Reply To: Update on Zach Anderson: Judge shows no mercy at all


What’s confusing to me here regarding his probation conditions is that the probation officer has full authority to NOT enforce certain conditions.
At the top of the probation conditions that we sign (well, at least in Connecticut) it clearly states in bold black print:


That means that the P.O. gets to decide which conditions from the enormous list a probationer must follow. But since probation officers are just paid bullies, they make sure to check EVERY BOX next to EVERY CONDITION just to be assholes.

Many people here have disagreed with me regarding the necessity of probation and I still say it’s a waste of tax payer money. Period!
The guy can’t walk by a damn school – BUT ONLY WHILE ON PROBATION.
He can’t use the Internet – BUT ONLY WHILE ON PROBATION.

I’d like you all to take a moment and let these probation conditions roll around in your brains and please ask yourself this question: “Part of the ‘punishment’ or not, what the hell differenxe does it make if the man simply WALKS by a school NOW or AFTER his probation is over?”

And what the hell is this nonsense about not being able to make a purchase of more than $200 without the approval of a probation officer???!!!! WHAT!!!???
What does his spending of his own hard earned money have to do with his rendezvous with a LYING teenager?

And yet so many of you still want to challenge me about probation being a necessary part of our sentences.
No judge is REQUIRED to place people on probation. It is NOT a requirement but it has become the “thing to do” just for the hell of it. To make themselves (the courts) feel good about themselves.