Just in case you thought that the John Ludwig case can’t get any worse, think again. It can. As reported in The Greenville News, 13th Circuit Solicitor Bob Ariail is asking the judge who sentenced Ludwig to reconsider the sentence (and presumably change it). Arial apparently is feeling a lot of heat because he is citing public outrage as one of the reasons for his request.

First, I can understand why Arial is doing this. He needs to assuage public anger (before he comes up for re-election of course) and he needs to try to cover up his complicity in the matter. Once his request for reconsideration is rejected, he can claim that he did “everything he could to right the wrong,” and continue indefinitely in his elected position. The problem with this approach is  obvious: Arial is personally responsible for allowing the sentence to be assessed. If he wanted jail time for Ludwig, he should have stipulated that. As far as his claims that Ludwig’s attorney would not accept jail time, then a decision would have to be made (and it was). Arial could have taken this to trial if he wanted to, but, of course, he obviously knew he wouldn’t win. Furthermore, he didn’t have to drop the murder charge. Now, to save his own a$$, Arial wants to put the judge on the hot seat. What will the judge do? I don’t think the judge cares. He’s retired anyway, so he has nothing to lose if his decision is unpopular.

So what should be done about this? Arial’s motion (according to The Greenville News) states:

In 16 cases of reckless homicide in Greenville County over the last five years, nine resulted in prison sentences as much as eight years, five resulted in sentences that required home incarceration and two resulted in probationary sentences, according to Ariail’s filing.

We don’t know the details of these cases, but what I have said before is clearly illustrated here: our [in]justice system is immoral because it is not consistent. Why should some people have to go to jail while others don’t? Again, I call for consistency that may help us gain some type of morality in our [in]justice system.

Now, just suppose the judge grants Arial’s motion, reconsiders the sentence, and then assigns Ludwig to jail. Then what? Seems to me that might open a legal can of worms that could end up having the entire case thrown out. Is this how the elite plan to take care of their fellow elitist, or is this a legitimate attempt to address the public’s insatiable desire for revenge? If Ludwig’s sentence is reconsidered, shouldn’t the sentences of the other 16 reckless homicide cases be reconsidered too? Why is it so important to have John Ludwig in jail when it’s not important to have the two on probation and the five in house arrest in jail? They all killed someone, so why such a disparity of sentence?

Finally, (barring that this is a conspiracy designed to exonerate Ludwig), is a reconsideration fair to John Ludwig? Of course not! Are we now going to let the general community determine sentencing for crimes on a case-by-case basis? Will juries and judges  be exchanged for Gallop polls? Just imagine the dangerous precedent set in the event Ludwig’s sentence is revisited! Any time a person who is unpopular with the general public, that person will risk getting a harsher sentence just because of public outcry. Similarly, those who are endeared to the public at large have the opportunity to gain leniency due to public outcry. Thus, the introduction of public input into the judicial process would seemingly prove to have an additionally destructive effect on [in]justice.

Does anyone see what kind of circus this has become, all because we seek to permit consideration of personal wealth and status when sentencing a presumably guilty party?

Click HERE to read the entire article at The Greenville News.