ShareThis Page
Comments misguided |

Comments misguided

| Friday, November 7, 2003 12:00 a.m

I was troubled to read the comments of Jeffrey and Karen Bishop regarding Judge Debra Pezze following the sentencing of their son Ian (” Bishop gets 20-40 years ” and ” Parents: Judge Pezze conducted an illegal trial ,” Oct. 31). Particularly troubling were their accusations that she wanted to keep the case in her courtroom for political gain and that she wanted to show how tough she could be via her sentence, and their insinuation that she is less than honorable by referring to her as “the ‘Honorable’ Judge Pezze” in their written statement.

As an assistant public defender, I am before Pezze on a regular basis. What truly distinguishes Pezze is her compassion for all who appear before her and her respect for the law.

I was in the courtroom during Ian Bishop’s sentencing, and the ordinarily smiling Pezze looked quite troubled. At times I saw tears in her eyes. Any accusation that she wanted to keep this horrific case in her courtroom and be forced to make such difficult decisions is misguided.

Even Ian Bishop’s attorney commented that he did not envy the judge’s position on that day. I can only assume that much of the Bishops’ anger toward Pezze is rooted in confusion, heartbreak and possibly denial, but it is misguided nonetheless. Pezze shows on a daily basis how truly honorable she is.

Ryan J. Kammerer

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.