It's interesting how the "law and order" types like Mr. Al Fonzi don't appear to support enforcement of the laws when they're being applied to the misdeeds of someone who shares their political views and is elderly.
His hyper-partisanship blossomed into wildly inconsistent and incoherent hypocrisy in his defense of Edie Knight, the 87-year-old woman convicted of electioneering within 100 feet of a polling place ("So many critics, so little time," June 22). He paints Knight as a "straight arrow" and a victim in the Kafkaesque "ordeal" she brought upon herself. Mr. Fonzi describes everyone involved with reporting the crime and enforcing the law as "hyper-partisan" and "angry" and a state's attorney general's office as "runaway." When did reporting crimes and upholding the law become monstrous and vindictive persecutions?
From Fonzi's description of Knight, I gathered that she has been actively involved in local politics for quite some time and is an experienced, knowledgeable activist who advocates for her causes. One can reasonably assume that she knows and understands the laws governing these activities. He says she was tired when she sat down to make those illegal phone calls. He then claims she vehemently denied doing so. He then blames Democrats on the jury for finding her guilty!
How does he know what anyone on the jury's political affiliation is?
He then says, "Edie still protests her innocence, and I believe her" even though she basically confessed when she told him shortly after it occurred, "Al, I just forgot."
No, Al, her crime was not having a "senior moment." It was breaking the law. If Knight is too old, too tired, or too forgetful to understand, remember, and abide by the laws that protect the democratic process, she is simply no longer fit to carry on as a political operative or polling place volunteer.
If Mr. Fonzi was fair-minded and could see what occurred clearly through his own political self-induced partisan myopia, he'd realize Knight broke the law, received due process, and was convicted by a jury of her peers. Isn't that supposed to be the American way? Regardless of our age, as adults, we are obligated to know, remember, and abide by the law. Yes, there can be mitigating circumstances, but apparently the jury in this case did not find any sufficient enough to acquit Knight.
It's not "a stain on the justice system in the county and the state." It's an affirmation that the system worked, and someone who broke the law was found guilty.