Originally Posted by dougdirt
The judge shouldn't have those rights though. That is the problem. I don't hate the judicial system (well, parts of it..... frivilous lawsuits that still get through being a big example). I hate that someone can get their feelings hurt and decide to change a plea deal over it that they had previously agreed to.
A judge has to agree to a plea deal to begin with. The judge is in charge of the sentencing. They don't officially get sentenced until the very hearing Chad was at. A judge can, and should, have to the right to reevaluate their intended sentence until the time they hand it down based on new information about the defendant.
And this whole "because her feelings were hurt" is your own speculation. It's your opinion based on....well, nothing really. Does she have a precedent of this? Do you know anything else about her other than what she did in this case? I don't know why you'd automatically assume it had to do with her ego.
Here you had a flashy professional athlete who hit a woman. This is a very serious charge. He got a fancy lawyer who got him a plea deal. He shows up in court looking like he didn't care. Then he makes a joke out of a serious question a judge asked him in a very serious criminal proceeding. Her perception was that this was a guy who was not taking this whole thing seriously and needs to understand how serious this really is. It's not like she sentenced him to multiple years in a max security prison. The more I think about it, the more I think she did the right thing. Guys like Chad Johnson need to know they have to follow the same rules everyone else does. You can't go making a mockery of the criminal justice system like he was doing.