Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
Editorial
Swift justice
Judge Charles Foley minced no words with a young defendant on Tuesday. The 19-year-old had been found in contempt of court and in violation of his community service agreement.
After a hearing in General District Court, the young man was ordered to serve the 191 days in jail suspended by Judge Foley during his original sentencing in January for the destruction of 13 mailboxes.
Harsh punishment for an act of vandalism?
In the eyes of some, perhaps, but we think not.
Not, especially, after the young man had been given a break in January. Judge Foley found the young man and his cordefendant suitable candidates for the Community Diversion Incentive program, where they could contribute constructively to repay their destruction. Of their 195-day jail sentence, they served only four days, and those on Saturdays. ,
But, as Judge Foley so often notes, he gives those before him only one bite of the apple. Young Dean, he added, seemed to want to eat the whole thing.
Certainly, there are many occasions where mercy should be shown to criminal defendants. Judge Foley acted with leniency in his original sentence. He has done the same in other cases.
Vandalism such as the mailbox-bashing is disturbing because it is so senseless. What’s the point, we ask, besides the aimless destruction of another person’s property?
In most such cases, the perpetrator probably doesn’t even know the mailbox’s owner. The two defendants in this case, along with a juvenile, don’t even live in Rappahannock County. They were just out on a lark — a senseless, destructive lark.
But the judge’s sentence Tuesday comes not from the original crime, but from Dean’s unwillingness to fulfill the conditions of his probation and assignment to the CDI : program. As Commonwealth’s Attorney Peter Luke said, he thumbed his nose at the CDI program, and at the court.
So young Dean will, in Judge Foley’s words, be a guest of ' the county for a considerable period of time. Time which, we hope, he will put to constructive, rather than destructive, • use. And, as the judge observed, there is time after his release for him to get a new start on his life.
Perhaps the case will serve as a lesson to others in two ways.
First, that vandalism and the senseless destruction of property belonging to someone else will not be tolerated or dismissed as a harmless prank.
And second, that when offenders are granted leniency by the courts, it should not be construed as lack of resolve or an invitation for them to pursue their activities further.
Leniency has its place, but so does the imposition of harsh penalties to those unrepentient of their acts, or who seek to take liberties with the court’s compassion.
Judge Foley’s decisions recognize that, and we commend him for it.
95.4%