A man shouted “Bingo!” in a crowded Bingo hall.
He was arrested for second-degree disorderly conduct. At trial the arresting LEO further testified “You can’t go into a ballpark and yell ‘out,’ because people would stop the game.”
The Judge’s sentence was that the man was not allowed to say “Bingo!” for six months. I don’t know if using a tone of voice indicated by exclamation point in the “Bingo!” sentence could be held against the guy, but the whole thing (as was obvious to the Judge) is absurd.
Now, I really don’t fear for the First Amendment, although I don’t know the original case that this one apparently so closely and frighteningly resembles.
But being arrested is serious business. And far more serious is the judgement of the law.
So what’s going on here?
Fine, the Judge thought it was against the law. Now he may be saying, as one may hear at a serious, consequential sentencing, “My hands are tied by sentencing laws, but ‘I’d give you a more severe|I’d give you a more lenient’ sentence.”
Fine. But a silly sentence intended, presumably, as commentary is still a sentence, which is a statement of and about the law and the future ensuring of the law–which is serious.
If the Judge wanted to throw it out of court he could have (my position on the case is clear).
But he didn’t. The guy now has a record, and the sentence, besides being clever hah-hah, sounds to me illegal by being unenforceable. And it also is in the legal record for some other lawyer to try and futz around with.
No doubt the guy can appeal, but that’s not the point.
So:
-
How can a Judge do this and get away with it? And if appeal is made or not, can he be held accountable (censure or whatever) if indeed he has done something wrong?
-
I would love to hear more cases of Judges giving “creative” and hah-hah clever sentences.
PS: I started spelling “Judge” out of respect to the office, and now it looks weird. It’s not like the President or the Queen, or, more to the point, like a Lawyer. It probably shouldn’t be capped.