Wayne Treacy - Guilty

Wayne Treacy was found guilty yesterday of felony First Degree Attempted Murder. The crime itself was a child on child crime brought on by adolescent cruel text messaging. The victim, Josie Lou Ratley, apparently made the mistake of mocking Treacy over the suicide death of his brother a year earlier. Wayne Treacy was not in a mental state of ability to cope with that tweet sized offense.

The aggressive prosecution for a maximum adult sentence of 50 years has been pursued by Maria Schneider, Esq. The lead defense counsel pursuing an insanity defense has been Russell Williams, Esq.

The psychiatrists, Dr. Hans Steiner and Dr. Alexander Neumeister, each testifying for an opposing side in the trial agreed that Wayne Treacy suffered from a severe PTSD and needed mental health care. The defense psychiatrist found that Wayne Treacy was not mentally fit or truly aware of his behavior in the beating of Mary Lou Ratley. the opposing psychiatrist stated that Wayne Treacy was mentally ill but aware of what he was doing.

The tragedy is that if the Broward County Prosecutor's office were as socially progressive as they self-promote their reputation, there would not have been an aggressive prosecution. The office of Michael Satz, Esq., the Broward County State's Attorney, is well aware that this is an adolescent on adolescent crime. They just don't seem to know how to do the right thing, or perhaps feel that it would be politically risky to promote real justice. Following is the extract of a letter written to Michael Satz by this writer any spouse, Maureen Barrett, a child advocate and Director with the Florida Suicide Prevention Coalition. The letter was sent in advance of the jury verdict:

"Dear Mr. Satz,

"You were confronted at a recent Democratic Club meeting over the prosecution of child on child crime. Your aide privately commented that the reason for the prosecution of teenagers as adults for serious crime is simply that there is no juvenile justice system to accommodate appropriate consequences for these teens. This means that juveniles are not being prosecuted for the purposes of justice but out of expediency.

"We are aware that Florida law does not allow for the incarceration of juveniles for more than 36 months. There is no dedicated medium security juvenile facility for teens who have committed violent offenses. There are no secure education and rehabilitation programs for juvenile offenders who have committed violent crimes. There is no mechanism for extended sentencing of a juvenile into young adulthood who has committed a serious offense as is available in other states {e.g. Massachusetts}. Nevertheless, the Southern Poverty Law Center also reports that Florida incarcerates 50% more juveniles than the national average and that 71% of those incarcerations are for non-violent misdemeanors. Florida prosecutors seem to strive for the most severe and restrictive sentencing possible for our children rather than for the most constructive and healing resolution of juvenile behavior.

"Let’s face it. Juvenile offenders are not the same as adult offenders. They do not have the understanding of behavioral limits and consequences that adults are expected to have. They do not understand consequences. They are just learning about molding their behavior to a moral standard of conduct that we expect of adults. This is particularly true of juvenile on juvenile offenders.

"Wayne Treacy is a great example of systematic prosecutory injustice simply because there is not a juvenile system that will accommodate this offense. All of the parties dealing with this offense are aware and have acknowledged that Wayne Treacy is in need of psychiatric help and treatment. Even your own psychiatric expert opined that he can have recovery with five years of mental health treatment. Nevertheless, your office, rather than pursuing this prosecution based upon juvenile justice, pursues this prosecutor to the nth degree of the law for maximum sentencing and consequences. In our humble opinion and with all due respect, this is not the kind of state attorney leadership that can result in pressure for the creation of an appropriate juvenile justice system.

"We believe that you would improve your stature as a recognized progressive prosecutor and community leader by recommending a mental health resolution to the Wayne Treacy matter, and acknowledge the lack of appropriate resources to address the problem of juvenile crime.

"We bring your attention to a recent opinion piece (The Press ofAtlantic City 7/8/12) written by a mother who lost her son to a 14 year old shooter. It took time, but she has extended forgiveness and acknowledgement of the unnecessarily harsh sentencing that comes with the prosecution of juveniles."

The fact is that the prosecution of alleged crime is not intended to provide the crime victim with a sense of retribution and justice. Our criminal justice system is designed to ensure justice for the accused and for those found guilty. The victim of a crime certainly ought to be able to expect the support of the community. It ought to be the responsibility of the state and the county to ensure that Josie Lou Ratley gets the best of medical care and opportunity for as full a recovery as may be possible. The prosecution and the defense team for Wayne Treacy ought to have been able to find a mental health solution for Wayne Treacy in a secure facility with an opportunity for recovery and restoration to his family and community at some reasonable time in the future. With an aggressive prosecution seeking a maximum sentence, as if this was a crime committed with genuine malice of forethought, what chance is there for justice? This was a crime committed by a troubled 15 year old child against another 15 year old child. Children, especially older children, are capable of such terrible behavior. But, teenagers who survive adolescence become responsible adults, often not in spite of their worst behavior, but because of what they have learned. Justice is now in the hands of presiding Circuit JudgeDavid Haimes

Who are these men...

We all know who they are. We see their names in the news. The Koch brothers of Koch Industries, second largest privately held company in America. Sheldon Adelson, 78 year old CEO of the Las Vegas Sands. Donald Trump who took over the Trump Organization from his father and now heads the family business. These are the three leading and best known of the entrepreneurs who believe that they have every right to pervert the electorate system in order to ensure a favorable business environment for themselves. Their ostensible goal is to finance and harness a Republican conservative Congress, Senate, Supreme Court and Presidency that will produce a weak (also called "small") central government that will provide for the national defense and public order, but will expend little concern for the needs of the general public while ensuring a favorable business environment for "unfettered free enterprise", the bottom line principle driving the Presidential campaign of George Romney.

All of this sounds radical. Is there anyone who would dispute the players, their public statements or the direction of their massive expenditures to purchase public opinion through PACS and 501C4 organizations that produce the needed blanket advertising to sway the public discourse, create the language of acceptable opinion and produce a favorable vote? Crossroads GPS and its parent, American Crossroads, a PAC created by Karl Rove have been funded by JP Morgan, Wal-Mart, the Koch brothers and BP to create anti-Obama ads. Many thank the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling for opening the flood gates for corporate moguls to swamp the elections with money to distort the election process. These Super PACs often feature wonderful value laden names like Restore Our Future, Club for Growth Action, FreedomWorks for America and Endorse Liberty.

That ruling really did only open the flood gates. There has been a proliferation of huge well funded non-profits under the designation of 501C4 that spend the PAC money, protecting the donors from public disclosure. Is this what we mean by responsible free speech? A serious opposition would challenge the tax exempt status of these organizations with activities limited to the political promotion of political candidates or the denigration of the opposition candidate under a thinly veiled purpose of public education.

The real shocker is that Candidate Romney is depending upon his ability to swamp the Obama campaign with 2 to 1 spending, at least half of it by organizations that he will ostensibly have no direct say over their advertising strategies and content. In short, Candidate Romney is not interested in a level playing field for a fair election. He puts up a brave leader public image with a bully at his back. How will this man lead if he wins and in whose interests will he hold himself beholden?

In short, who are these men? Candidate George Romney is one of them and we know whose side he is on? That's the opinion of this Examiner.