Mad Hatter's court

To the editor,

Increasingly the rulings of judges and appellate court justices are the object of scorn and ridicule by those of us unschooled in the arcane and obtuse legal system and its convoluted sense of justice.

Too often, the fundamental rights of the convicted transcend the rights of victims to obtain justice and punishment for the perpetrator. Those of us assaulted, robbed and raped, and the families of the murdered, are left to cope and hope the criminal is not only apprehended, but that if convicted he or she is not released on minor legal technicalities related to and extracted from a maze of prior rulings.

Now we see that Joe Aceto, a convicted career criminal, may have the opportunity to again terrorize and violate the rights of the law-abiding by assuring that his rights are not violated.

It seems that due process means perfect process. Judge Lympus made a flawed decision when he did not accord Aceto the right to reclaim his right to return to the courtroom after a frightening display of violent behavior and abusive language. The Montana Supreme Court found it was "compelled to agree with Aceto."

Apparently Aceto's lengthy criminal record is of either no concern or is irrelevant to the supreme court justices.

One justice, John Warner, stated, "We did not know anything about his background until the day after we issued our decision."

Another, Cotter, states that "while Aceto's response to the court's instructions was inappropriate and argumentative, it did not become obscene and menacing until after the district court ordered him removed from the court room."

The fact that the court reporter was unable to remain composed and to continue transcribing during Aceto's outburst apparently nullifies the fact the the outburst occurred.

This is stuff right out of "Alice in Wonderland." The Mad Hatter could not have issued rulings more devoid of humanistic reasoning.

The victim, having committed suicide, is spared having to envision this sociopath getting another chance to brutalize her. Even her sworn testimony is no longer of value. The voice she left behind cannot be used to punish the man convicted of her kidnapping and assault.

If Aceto walks, and proceeds to violate some unsuspecting and innocent person's rights, we will have either Judge Lympus or the Montana Supreme Court to hold accountable. Take your pick.

Those in the legal community wonderland will probably fault Lympus. The ignorant person-in-the-street, like myself, has to place any accountability squarely on the consciences of the Montana Supreme Court Justices. They had an opportunity to protect potential victims and declined.

Justice is not only blind - it's broken, indifferent and uncaring.

R. A. Grimaldi

Polebridge