I have a question for Patch-nation.
Is the following a viable argument in the Governor's Council race? (If you dont know what the Governor's Council is please visit my website and there's an explanation of the job there.)
Is the following a viable issue: For those who don't know, Dominic Cinelli was a man who was released on Parole several years ago. Cinelli was to be serving three lifetime sentences, they don't give lifetime sentences for jay-walking, he was a hardened criminal. In their infinite wisdom, the parole board voted by a 5-2 margin to allow him to go on parole. After six months of trying to find a job, he got frustrated and went back to what he knew best, he robbed a Kohls department store. During the robbery, Cinelli got caught in a shoot out which led to a Woburn Police officer dying in the shootout. The fallout from all of this, is that the five members of the parole board who voted to allow him to go, resigned.
My questions are: Was the fallout enough? Should it have extended to the Governor's Council (even though the Governor's Council is elected), for appointing the parole board into office and/or is it viable to say since the Governor's Council showed such poor judgement in appointing the parole board, can we only assume that the same poor judgement went into appointing judges?
The counter-argument will be: The governor's Council can only do so much. Once the Governor's Council appoints these people there is nothing they can do. They have to trust the system, they can't make people tell the truth during questioning and they have to have faith in the system, then go onto the next appointment.
What do you think?