|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Rebuttal to letter questioning sentencing of ex-community college chancellor
Editor,
Everyone has a right to express their opinions about the decisions rendered by judges, and to disagree with those decisions, as Jim Lawrence has in his letter (“Ex-college chancellor’s jail sentence raises concerns,” in the Aug. 7 issue), criticizing what he deems to be a “lenient” sentence imposed by Judge Leland Davis on Ron Galatolo, former chancellor of the San Mateo County Community College District.
That being said, judges are required by California law and guidelines to take into consideration several factors when deciding upon appropriate sentences, including but not limited to the circumstances of the crime, the views of the victims, and the individual characteristics of the defendant (first offense, sophistication of the crime, etc.). As well, sentencing is, by law, left to the discretion of the judge. In the case of Ron Galatolo, Judge Davis exercised that discretion and did so lawfully.
Judges are not obligated to and should never impose sentences that always follow the recommendations of prosecutors. The judicial obligation is to impose sentences that are lawful and to do so in an independent and unbiased fashion. Had Judge Davis’s decision to impose incarceration in jail, rather than in prison, been unlawful, the prosecutor would have the right to appeal that sentence. There will be no appeal because Judge Davis did nothing improper or unlawful. Indeed, the San Mateo County District Attorney, Steve Wagstaffe, commented after the sentencing, “(Galatolo) is going to be wearing an orange jumpsuit. He is going to know he is being punished … Today we got justice.”
Finally, when you question whether Judge Davis might have imposed a harsher sentence had Mr. Galatolo been African American, you attribute racial bias to Judge Davis, and you do so without any facts. Casting implications of racism toward anyone, let alone a judge, because you dislike his sentence is unfortunate and unfair.
LaDoris Cordell, retired judge
Longtime resident backs Safe Corridor Initiative for mountain highways
Editor,
The area served by Highways 84, 35 and 9 is one of the most beautiful and serene places in the world. People come to explore the redwoods and open space, to camp, picnic, hike, cycle, and to commute to and from their homes. It is also one of the premier areas for road racing by fast motorcycles and expensive sports cars. These activities are incompatible, and something needs to be done to provide some level of safety for all who share these roads.
I lived in La Honda for 46 years and commuted and drove children to and from school over 84 and now live in Los Gatos and travel primarily on Highway 9.
The Safe Corridor Initiative is the best plan that I have seen during that time to address the root causes of this problem. Please begin with designating these roads as a safety corridor and then proceed with the subsequent steps. It’s not a question of whether this will save lives. The only question is how many.
Arla LeCount, Los Gatos
Deaths on 84 can’t be the new normal
Editor,
This has been a known problem for so long, and even with the great notion of a traffic panel in the last couple of years, the solution on offer seems to be that we residents call the Sheriff’s dispatcher when we see dangerous driving and endure the stupidly loud motorcycles and car clubs so that they can create a log of the problem? Seems like the death toll might be long enough to indicate the need for road redesign (it currently encourages speeding everywhere) and enforcement (no one speeds along lower Highway 84 within Woodside’s jurisdiction because we all know people who’ve been ticketed there). I can count 10 deaths in cars, on bikes and on motorcycles on west Highway 84 off the top of my head in 10 seconds in a handful of years – that can’t be the new normal, surely?
Liz Chapman, La Honda
Four Corners traffic and noise getting worse
