2 New York Judges Ordered Defendants to Get Vaccinated. Can They Do That?

[jimnyc]

There's only one way this works for me, and that's what the 2nd judge in this story did. He made a deal of sorts and released someone. That I can see, as someone isn't forced to get a vaccination.

Otherwise, this is just as bad as any mandates and worse. Give a woman a forced abortion and see how that plays out.

---

2 New York Judges Ordered Defendants to Get Vaccinated. Can They Do That?

The defendant was charged with a number of minor crimes, including drug possession and shoplifting. He was prepared to plead guilty, and prosecutors agreed. But a Bronx judge approving the deal added his own unusual condition.

The defendant had to get a Covid-19 vaccine.

A week later, a Manhattan judge made the same order, this time of a woman seeking bail before a trial.

Neither defendant appeared to object. But legal observers said the two judges’ orders — made in different courts and for different reasons — raise important questions about the line between civic responsibility and civil liberties.

A number of experts who reviewed the orders disagreed as to whether they were justified, or whether or one or both could represent an overstep — a debate that underscores the legal and ethical complications that have emerged around vaccination requirements.

In one case, Judge Jeffrey Zimmerman of the Bronx County criminal court, explained that the defendant, William Gregory, had been accused of crimes — including drug possession, criminal trespass, shoplifting and criminal contempt — that showed he had placed his own interest above others’. In getting the vaccine, the judge argued, Mr. Gregory would be doing the opposite, and so vaccination would represent a form of rehabilitation.

The second order came from a federal judge in Manhattan, Jed S. Rakoff, who granted the release of a defendant, Elouisa Pimental, who was charged with conspiracy to distribute fentanyl, on the condition that she get vaccinated.

Judge Rakoff argued that it fell to him to determine whether a person seeking release represented a danger to their community. The unvaccinated, he wrote, did pose such a danger, given their “enhanced risk of infecting other, innocent people and even potentially causing their deaths.”

Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at the New York University School of Law, said that Judge Rakoff was likely on firm footing, as long as Ms. Pimental was not reluctant to get vaccinated because of health issues or “legitimate religious objections.”

Rest - https://dnyuz.com/2021/08/23/2-new-y...-they-do-that/

[Abbey Marie]

No bueno.

[icansayit]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[revelarts]

There's only one way this works for me, and that's what the 2nd judge in this story did. He made a deal of sorts and released someone. That I can see, as someone isn't forced to get a vaccination.

Otherwise, this is just as bad as any mandates and worse. Give a woman a forced abortion and see how that plays out.

---

2 New York Judges Ordered Defendants to Get Vaccinated. Can They Do That?
The defendant was charged with a number of minor crimes, including drug possession and shoplifting. He was prepared to plead guilty, and prosecutors agreed. But a Bronx judge approving the deal added his own unusual condition.
The defendant had to get a Covid-19 vaccine.
A week later, a Manhattan judge made the same order, this time of a woman seeking bail before a trial.
Neither defendant appeared to object. But legal observers said the two judges’ orders — made in different courts and for different reasons — raise important questions about the line between civic responsibility and civil liberties.
A number of experts who reviewed the orders disagreed as to whether they were justified, or whether or one or both could represent an overstep — a debate that underscores the legal and ethical complications that have emerged around vaccination requirements.

In one case, Judge Jeffrey Zimmerman of the Bronx County criminal court, explained that the defendant, William Gregory, had been accused of crimes — including drug possession, criminal trespass, shoplifting and criminal contempt — that showed he had placed his own interest above others’. In getting the vaccine, the judge argued, Mr. Gregory would be doing the opposite, and so vaccination would represent a form of rehabilitation.

The second order came from a federal judge in Manhattan, Jed S. Rakoff, who granted the release of a defendant, Elouisa Pimental, who was charged with conspiracy to distribute fentanyl, on the condition that she get vaccinated.
Judge Rakoff argued that it fell to him to determine whether a person seeking release represented a danger to their community. The unvaccinated, he wrote, did pose such a danger, given their “enhanced risk of infecting other, innocent people and even potentially causing their deaths.”

Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at the New York University School of Law, said that Judge Rakoff was likely on firm footing, as long as Ms. Pimental was not reluctant to get vaccinated because of health issues or “legitimate religious objections.”

Rest - https://dnyuz.com/2021/08/23/2-new-y...-they-do-that/

Of the 2 piss poor unconstitutional rulings the 2nd judge's is the most dangerous if followed up by others well meaning officials.
"...Judge Rakoff argued that it fell to him to determine whether a person seeking release represented a danger to their community. The unvaccinated, he wrote, did pose such a danger, given their “enhanced risk of infecting other, innocent people and even potentially causing their deaths. ..."


This is the same kind of legal language that's used to lock-up and involuntarily medicate to people who a judge decides is mentally ill (or thoroughly addicted to drugs). Are they "a danger to themselves or others" .

With the amount of HYPE and near mob-hysteria around covid and the holy trinity (vax-mask-lockdowns amen) . i would not be surprised if officials and judges started to call people who refuse to vaccinate "mentality ill" and have some pych drs come up with name for it. (vaxaphobiania ignoramusus) and therefore justify rounding up "anti-vaxxers" and vaccinate them for their own good and "public safety".
I'm not sure how far someone would get with that but it wouldn't be surprise if someone ran it up the flag pole to see how many salute that crap.

this whole "pandemic" seems primed to test how far can they push the levers of public control.

[JakeStarkey]

I am not sure the judges have the legal authority to make such orders

There's only one way this works for me, and that's what the 2nd judge in this story did. He made a deal of sorts and released someone. That I can see, as someone isn't forced to get a vaccination.

Otherwise, this is just as bad as any mandates and worse. Give a woman a forced abortion and see how that plays out.

---

2 New York Judges Ordered Defendants to Get Vaccinated. Can They Do That?

The defendant was charged with a number of minor crimes, including drug possession and shoplifting. He was prepared to plead guilty, and prosecutors agreed. But a Bronx judge approving the deal added his own unusual condition.

The defendant had to get a Covid-19 vaccine.

A week later, a Manhattan judge made the same order, this time of a woman seeking bail before a trial.

Neither defendant appeared to object. But legal observers said the two judges’ orders — made in different courts and for different reasons — raise important questions about the line between civic responsibility and civil liberties.

A number of experts who reviewed the orders disagreed as to whether they were justified, or whether or one or both could represent an overstep — a debate that underscores the legal and ethical complications that have emerged around vaccination requirements.

In one case, Judge Jeffrey Zimmerman of the Bronx County criminal court, explained that the defendant, William Gregory, had been accused of crimes — including drug possession, criminal trespass, shoplifting and criminal contempt — that showed he had placed his own interest above others’. In getting the vaccine, the judge argued, Mr. Gregory would be doing the opposite, and so vaccination would represent a form of rehabilitation.

The second order came from a federal judge in Manhattan, Jed S. Rakoff, who granted the release of a defendant, Elouisa Pimental, who was charged with conspiracy to distribute fentanyl, on the condition that she get vaccinated.

Judge Rakoff argued that it fell to him to determine whether a person seeking release represented a danger to their community. The unvaccinated, he wrote, did pose such a danger, given their “enhanced risk of infecting other, innocent people and even potentially causing their deaths.”

Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at the New York University School of Law, said that Judge Rakoff was likely on firm footing, as long as Ms. Pimental was not reluctant to get vaccinated because of health issues or “legitimate religious objections.”

Rest - https://dnyuz.com/2021/08/23/2-new-y...-they-do-that/

[jimnyc]

I am not sure the judges have the legal authority to make such orders

I agree, but unless it's appealed, then they are stuck. I would appeal it, on principle alone. If I were getting time out of jail or a pass and agree to a deal, then we'll talk.

[SassyLady]

So, an unvaccinated person is more of a danger to the community than someone distributing fentanyl?

[JakeStarkey]

So, an unvaccinated person is more of a danger to the community than someone distributing fentanyl?

Not by much.