Remy actually did have a period of time where he wasn't assaulting women - seven years? - before he snapped and killed Martel.  
 
So really, what's the failure of the system?  That it didn't lock someone up from 2002 to 2004?  Because that's relevant to something that might possibly happen in 2014, a decade later?  That it didn't extend a restraining order when Martel didn't ask it to?
 
Again, I'm not trying to exonerate Remy's behavior.   I'm irritated that people run up to the involvement of police and the courts and then seem to mentally shut down.  As if the police and the court system was some sort of fuzzy paternalistic entity that just "takes care" of things.  
 
(Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that mistakes *weren't* made by the courts, since I don't know the relevant MA law or the details of the situation.  What I can say is that there seems to be absolutely nothing remarkable here at first blush vis a vis how Remy's cases were handled.)  
 
But even if the courts had thrown the book at him (so to speak), there's no guarantee he does not kill someone later in life. 
 

ToeKneeArmAss

Paul Byrd's pitching coach
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Rasputin said:
 
If we live in a society where it's not grossly unreasonable to not do something when your kid has multiple instances of violence against women, then this society is in worse shape than I thought.
Ras, the bit quoted above implies that you know for a fact that Jerry and Phoebe did nothing.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
jcd0805 said:
I can't figure out how to quote you RR but thanks for setting me straight on the "curfew" issue, the way you put it definitely makes it seem more like standard procedure than a special favor granted because of who he is. 
 
FWIW, when I began reading the article, I reached the exact same conclusion you did, based on how that first mention of a curfew is worded.  
 

Judge Mental13

Scoops McGee
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2002
5,083
Rovin Romine said:
 
So really, what's the failure of the system?  That it didn't lock someone up from 2002 to 2004? 
More like 1998-2005 but.....yes. A million times yes. How anyone can read the repeated instances of CWOF's and probation for repeated horrible crimes and NOT think the system failed these women is preposterous to me.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
Rovin Romine said:
Not to add fuel to the fire, but here's a globe editorial that basically just agrees.  http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/22/jared-remy-and-cycle-violence/JrIPM5QEc0IBccdcNjkFSI/story.html
 
 
This is the sort of thing I'm on about ("Come and see the violence inherent in the system!")
 
First off, if the women were in "mortal danger" back in 2001, they clearly weren't killed, whatever the court did or didn't do. 
Second, one of the factors for a court not having prior sentences to consider is that Guyette testified for Remy during at least one incident.  (Which can hardly be laid at the feet of the prosecution or of the court.) 
Third, Remy actually did have a period of time where he wasn't assaulting women - seven years? - before he snapped and killed Martel.  
 
So really, what's the failure of the system?  That it didn't lock someone up from 2002 to 2004?  Because that's relevant to something that might possibly happen in 2014, a decade later?  That it didn't extend a restraining order when Martel didn't ask it to?
 
Again, I'm not trying to exonerate Remy's behavior.   I'm irritated that people run up to the involvement of police and the courts and then seem to mentally shut down.  As if the police and the court system was some sort of fuzzy paternalistic entity that just "takes care" of things.  
 
(Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that mistakes *weren't* made by the courts, since I don't know the relevant MA law or the details of the situation.  What I can say is that there seems to be absolutely nothing remarkable here at first blush vis a vis how Remy's cases were handled.)  
 
But even if the courts had thrown the book at him (so to speak), there's no guarantee he does not kill someone later in life. 
 
RR - I appreciate the details you've been giving about the legal system, but this makes it sound like you think the only reason people should have wanted Remy locked up in 2002-2004 was to prevent a later killing.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
I think where the article falls short of what I would like is that it gives very detailed accounts of the violence but not as much as I would like on the mechanics of the legal proceedings, i.e. what reasons, if any, were given for the decisions rendered by the court.
 
This part, in particular, jumps out as an example:
The case was Remy’s sixth in 27 months, and he would pick up a seventh that spring after a fight with an acquaintance in a Waltham tow yard. Lowell District Court Presiding Justice Neil Walker acknowledged that probation alone did not seem to be working with Remy.
 
“It’s at this point [incumbent] upon me to find a way to get through [to] Mr. Remy and impose something even more of an incentive to him,” Walker said, according to a court transcript.
 
But even after Remy in court acknowledged threatening Guyette, the judge did not impose jail or even convict him. He accepted Bella’s proposal to continue Remy’s case without formal judgment — not even a CWOF — and dismiss it altogether if Remy behaved and remained in counseling. The prosecutor objected.
 
 
 
So what the hell happened? Why did the judge rule as he did given his statements? There's a gaping hole here.
 
The problem with assessing the system in a piece like this is that we get a kind of God's eye view of all the aggregate instances, but the court must only consider each individual incident until the sentencing portion; it's not allowed to say, "Well, this guy is a demonstrated asshole, so it's way more likely that he's guilty." So many of those instances we know about from the article don't "count" in court. The article in some instances indicates charges were dropped because the women wouldn't testify against him and stuff, but not in all of them, so it's difficult to construct a sense of what the court had available to consider in sentencing at different points.
 
That said, the Walker decision seems frustrating--it's the sort of thing that causes public defenders to quit and take on much more tractable problems, like ending civil rights violations in post-communist developing countries.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,244
YTF said:
 So we just throw our hands up as a society and say fuck it?
 
I think the point isn't that we say "fuck it," it's that we aim at things like mental health and the other insitutions or processes involved here that are better equipped to deal with fucked up people than the criminal justice system might be.   I think saying "the legal system failed" becomes a a way of saying "fuck it" because then that's all anyone looks at -- this judge, that defense lawyer, this prosecutor. Its certainly an easy target.
 

yep

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2006
2,465
Red Sox Natin
Rovin Romine said:
...So really, what's the failure of the system?  That it didn't lock someone up from 2002 to 2004?  Because that's relevant to something that might possibly happen in 2014, a decade later?  That it didn't extend a restraining order when Martel didn't ask it to?
 
...As if the police and the court system was some sort of fuzzy paternalistic entity that just "takes care" of things...
I think the bolded is more or less precisely the disconnect between your reaction to this article and to that of the Globe's editorial staff and a lot of readers. 
 
I think most people look at this set of facts and have a reaction along the lines of: "this is exactly what the justice system is supposed to prevent, an obvious repeat offender just getting away with beating and threatening people over and over for years, until he finally kills someone!"
 
Most laypeople are not looking at this as a procedural issue, where the proper boxes were checked and the correct process and rules of evidence were followed, ergo justice was served. They may be mistaken in thinking that their justice system accomplishes things that it does not or cannot, but in a 30,000-foot sense, it is perfectly reasonable for Joe Voter to ask that the system not allow guys like Jared Remy to keep brutalizing women and breaking the law for years and years, effectively un-punished. And it is fair for Joe Voter to be upset that a categorical and obvious Bad Guy could keep getting caught, and keep not getting serious punishment. 
 
A lawyerly and procedural approach of the facts might very well reveal that everyone involved did their job properly, as it was assigned to them, and that the laws were properly applied, and that, indeed, given this fact pattern, the criminal justice system in MA is not made/designed/able to do anything more than was done in this case, and that the fault is really Joe Voter's, for not mandating better laws (or at least, for not mandating laws that would have better produced whatever effect or outcome Joe Voter was looking for). 
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
joe dokes said:
 
I think the point isn't that we say "fuck it," it's that we aim at things like mental health and the other insitutions or processes involved here that are better equipped to deal with fucked up people than the criminal justice system might be.   I think saying "the legal system failed" becomes a a way of saying "fuck it" because then that's all anyone looks at -- this judge, that defense lawyer, this prosecutor. Its certainly an easy target.
 
If I might be so bold, I think many here saying "the legal system failed" are saying FIX it, not fuck it. Perhaps easier said than done on many levels but there were in the case(s) of Jared Remy he clearly was given an easier path than he deserved.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,721
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Judge Mental13 said:
More like 1998-2005 but.....yes. A million times yes. How anyone can read the repeated instances of CWOF's and probation for repeated horrible crimes and NOT think the system failed these women is preposterous to me.
 
Well, a lot depends on what actually happened in court.
 
Basically, as I read it, he was sanctioned 6 times by being placed on probation.  The rest of the potential cases didn't get that far.  In terms of the other cases not getting that far, you could potentially blame the prosecution (failed to adequately prosecute a good case) or the victims (failed to appear/testify) or the circumstances (they just weren't good cases/remy was innocent).  Even if Remy was arrested, some of those cases could have been declined by the prosecution.  
 
As far as the other six resting in probation, you'd have to look at what they actually *were* - as in, what facts were alleged, what crimes were alleged to have occurred.  It's quite possible some of them were minor and others were more serious.  Within that range the prosecutor has to assess their chances of successfully prosecuting.  Next they have to ask what the penalty will be if the prosecution is successful, which is usually a combination of what the state thinks is appropriate and what the victim thinks is appropriate.  So, some of the 6 may have been deals in which Remy pled to the court and the prosecution didn't object to a sentence. 
 
At other times (during the 6) Remy may have directly pled guilty to the court.  (Probably why there was an objection to the court's sentence at one point by the prosecution.  Although I have known prosecutors who basically agreed with my proposal but said they would object pro forma due to office policy.  One prosecutor referred to it as "If you ask for X, I'll be bringing my "B" game.")   Anyway, courts tend to like to see people stand up and take responsibility.  
 
Depending on the timing, and what was argued to the court, it's very reasonable that the court would place someone on probation.  Perhaps they have a drinking problem or a mental health problem.  Perhaps there's a plan in place for probation - a job, anger management counseling, psychiatric help, a change of residence.  Perhaps there's just a basic circumstantial change in someone's life - a new child, an illness or recovery, a period of stress now past, that sort of thing.  
 
Now, if these 6 acts were tightly spaced and escalating against a single person, I doubt you'd see the string CWOFs.   If they're loosely spaced, involving different people, and there's a narrative that the court can understand about why this person has violence issues, it's another matter.  (The other thing to keep in mind is that some of these charges may have appeared in front of different judges who knew nothing of the details of the prior cases.  Usually it's the role of the prosecutor to be the watchdog in that regard.)  
 
Whatever the 6 cases were will also play a role in terms of sentencing options - some courts realize that locking someone up for 30 days won't really do anything if they believe there's a psychological/emotional problem OR if the incident was a fluke.  
 
Lastly, and most importantly, it's dangerous to assume that just because someone got (or didn't get) a particular sentence, a subsequent event would (or would not) happen.   I doubt a court sentencing Remy to jail would have fundamentally dealt with his anger and psychological issues in a way that would transform him into a Non-abuser.   From what we can tell, jail does remarkably poorly at changing bad behavior.  The best way is to change the individual's environment, get them real counseling, get them medicated, etc.   So perhaps the court *did* that.  We don't know what the probation entailed. 
 
So I'm reserving judgment on whether the system failed.   But again, at first blush, I don't see anything shocking.  (Maybe the CWOFs are procedurally unusual in MA - don't know about that.)
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,244
YTF said:
 
If I might be so bold, I think many here saying "the legal system failed" are saying FIX it, not fuck it. Perhaps easier said than done on many levels but there were in the case(s) of Jared Remy he clearly was given an easier path than he deserved.
 
I didn't mean to suggest people are looking to scrap the system.  I was thinking more of the relative simplicity of focussing on the legal system creates blinders as to the other issues.  A Jared Remy  (assuming, as the story describes, mental health issues that seem to go back to his early teens) without access to resources might have spent some time in jail or prison, but he would get out and the end result has a good chance of being the same, because he would be the same.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
joe dokes said:
 
I didn't mean to suggest people are looking to scrap the system.  I was thinking more of the relative simplicity of focussing on the legal system creates blinders as to the other issues.  A Jared Remy  (assuming, as the story describes, mental health issues that seem to go back to his early teens) without access to resources might have spent some time in jail or prison, but he would get out and the end result has a good chance of being the same, because he would be the same.
 
In this case, though, Remy did have resources and apparently wouldn't cooperate with treatment.
 
I think the social aspects of a lot of this are a lot more interesting than the legal stuff. I mean, he didn't want to take his meds because it would make him seem like "damaged goods." Jared Remy. Think about that in terms of social attitudes about mental health.
 
The women refusing to testify against and even at times testify for him is interesting stuff. To some extent, the legal system "problems" are a function of just how complicated and frickin' weird people are.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,244
Reverend said:
In this case, though, Remy did have resources and apparently wouldn't cooperate with treatment.
 
 
I think the social aspects of a lot of this are a lot more interesting than the legal stuff. I mean, he didn't want to take his meds because it would make him seem like "damaged goods." Jared Remy. Think about that in terms of social attitudes about mental health.
 
The women refusing to testify against and even at times testify for him is interesting stuff. To some extent, the legal system "problems" are a function of just how complicated and frickin' weird people are.
 
Schools and courts often do end up as the repository of last resort of people with problems that neitehr is equipped to deal with.
 
Unfortunately, mental health treatment is still widely viewed as a luxury (both by the public and by health insurers), as compared to "physical" health treatment (for lack of  a better term).  Just as "mental health" isues are still often seen as "weakness" -- sometimes by the person and sometimes by those around him and often by society at large) in a way that a chronic physical issue would never be.
 
And there are legions of  studies and reports about domestic violence victims not testifying against their abusers.  But the "she asked for it" narrative still has a rather significant grip on the public consciousness.
 
Where does a Richie Incognito turn into a Jared Remy?
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
joe dokes said:
 
I didn't mean to suggest people are looking to scrap the system.  I was thinking more of the relative simplicity of focussing on the legal system creates blinders as to the other issues.  A Jared Remy  (assuming, as the story describes, mental health issues that seem to go back to his early teens) without access to resources might have spent some time in jail or prison, but he would get out and the end result has a good chance of being the same, because he would be the same.
 
 
For what it's worth, I don't disagree with a lot of what you and others are saying, but am I wrong to expect that the judicial system should have punished Remy more than they have? Regardless to if you think it would have done any good or not, was that not an option that was ignored on more than one occasion? Couldn't/shouldn't his history of violent crimes have been cause for him to be ordered psychiatric evaluation? Doesn't our judicial system allow for guilty parties to be held and sentenced pending such evaluations? Whether he may or may not be the same is irrelevant if you don't even take that path.