David Perry Davis | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

David Perry Davis 
Member since Aug 19, 2011


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Stats

Recent Comments

Re: “State law encourages whistle blowing on disabled parking space abuse

Yeah, here's a public official doing it on video. Think anyone will issue him a ticket? LOL... fat chance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS81kT8MAr…

Posted by David Perry Davis on 08/12/2017 at 10:54 PM

Re: “Former junior high school coach charged with sex crimes arrested in Sheridan

I don't know for sure that this is the same guy, but if he was hired in spite of being on a sex offender registry because no one checked, I know a school district that's getting sued -- http://bailbondcity.com/nebraska/nesex-inm…

As the other answer says, it's all assuming it's true. If it's not the same guy and the girl involved is 17 years old (not 7 or 13 or whatever), it sounds like it's worthy of being fired for bad judgment & stupidity, but not the type of charges that are listed (first degree sexual assault of a child?).

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by David Perry Davis on 12/08/2016 at 5:38 PM

Re: “Presidential candidate Tom Cotton in Iowa

While the rest of the house and senate try to move forward to fix our mass-incarceration failed policies, this embarrassing alt-right clown continues to suck in money from the private prison industry and openly prostitute himself lobbying for them and impeding progress. Sickening excuse for a human being. No way - now how.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by David Perry Davis on 10/18/2016 at 10:46 AM

Re: “Supreme Court merit selection proposal in legislative hands

I'm an attorney in New Jersey. Here, judges are selected by Senate nomination and gubernatorial confirmation for an initial seven year term, then granted tenure to serve through age 70 so long as they demonstrate "good behavior" (which has been interpreted as "not being indicted"). Many of us have supported changing our system to lifetime appointment, but based on "judicial performance", but defining that term more broadly - meaning being rated by the public, other members of the judiciary, and the bar on primarily objective criteria such as error-based reversal rate by a higher court (not a reversal based on new law or policy, but on error), speed of decisions, courtesy to litigants and the bar, etc.

If Arkansas is considering a change to its system of judicial appointment, I hope something along these lines would be considered. The idea of judges having to run for election just appears to be, to be blunt, corrupt on its face. How is a litigant supposed to believe that a close case isn't being decided based on contributions to a judge's campaign? How is a judge faced with an unpopular based Constitutionally-mandated decision supposed to rule? A judge's duty should be to the law and Constitution, not to what is popular.

My familiarity with Arkansas is limited to several visits and the reading of many decisions on the West Memphis Three case (where one kid sat on death row and two others got life so a prosecutor who should never have taken the case to a jury could run for judge and Terry Hobbs, the killer of three kids, continues to walk free because no one in political office can say "I was wrong.") I met many good people there who were as frustrated with the Arkansas justice system as I was for the decade I observed it.

It would be great to see Arkansas not only grow past the facially flawed system of "popularity contests for judges", but into an example for the whole country. I hope these reforms will be embraced.

- David Perry Davis, Esq.
Pennington, NJ

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by David Perry Davis on 10/10/2016 at 6:05 PM

Re: “Arkansas Supreme Court splits with bar on lawyer ceremony

I'm an attorney in New Jersey. Here, judges are selected by Senate nomination and gubernatorial confirmation for an initial seven year term, then granted tenure to serve through age 70 so long as they demonstrate "good behavior" (which has been interpreted as "not being indicted"). Many of us have supported changing our system to lifetime appointment, but based on "judicial performance", but defining that term more broadly - meaning being rated by the public, other members of the judiciary, and the bar on primarily objective criteria such as error-based reversal rate by a higher court (not a reversal based on new law or policy, but on error), speed of decisions, courtesy to litigants and the bar, etc.

If Arkansas is considering a change to its system of judicial appointment, I hope something along these lines would be considered. The idea of judges having to run for election just appears to be, to be blunt, corrupt on its face. How is a litigant supposed to believe that a close case isn't being decided based on contributions to a judge's campaign? How is a judge faced with an unpopular based Constitutionally-mandated decision supposed to rule? A judge's duty should be to the law and Constitution, not to what is popular.

My familiarity with Arkansas is limited to several visits and the reading of many decision on the West Memphis Three case (where the killer of three kids, Terry Hobbs, continues to walk free because of politics). I met many good people there who were as frustrated with the Arkansas justice system as I was for the decade I observed it.

It would be great to see Arkansas not only grow past the facially flawed system of "popularity contests for judges", but into an example for the whole country. I hope these reforms will be embraced.

- David Perry Davis, Esq.
Pennington, NJ

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by David Perry Davis on 10/10/2016 at 6:02 PM

Re: “Hillary Clinton and the men who hate her

The name of this article kind of displays the problem. With Hillary, it's all about gender. With her "glass ceiling" commercials, and her accusations that any Democrat who doesn't support her is a misogynist... She makes me sick. People don't support her because she has the charisma of a lemon. She radiates that this is about her power-hunger, not what she can do for us. Look, by contrast, at Elizabeth Warren. No "glass ceiling commercials", no "vote for me because I would be a great WOMAN president", but rather people support Warren because she would be a great president; she's not seeking to capitalize on her irrelevant gender. Hillary just doesn't get this. Christie is going to trounce her in 2016 if we're stupid enough to give her the nomination "because it's her turn" (like Bob Dole got it "when it was his turn.").

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by David Perry Davis on 01/03/2015 at 4:17 PM

Re: “Only the guilty want closure in West Memphis Three case

I'm simply astounded that there are still people out there who believe the WM3 are guilty.

They cite Jessie's statements. Take the time and ACTUALLY READ THEM. They are ridiculous at best - http://www.dpdlaw.com/jmstatements.htm . READ THEM - THEY ARE THE BASIS OF THE ARRESTS. Only someone with an IQ lower than Jessie's could possibly cite these as a basis to believe in guilt. They're internally inconsistent and don't align with ANY of the physical evidence - not one piece. Even when he was mostly highly motivated to get it right (post-conviction, when trying to negotiate a plea to reduce his sentence), he still can't get the details even close to what the forensic evidence shows to be FACTS. This isn't an "opinion" issue.

They cite Damien's psych issues, as if this substituted for evidence. Yes, Damien underplays the severity of his issues at the time... I'd love to see any human being have their psychiatric history displayed all over the internet who doesn't show some embarrassment / minimization. It's a red herring .... The fact is that there was not a single hair, fingerprint, footprint, drop of blood, or strand of DNA that linked back to the WM3. In spite of Damien having shoulder length black hair and always wearing Army boots, which leave a somewhat distinctive impression. No way, no how could three kids have done this and left not a single strand of evidence. It's absurd.

Even the victims' families (with the exception of the Moores, who refused to meet with the investigators in 2007) have seen the truth. The WM3 aren't guilty. Hobbs most probably is.

57 likes, 18 dislikes
Posted by David Perry Davis on 06/25/2014 at 5:30 PM

All Comments »


 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation