Letter to the editor: Jail for probation officer unjust | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Jail for probation officer unjust

An egregious miscarriage of justice occurred Sept. 4 when Common Pleas Judge Anthony Mariani jailed Probation Officer Sheldon Arrington for contempt of court.

Arrington did use his phone while waiting for a court hearing last year in this judge’s courtroom. While the merits of the “contempt” case are debatable, no one in his or her right mind agrees with incarcerating an officer of the court who has dedicated his life to helping children in the juvenile justice system.

Arrington should not have used a phone in the courtroom, but to snatch away his freedom and jeopardize his safety and career by putting him in jail is outrageous and illogical. Why not impose a large fine that could go toward a charity or order community service? Why sentence him to something that is meant to house people who are threats to the community or flight risks?

This judge easily makes the Allegheny County Jail part of his weekly sentencing orders, issued from his ivory tower. This experience damages condemned souls who unfortunately drew the short stick in life by landing on his docket.

Using incarceration in this manner does nothing but satisfy the ego of this judge. Contempt is a scary ordeal to experience when the judge at the helm is not fair-minded or compassionate. Discretion and humanity were sacrificed in this case for hubris.

Mariani is up for a retention vote in 2025. Please remember incidents like this when voting him out!

John Augustus

East Allegheny


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.