Yes, your esteemed blogger is quite sick thanks to what is either 1) a cold caught from the office baby whom I spent far too much time playing with on the firm boat ride; or 2) food poisoning from the WSBA annual awards dinner. Seeing as the first symptoms appeared concurrnetly with the first bite of crab cake, I'm assuming that its probably the baby. But, during a file server reboot, I have a bit of time to bring you the latest and greatest out of Div. I.
The plain language of RCW 9.94A.634(1) demonstrates that the superior courts retain authority — and thus jurisdiction — to enforce the conditions of the sentence they impose. True, the SRA also grants to DOC the authority to impose sanctions for violations of a specific subset of sentence conditions, including community custody conditions of sentences imposed pursuant to the first-time offender waiver option. The legislature may even have intended that this be the preferred procedure for enforcing community custody conditions in such cases. However, only by ignoring RCW 9.94A.634 is it possible to conclude that, by giving DOC this authority, the legislature intended to remove the concurrent jurisdiction of the superior courts. "We interpret statutory language in the context of the entire statute and its purpose, and avoid strained interpretations." State v. Manro, 125 Wn. App. 165, 173, 104 P.3d 708 (2005).
Seems fair to me.
Back to work!
September 22, 2008 at 9:29 pm |
Is it really a “strained interpretation?” With Mandatory Minimums becomeing more commonplace, we are seeing a blending of the powers. Manditory Minimums stop the Judicial System from applying the Law in a merciful and Just way. The Courts hands are tied at that point.
Strained Interpretation… I think not. They just don’t want to see what’s right before their eyes.
September 22, 2008 at 9:57 pm |
Honestly, I agree that it is a strained interpretation to say that by creating jurisdiction in one, it removes the other. There is a rule of interpretation similar to this (and probably more appropriate) that states absent an express recision of a statutory provision, the Court must interpret both provisions as to give legal force to both unless they are expressly contradictory. These provisions are not expressly contradictory; thus, they would have to reach the same conclusion. To do otherwise would be to eviscerate the will of the legislature as to the first provision, which was not repealed expressly by the second. That would have been judicial activism.
September 23, 2008 at 8:49 pm |
My point is that we need judicial activism. To long has the legislature slowly infringed upon the rights and responsibilities of the judicial powers.
The seperation of powers is almost non-existent anymore (based on my previous post). The country is to complacent in letting the legislative branch dictate the daily lives of the public. The judicial branch is in charge of handing out justice, not the legislature.
And don’t get me started on the whole State of Emergency/Declaration of War thing that Bush has been running the last 7 years… (you do realise what powers that grants him don’t you?)
No, I’n not a hater of America. I am whole heartedly a Constitutional Fighter. I believe we have the greatest country in the world, but we are dying slowly with the move away from how the constitution was written and more towards a complacent society that will lose all rights to gain the “feeling” of security. That reminds me of the Ben Franklin Quote.