A couple of recent events in the news make me really wonder if the law really ought to have some mechanism for dealing with unintended consequences in less idiotic and hurtful ways.
First up was the revelation that as a result of the ongoing appeal of Aaron Hernandez’s original murder conviction of Odin Lloyd, Hernandez’s suicide means that the conviction will automatically be set aside by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under the doctrine of “abatement”.
OK, I truly understand the theory behind it…the idea is that the law presumes that an appeal indicates a defect with the original trial/conviction and because that appeal hadn’t been exhausted, the presumption of innocence inherent in the system requires that Hernandez will be considered in the eyes of the law to have died an innocent man.
But can you imagine how hideous that must be for the victim’s family? Their loved one is still dead and the person tried and convicted is now considered innocent of the crime.
If that wasn’t bad enough, any civil claims also died with Mr Hernandez with prejudice because they often piggy-back on the original criminal charges and with those gone, the civil claims also disappear.
Don’t get me wrong…Aaron Hernandez is a tale of tragedy just waiting to happen but what Odin Lloyd and his family was subjected to seems straight from the ninth ring of Dante’s Inferno.
Just when you thought you could digest that one…now there are reports that Bill O’Reilly is getting a yooge golden parachute from Fox due to his contract with the network.
He was fired after having been caught out in several instances of sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment where five people were paid $13M in “hush money” settlements. Despite Mr O’Reilly’s protestations of innocence…it’s hard to give him that presumption for if he truly were innocent of any sort of misbehaviour, they wouldn’t make the payouts based on past behviour when challenged.
So let me get this straight: behaviours that would see me summarily fired if not jailed are being rewarded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars because he has this lucrative a contract?
Where are the provisions that would hold the contract in abeyance due to unprofessional behaviour or conduct unbecoming? Are we supposed to be as stupid as they think we are that the Murdoch’s would not have insisted in a multitude of “out” clauses that would allow them to kick his heiney to the curb without paying out a single dime knowing that the Times was in the process of running the stories that ultimately brought Bill down? These uber-rich Murdochs with legions of highly-paid talented lawyers on the speed dial can’t find one provision or legal precedent to not only not pay the golden parachute but also claw back money paid when the alleged behaviour occurred?
No way, Rupert! You shouldn’t have paid the golden parachute to Roger Ailes and you shouldn’t pay this one either!
Find a provision and make it stick to really send a message that the open season on sexual harassment at Fox News has now been closed for good.
https://money.cnn.com/2017/04/20/media/bill-oreilly-millions-payout/index.html