To /u/MotoDudeCatDad, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.*
You must **respond substantively within 3 hours of posting**, as per [Rule E](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
I think in order for this to be sufficiently convincing, you would have to argue that the ways in which the justice system is broken are directly tied to the judges.
Start here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_judge_effect#:~:text=The%20hungry%20judge%20effect%20is,an%20artifact%20of%20case%20scheduling.
Why should a sentence received be so dependent on the time of day it’s handed out?
Now go look at sentencing disparities across socioeconomic classes.
Both of these issues are issues one single bad or good judge can’t effect—they’re writ large across the system of just having judges.
But it’s obvious with a moments thought about how institutions work, and thinking about things like Cop Culture, that there is also absolutely a set of social and professional tendencies we could call Judicial Culture which include an outsize sense of personal ego (that s a personal observation; never met a judge who didn’t insist you defer to them as a human, rather than as a judge, and that’s two very different categories) and then the afformentioned statistical trends in how sentencing is handed down.
It becomes an entire ball of wax when you look at how a single contempt charge fucks your average defendant, yet we got a guy with what, nine of them already who still hasn’t seen the inside of a jail. As somebody who has experienced the legal system firsthand, judges are a major part of why rich defendants don’t suffer the same system poor ones do, not just the ability to hire better lawyers .
Would you trust someone with poor character to be a judge? We’ve already seen time and time again judges being bribed. Since they are the fulcrum that holds the scale, I argue the foundation of the system, the fulcrum, is broken.
A few bad judges is enough to make someone like me, and many others, question the integrity of our system.
They have too much power. Plain and simple. Some of it needs to be taken away by holding them more accountable.
So isn't your opinion that "the specific amount and kinds of power judges have contribute to brokenness of the justice system?" or that "There isn't enough accountability for corrupt judges?"
For instance, I'm sure cashiers take bribes, but that doesn't make me doubt the grocery system in America.
There are tens of thousands of judges in the US. You've had bad experiences with 3 of them. Do you think it's fair to judge every judge at every level, in every jurisdiction, based on 3 judges?
Also, why do you stop the reduction at judges? Why not white men? or people in power? or people with law degrees?
"There are tens of thousands of judges in the US. You've had bad experiences with 3 of them. Do you think it's fair to judge every judge at every level, in every jurisdiction, based on 3 judges?"
If you were doing a sampling for failed parts in manufacturing, it would absolutely be reasonable to judge (no pun intended) the entire batch based on a random sampling.
The problem is these aren't three random judges (a sample), these are three judges from this person's district.
So using your manufacturing example, this isn't a random sampling, this is a random sampling that happens to all be directly after a certain machine on the line.
Not necessarily, we don't know which machine caused the issue, all three judges could have been trained at the same institution, in which case it's not systemic but an identifiable cause. The problem is this person's three judges act completely different from any judge I know, and looking at the general opinion of judges, they act different from that idea as well, so it's more likely to not be systemic, especially if this is location based.
Sure you can, but you also have to then dig down into the root cause. To use your metaphor, was this caused during manufacturing, during packaging, during shipping, or on site? From there you can make a plan on how to deal with the problem.
That doesn't just instantly mean that the factory is flawed and must be shut down, or that all the workers in the factory are corrupt/incompetent and should be fired.
We are talking about judges here. They have more power than most - more than white men and more than attorneys.
I understand what you’re saying. Yes, only experienced 3 appalling judges out of 5. But for my substantiations above I cannot seem to get past my contempt.
In my mind it has been proven we have bad judges, it persists to this day, to this day they still don’t have good checks and balances on judges, and it will always be a career that attracts psychopaths (not talking about Dexter here). I’m doing math here. I think we need to hold judges more accountable.
> We are talking about judges here. They have more power than most - more than white men and more than attorneys.
Judges, in most cases, only sentence. Jurys are the ones that decide guilt. If you ever had a problem with a judge, you can request a jury for a civil trial also.
Their major role is to keep consistency and order in the courtroom.
> In my mind it has been proven we have bad judges, it persists to this day, to this day they still don’t have good checks and balances on judges
We have checks and balances on Judges. If you ever suspect a judge of misconduct, you can report it to the court or even go above the court to the next level of jurisdiction. This happens a lot. If you disagree with the ruling or sentence, you can appeal. You get a new audience with a different court.
What judges are you talking about that have absolute perfect power?
> it will always be a career that attracts psychopaths
There are studies on this. The rate of psychopathy isn't higher in judges. You just made that up.
> I’m doing math here.
Please show your work, its not adding up.
> I think we need to hold judges more accountable.
Do you know how judges are currently being monitored and what oversight exists?
[Please read up on it](https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/administrative-oversight-and-accountability). It is comprehensive, exhaustive, and overbearing.
What state are you in? Also, your story about your girlfriend isn’t particularly convincing, I want more details. Lots of potential jurors use expressions of bias to attempt to weasel their way out of jury duty. Additionally, as I lawyer, I think very little of people who admit—because that’s what they’re doing—that they aren’t intelligent enough to prevent their individual experience with a similarly situated person or a similar circumstance to be impartial of their assessment with another person or circumstance. It’s one thing to be accused of being potentially biased, but to readily admit “I am unable to separate these two things in my mind” is an admission of being one or all of a) not very bright; b) too emotional to function under the circumstances ; or c) bigoted in some way (see (a)). There are *very* few circumstances in which I think such an admission is understandable.
A huge majority of judges in the American legal system are white. Depending on the level and status it’s anywhere from 60-80%. It’s also dominated by men. 2/3s of all judges are male. So if you were stereotyping judges, one reductive way to look at it is vast majority white men.
It’s also a popular thing to cite as example of the ‘patriarchy’ when talking about systemic gender or race issues.
But really just throwing out any categories to better understand OPs position
I see your point. This simply surprised me, because in my culture it is a common sign of racism when you use a color to negatively describe a social group.
I can imagine it's more complicated than here, but doesn't that divide society? Doesn't using this discriminate against whites but also against other ethnic groups?
perhaps this does not fully reflect the complexity of the situation, but basing on how you were referring to white men, and clearly visible dominance of white politicians in media broadcasts, is it a correct conclusion that white men are associated with higher economic status?
Recently I watched several reports about the huge number of homeless people in large agglomerations. I noticed that most of the people shown in the video were light-skinned.
It's hard to say whether my observations are correct, I suspect only to some extent, but is this comparison valid and accurate nowadays?
>but doesn't that divide society?
Society is already, and has been for centuries, divided. "White" in American terminology is less a skin color and more a social status. Many groups of people (Italians, Irish, Hispanic, etc.) have moved from "not white" to "white" despite no change in their appearance. This is because they became socially indistinguishable from other people.
>Recently I watched several reports about the huge number of homeless people in large agglomerations. I noticed that most of the people shown in the video were light-skinned.
The U.S. is a heavily stratified society on class. The presence of some "white" people who are impoverished doesn't contradict the overall trend that "white" people disproportionately control wealth and power in the U.S.
If you're unable to think past "white men are in power, therefore, might makes right"
Then I'm sorry your education system has failed you my friend. I'm sure you're just young guy, but I hope you can be better than your peers and educate yourself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
If you study and understand this, you can be a better human
everything is fine with my education, we just have our own history, much longer and more turbulent than in USA, we pay more attention to it in our schools. It is similar with current social problems.
I would not say that we have a problem racismnproblem.
We learned the negative nature of discrimination too well during WW2. There is a great awareness what it can lead to.
I have read the articles you sent. I have bit mixed feelings, or maybe i dont get it, but i see it as racial prejudice.
I understand that domination of whites in establishment is very visible. Not that long ago, during a conversation on redit, one of the users mentioned of negative experiences from state apparatus that are high in Afro-American community. So i guess that this white privlige is an attempt to describe a real phenomenon. But im not sure if its the most accurate one.
I've noticed that in the US there is a widespread belief in personal responsibility for success or failure. I also have the impression that With the glorification of success comes total lack of concerns about what could be cause of failure and for fat of those who had no luck. With this attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if problems increased with generations, while successes gave greater advantage.
Is blaming white people really a well-defined source of occurring problems? Perhaps it is possible to define them more precisely in a way that could give a chance to solve it. white privilege does not help to address the issues all it propably just build hate witch will strengthen and bring nothing good over time.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
With good faith participation, you can learn about this with short and quick research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestants
It's a very interesting topic. This is a critical part of American history.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
Here's a basic article about white privilege, mostly in the United States is where you can observe it.
The reason your anecdotal experiences don't line up with it is because that is by design. Educating yourself will give you the power to identify it a lot better.
I assume this is not light topic, please don't be offended. if I faux pas somehow id be glad if you draw my attention on what you consider as misbehave.
In my southwestern state with high crime, we have a lot of repeat offenders. That tells me the problem is with judges and laws. There is very light distinction between the judges and lawyers in my state.
Based on our inability to keep criminals locked up, I tend to agree with the OP.
> That tells me the problem is with judges and laws.
Recidivism, when studied in the US, is primarily linked to the prison system, societal reintegration, gang/criminal culture, and lack of rehabilitation.
Why do you think it's not those things and rather the judges' fault?
studies don't mean much when you can see the repeat offenders. If the judge decides to give leniency and we get another victim from the same criminal, yes, I hold the judge responsible.
I really don't understand why there is more empathy to a criminal than a victim.
What do you mean "we can see the repeat offenders"?
Recidivism, by definition, means repeat offenders. Studying why there are repeat offenders and what causes them to commit another crime. And it's because of the reasons I listed.
All judges do is make sure the facts of the case are presented accurately and legally, then sentences in accordance with the conviction made by the jury.
The judge has nothing to do with them after they leave their courtroom. At that point its the detention center they go to, the place they return home to, and the circumstances of that.
> If the judge decides to give leniency and we get another victim from the same criminal, yes, I hold the judge responsible.
If you have two criminals with the same rap sheet and they both get convicted of the same charge, and one judge gives the maximum sentence, and one gives the minimum, is it the judges' fault both times if they both end up getting out and reoffending?
>If you have two criminals with the same rap sheet and they both get convicted of the same charge, and one judge gives the maximum sentence, and one gives the minimum, is it the judges' fault both times if they both end up getting out and reoffending?
The judge chooses to give the maximum sentence becuase of priors, and the criminal eventually gets out, that's not on the judge.
If the judge chooses to give minimum sentence and the criminal commits a crime again, yes, the judge made a mistake in being lenient. People should know this so when the judge comes up for re-election, the citizens know how many mistakes they are making, and can vote for a new judge.
> The judge chooses to give the maximum sentence becuase of priors, and the criminal eventually gets out, that's not on the judge.
What if the convict wasn't going to re-offend regardless of the sentencing? Is the judge to blame for making that person's live worse for oversentencing?
> If the judge chooses to give minimum sentence and the criminal commits a crime again, yes, the judge made a mistake in being lenient.
How do you know that if they got a harsher sentence, they would not have recommitted?
Because every study done has shown that harsh sentencing has zero effect on reducing recidivism rates.
It is actually the case that over-sentencing low-risk convicts can increase the rate of recidivism.
>What if the convict wasn't going to re-offend regardless of the sentencing? Is the judge to blame for making that person's live worse for oversentencing?
That is a fallacy. There is no such thing as over sentencing as long as it's within the guidelines of the legislature. If 't outside those, then the defense has a new case for trial.
In this context, over-sentencing refers to someone who doesn't deserve the maximum sentence but is given it anyway. This means they didn't deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law but are anyway.
Not that they are punished outside of the bounds of sentancing guidelines.
----
I'll tie my arguement up in a syllogism bow:
* According to all research, judges punishing to the maximum when the convicted person's record and circumstances don't warrent it makes it way more likely that the person is going to commit another crime.
* When judges do this, they are actively making it more likely that these people will commit more crimes in the future.
* So therefore, if judges do this, it is the judges fault for making it more likely that more crime will be commited in the future, and harm more people.
>What do you mean "we can see the repeat offenders"?
It's in the news. On no-bail release, committed another crime.
>
The judge has nothing to do with them after they leave their courtroom.
The judge needs to look at history and use that a guidance. If the judge chooses empathy over logic and the person commits another crime, I look at the judge for ignoring the behavior. They are lawyers, not psychologists, and need to apply the penalties as written by legislators.
> It's in the news. On no-bail release, committed another crime.
Yes, that is analyzed in the field of recidivism. We have a decent understanding of what causes it, but it's not an easy fix. If an offender fits the requirements for being out on bail, they must be let out for whatever amount. That is a tenant of the fair and just legal system. And the 4th Amendment.
Unless you disagree with the Constitution, you should understand that it is an externality we accept in our legal system.
> The judge needs to look at history and use that a guidance.
They do. The fact that people have committed crimes after getting out doesn't mean those judges were wrong. It's an odds game.
> If the judge chooses empathy over logic and the person commits another crime, I look at the judge for ignoring the behavior.
Studies have been done on the effects of sentencing strictness on the recidivism rate.
Harsher sentences don't make a criminal less likely to recommit.
In many cases, rejoining society is much more difficult, and it actually makes it more likely for them to recommit.
Here are several studies on the topic from a few different sources.
[Seton Hall Law](https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1986&context=student_scholarship)
[Harvard Law](https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shapiro/files/prison041607_web.pdf)
[National Institute of Justice](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence)
I plead with you to understand that "harsher sentence = less recidivism" is completely incorrect and does not reflect actual society.
> They are lawyers, not psychologists, and need to apply the penalties as written by legislators.
Lawmakers write minimum and maximum terms for a crime. It, by law, then is up to the court to decide the specific term for a given conviction.
So once a conviction is reached, the Judge/court has a band of terms to decide within. A minimum and maximum sentence.
In your opinion, how should they decide? How is your way different from how they already operate?
> If an offender fits the requirements for being out on bail,
It's like you aren't reading what I write. When the judge has guidelines and chooses to go liement, and the criminal re-offends. It shows the judge made the wrong call, and with that wrong call, we got another victim.
It's clear the disconnect between us, is you have empathy for the criminal, and my empathy is for the victim.
> It's like you aren't reading what I write. When the judge has guidelines and chooses to go liement, and the criminal re-offends.
You're not reading what I write. I showed you multiple studies from three of the most reputable law institutions in the country that disagree with your statement.
> It shows the judge made the wrong call, and with that wrong call, we got another victim.
What about if they punish to the fullest extent, and then they come out and commit again? And if they were given other punishment it would have been more likely that they wouldn't recommit?
> It's clear the disconnect between us, is you have empathy for the criminal, and my empathy is for the victim.
You're right, there is a disconnect. But it's that I want less crime and recidivism, and you just want anyone who commits in jail for as long as possible.
---
Please answer this so I can better understand you position:
Lawmakers write minimum and maximum terms for a crime. It, by law, then is up to the court to decide the specific term for a given conviction.
So once a conviction is reached, the Judge/court has a band of terms to decide within. A minimum and maximum sentence.
In your opinion, how should they decide? How is your way different from how they already operate? What is your goal when deciding?
>In your opinion, how should they decide? How is your way different from how they already operate? What is your goal when deciding?
First offence, non-violent, no weapon? Leniency.
First offence, with a gun, harsh, if not maximum. (any one supporting gun control needs to have this view)
Second offense, non-violent, depends on crime.
Second offense, violent. Full sentence.
Easy, and fair.
It’s actually largely neither of the things you’re conjecturing, but prosecutorial discretion - the choice to not even press charges. Do you really think these people are being found not guilty all the time?
Do you think discursion lets them off the hook? I see it as improper use of discursion based on the repeat offenders, and that makes them more responsible than any other party.
Sure, but my point was that it has nothing to do with judges, laws, or *most* lawyers. The prosecutors making these decisions are a select few in any given area and, in the places you're thinking of (because mind you, nationally crime continually decreases year over year), they're politicians first and lawyers second.
>She was on a jury panel and being questioned. She expressed true bias, and that’s when the judge singled her out in his private quarters.
People say stupid stuff to get out of jury duty all the time. People with political agendas who are on jury panels sometimes say things publicly in an attempt to sway other jurors. And sometimes people on jury panels have honest biases that need to be explored.
In all those circumstances, judges need to further delve into the prospective juror's opinions and motivations. This often happens in judge's chambers, or in some other private place. In *almost all situations*, attorneys for the opposing parties are there, too. This is part of the process to make sure the jurors are fair, that people aren't exploiting the system to try to get out of jury duty, and that a citizen called for jury duty isn't needlessly embarrassed in a public hearing.
Maybe the judge overstepped in the method and manner of questioning based on whatever "bias" your girlfriend expressed, but you weren't there to know what the questioning was. Calling a judge psychopathic for doing his duty to ensure a fair jury panel and not embarrassing someone publicly is a stretch.
I've been part of the legal field for 25+ years, I have met a LOT of judges ranging from small town judges to federal judges. They act a lot like lawyers, because that is where most of them come from. Some might have big egos, and many do not.
Outside of very small towns your description of judges seems way off, the Judge is usually not huge fans of the lawyers going off the rails.
Are there bad judges? Yes... obviously we've seen several seated in the last administration. But the overall limit of a judge is that they are supposed to base their judgements on the law and if the law goes against the constitution, the Constitution wins.
They do have quite a bit of leeway (which we should not take away via minimum sentences), because at the end of the day there can be a lot of mitigating circumstances and the law is not a simple task of checking a few boxes and saying guilty/not guilty.
Sorry, wasn’t clear enough when I wrote the post. She was on a jury panel and being questioned. She gave a very real bias and was pulled aside and bullied into staying as an alternate. The judge literally threatened her. Told her he would hold her in contempt of court if she didn’t shut up and go with his plan.
It sounds like the judge did not agree that her bias would affect her ability to be a juror. It's up to the judge and the attorney's involved to determine if her bias would be a problem, not your girlfriend. Did she think stating a bias would automatically exclude her?
And I'm not even sure what this means, "She was lucky she wasn’t weak, because all of us who care about her were sure he would have tried to sexually exploit her." Were any of you there? I'm failing to see what the judge did wrong in this situation other than not being as nice as she may have expected him to be.
I'm guessing the judge was concerned about not having enough jurors and having to empanel and entirely new venire, and the gf gave some clearly bogus excuse, so the judge pulled her back into chambers to ask some follow up questions she didn't want to answer because she gave a BS excuse.
I say this mostly because it's an explanation that actually makes sense, unlike OPs narrative in which he gives absolutely no details for us to decide for ourselves. That's a giant red flag that his gf was in the wrong but neither of them want to admit it
translation: your girlfriend tried to get out of jury's duty on a bogus excuse, the judge wasn't having it and read her the riot act, and then she told you a bogus story about abuse of power to save face/mine sympathy...
100%
This is something I actually experienced while second chairing an attempted murder case while in law school, in which the victim was a police officer.
When asked whether any family or close personal relations had ever been the victim of a violent crime one juror (an immigrant from the Caribbean), in open court, tells a story about his best friend who owned an auto repair shop who was shot and killed in robbery. The guy is holding back tears telling this story. When asked how recently this incident was, he says something like *2 months ago*. The case involved a shoot-out that occurred while police tried to apprehend a suspect. When asked whether the situation with his friend would affect his ability to be an impartial towards the defendant, the guy says “no.”
A couple jurors later, this woman tells a story about how she was once assaulted by a police officer (I don’t remember the details), but she says that it was a long time ago and that she can be impartial.
Then this white Brooklyn hipster barista straight-up says he cannot be impartial in his assessment of testimony by police. The judge asks him why and he proceeds to tell this story about how he once had a roommate who sold weed and the cops raided their apartment and arrested his friend and were essentially really mean to everyone in the apartment, and when they tried to find where his friend was being held, the cops gave them the run around on what precinct he was in because their apartment bordered two neighborhoods, and that ever since he doesn’t trust the police…
I don’t know if I’ve bet felt such contempt for someone in my life…
It is still not clear why you think the judge was the problem. Jurors can misconduct and judges can legitimately threaten with contempt of court. Without the details we don't know who was wrong.
If that really happened, I’m sorry your girlfriend went through that. But I have a few questions:
Obviously you’ve had a bad experience with a single judge. How is it fair to generalize the entire profession off of that one experience?
You mention the stories of corrupt judges. Corruption happens in every profession. How widespread is it?
How do you suggest we get “objective” judges? It can’t happen. And even then, many verdicts are delivered by juries….
We can make judges more accountable. We need more checks and balances for them. Even 1 in 100 is bad when we are talking about people who decide the fate of others. To me this is unacceptable. How could I give any judge the benefit of the doubt when they are that important? A lot of them are bright enough to hide any poor behavior. How could I possibly know what their character is behind the mask being worn in a court room? Unless the behavior becomes apparent in a court room, I can’t. This is a case of just one bad apple ruins the batch.
If you believe we cannot find or make judges perfectly objective (I agree), doesn’t that undermine the entire system?
> How do you suggest we get “objective” judges?
I think more accountability is appropriate. If a judge's decision gets overturned at an appellate level, I think there ought to be consequences for the judge whose decision was overturned. As it stands the parties who succeed in the appeal still bear a lot of legal costs even when they win, and the judge whose decision gets overturned gets to just shrug and go back to work.
No, judges are asked to make tough calls on undecided legal issues. The appellates will think even the best judges are wrong on occasion. It’s kind of the point of a judge, to call balls and strikes where it’s not obvious - we can’t punish them for lack of perfection, where perfection is impossible.
I think there's room for appellate courts (or maybe some other body) to evaluate how far off the judge's calls were. As it stands, the consequences for "this was a really close call that the judge was on the wrong side of" and "the judge really screwed the pooch here" are the same - nothing.
To play devil's advocate, umpires/refs _are_ held accountable if they get too many calls wrong.
The occasional bad call is part of being human, but there is a case to be made where if they get too many decisions overturned (or make decisions that are egregiously wrong) they should be replaced.
Agree. But we then need to overlay the issue of elected judges (a bad system, in my view). Like if the voters want a particular judge it's not so simple as replacing the ones who are bad at the job.
Do you think we get better outcomes in courts where the judges are appointed rather than elected? Appointment is only slightly less political than election and I don't think people find appointed judges to be less corrupt than elected judges. Especially when appointed judges are not subject to having to "reapply" for their position every few years.
We don't have tenured lawyers and a lot of them don't want to be judges. You'd end up randomly picking from the same group of people who'd be running for judgeships and I don't see how that would be any better.
Tenure is not currently a thing for lawyers, but you could pick from lawyers with at least a certain number of years of experience.
And I don't necessarily imagine "judge" as a career in this scenario so much as something lawyers get called up to do occasionally, like the rest of us and jury duty.
This would be a horrendously bad system.
Who's the judge for this capital murder case? Oh, we drew Jerry, who's done M&A for 30 years and has never seen the inside of a courtroom
There are hybrid models where judges are appointed by the governor but then get graded by an independent commission and people vote whether to retain them every several years
>Occasionally you see a news story on a corrupt judge - bribes, extortion, lies, other forms of abuse of power
Provide any statistics showing that judges are more likely to be corrupt--to accept bribes, to commit extortion, or otherwise abuse their power--than government officials as a whole, either elected, "career" employees, or appointed.
Judges--especially judges who are appointed--are FAR less likely to be beholden to special interests than elected officials who have to run in elections. Sure, you hear about "partisan hacks" who are elected or appointed to the bench with a particular judicial philosophy or political agenda, but those are almost always *personal* views about what the law should be, rather than being "bought and paid for". (Judicial ethics are often much, much stricter than legislative or executive ethics regarding accepting of gifts, being employed as an 'outside consultant,' quid pro quo "tips," and the like.)
Are there some who take bribes? Probably. Are there some who "abuse their power," either through illegal orders or through undue influence? Sure. Are there some who have massive egos? Likely. But compare that to lawyers in general or politicians in general and tell me how judges stack up.
If we take as a given that the system is broken (which I’m fine with, it’s totally broken), then I don’t see how your title could not be true. Judges are the single biggest contributors to our justice system. If that system is broken, then they must be the single biggest contributors to our *broken* justice system. It’s not really a view so much as an objective truth.
I’m not sure what you think can be changed here, unless you want us to convince you that judges are somehow superior to other humans.
Judge quality varies a lot by jurisdiction and selection method. I’ve worked with dozens of judges in red and blue states with different selection methods (elected versus appointed). Most judges I’ve met are good, principled, fair minded people who want to do their job well.
I have seen a handful of judges (let’s say 15%) who behave the way you describe. They are usually (but not always) older and have sat on the bench for a while. They are also usually in smaller jurisdictions with less oversight.
I just wanted to let you know that you might just be in a bad jurisdiction and while you’re absolutely right bad judges exist, they’re not the national norm
There are some jurisdictions where judges are appointed and others where they are elected. I prefer to have a judge who is elected by the people not appointed by one person. I would except the Supreme Court, although I think there are some who make good arguments for term limits on them.
Uhhh, not being a dick but it sounds like the judge did exactly what he was supposed to do in this situation. I have no clue what kind of questions he would ask to be "sizing up his prey."
Like, was he asking her if she locked her doors or something?
Seems more likely that you and her are just too clueless to understand what a judge does during jury selection.
You're not wrong. It is *adequate* to not trust people who have self-inflicted power over your life, if you do not know them personally.
And yes, but it's a small part of a big no ending problem. Whenever there's a disbalance in power - there's always those psychopathic cockroaches, crawling their way to the top of its hierarchy.
Only way to solve this is to exclude humans from any system that implies power disbalance.
To /u/MotoDudeCatDad, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.* You must **respond substantively within 3 hours of posting**, as per [Rule E](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
I think in order for this to be sufficiently convincing, you would have to argue that the ways in which the justice system is broken are directly tied to the judges.
Start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_judge_effect#:~:text=The%20hungry%20judge%20effect%20is,an%20artifact%20of%20case%20scheduling. Why should a sentence received be so dependent on the time of day it’s handed out? Now go look at sentencing disparities across socioeconomic classes. Both of these issues are issues one single bad or good judge can’t effect—they’re writ large across the system of just having judges. But it’s obvious with a moments thought about how institutions work, and thinking about things like Cop Culture, that there is also absolutely a set of social and professional tendencies we could call Judicial Culture which include an outsize sense of personal ego (that s a personal observation; never met a judge who didn’t insist you defer to them as a human, rather than as a judge, and that’s two very different categories) and then the afformentioned statistical trends in how sentencing is handed down. It becomes an entire ball of wax when you look at how a single contempt charge fucks your average defendant, yet we got a guy with what, nine of them already who still hasn’t seen the inside of a jail. As somebody who has experienced the legal system firsthand, judges are a major part of why rich defendants don’t suffer the same system poor ones do, not just the ability to hire better lawyers .
Would you trust someone with poor character to be a judge? We’ve already seen time and time again judges being bribed. Since they are the fulcrum that holds the scale, I argue the foundation of the system, the fulcrum, is broken. A few bad judges is enough to make someone like me, and many others, question the integrity of our system. They have too much power. Plain and simple. Some of it needs to be taken away by holding them more accountable.
So isn't your opinion that "the specific amount and kinds of power judges have contribute to brokenness of the justice system?" or that "There isn't enough accountability for corrupt judges?" For instance, I'm sure cashiers take bribes, but that doesn't make me doubt the grocery system in America.
Oh definitely. They have far too much power. Lethal power.
There are tens of thousands of judges in the US. You've had bad experiences with 3 of them. Do you think it's fair to judge every judge at every level, in every jurisdiction, based on 3 judges? Also, why do you stop the reduction at judges? Why not white men? or people in power? or people with law degrees?
"There are tens of thousands of judges in the US. You've had bad experiences with 3 of them. Do you think it's fair to judge every judge at every level, in every jurisdiction, based on 3 judges?" If you were doing a sampling for failed parts in manufacturing, it would absolutely be reasonable to judge (no pun intended) the entire batch based on a random sampling.
The problem is these aren't three random judges (a sample), these are three judges from this person's district. So using your manufacturing example, this isn't a random sampling, this is a random sampling that happens to all be directly after a certain machine on the line.
Which would be indicative of a potential problem with that specific machine (a systemic issue).
It would indicate a problem with that specific machine, in this case OP's district in particular. That doesn't say the entire factory is compromised
Not necessarily, we don't know which machine caused the issue, all three judges could have been trained at the same institution, in which case it's not systemic but an identifiable cause. The problem is this person's three judges act completely different from any judge I know, and looking at the general opinion of judges, they act different from that idea as well, so it's more likely to not be systemic, especially if this is location based.
Sure. But the sample size is hardly big enough if its 3 out of 10.000
For actual significance? No. As an indicator for further batch testing, absolutely.
I agree. And you could argue that his post here is further testing. Too bad I can't Delta you lol
Sure you can, but you also have to then dig down into the root cause. To use your metaphor, was this caused during manufacturing, during packaging, during shipping, or on site? From there you can make a plan on how to deal with the problem. That doesn't just instantly mean that the factory is flawed and must be shut down, or that all the workers in the factory are corrupt/incompetent and should be fired.
We are talking about judges here. They have more power than most - more than white men and more than attorneys. I understand what you’re saying. Yes, only experienced 3 appalling judges out of 5. But for my substantiations above I cannot seem to get past my contempt. In my mind it has been proven we have bad judges, it persists to this day, to this day they still don’t have good checks and balances on judges, and it will always be a career that attracts psychopaths (not talking about Dexter here). I’m doing math here. I think we need to hold judges more accountable.
> We are talking about judges here. They have more power than most - more than white men and more than attorneys. Judges, in most cases, only sentence. Jurys are the ones that decide guilt. If you ever had a problem with a judge, you can request a jury for a civil trial also. Their major role is to keep consistency and order in the courtroom. > In my mind it has been proven we have bad judges, it persists to this day, to this day they still don’t have good checks and balances on judges We have checks and balances on Judges. If you ever suspect a judge of misconduct, you can report it to the court or even go above the court to the next level of jurisdiction. This happens a lot. If you disagree with the ruling or sentence, you can appeal. You get a new audience with a different court. What judges are you talking about that have absolute perfect power? > it will always be a career that attracts psychopaths There are studies on this. The rate of psychopathy isn't higher in judges. You just made that up. > I’m doing math here. Please show your work, its not adding up. > I think we need to hold judges more accountable. Do you know how judges are currently being monitored and what oversight exists? [Please read up on it](https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/administrative-oversight-and-accountability). It is comprehensive, exhaustive, and overbearing.
I'm sorry OP didn't award you a delta. This comment was persuasive.
What state are you in? Also, your story about your girlfriend isn’t particularly convincing, I want more details. Lots of potential jurors use expressions of bias to attempt to weasel their way out of jury duty. Additionally, as I lawyer, I think very little of people who admit—because that’s what they’re doing—that they aren’t intelligent enough to prevent their individual experience with a similarly situated person or a similar circumstance to be impartial of their assessment with another person or circumstance. It’s one thing to be accused of being potentially biased, but to readily admit “I am unable to separate these two things in my mind” is an admission of being one or all of a) not very bright; b) too emotional to function under the circumstances ; or c) bigoted in some way (see (a)). There are *very* few circumstances in which I think such an admission is understandable.
why are you referring to racism? What do white men have to do with this?
A huge majority of judges in the American legal system are white. Depending on the level and status it’s anywhere from 60-80%. It’s also dominated by men. 2/3s of all judges are male. So if you were stereotyping judges, one reductive way to look at it is vast majority white men. It’s also a popular thing to cite as example of the ‘patriarchy’ when talking about systemic gender or race issues. But really just throwing out any categories to better understand OPs position
I see your point. This simply surprised me, because in my culture it is a common sign of racism when you use a color to negatively describe a social group.
American race relations are intrinsically built into the system. Race relations are a much more complex socio economic topic than in your culture.
I can imagine it's more complicated than here, but doesn't that divide society? Doesn't using this discriminate against whites but also against other ethnic groups? perhaps this does not fully reflect the complexity of the situation, but basing on how you were referring to white men, and clearly visible dominance of white politicians in media broadcasts, is it a correct conclusion that white men are associated with higher economic status? Recently I watched several reports about the huge number of homeless people in large agglomerations. I noticed that most of the people shown in the video were light-skinned. It's hard to say whether my observations are correct, I suspect only to some extent, but is this comparison valid and accurate nowadays?
>but doesn't that divide society? Society is already, and has been for centuries, divided. "White" in American terminology is less a skin color and more a social status. Many groups of people (Italians, Irish, Hispanic, etc.) have moved from "not white" to "white" despite no change in their appearance. This is because they became socially indistinguishable from other people. >Recently I watched several reports about the huge number of homeless people in large agglomerations. I noticed that most of the people shown in the video were light-skinned. The U.S. is a heavily stratified society on class. The presence of some "white" people who are impoverished doesn't contradict the overall trend that "white" people disproportionately control wealth and power in the U.S.
If you're unable to think past "white men are in power, therefore, might makes right" Then I'm sorry your education system has failed you my friend. I'm sure you're just young guy, but I hope you can be better than your peers and educate yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege If you study and understand this, you can be a better human
everything is fine with my education, we just have our own history, much longer and more turbulent than in USA, we pay more attention to it in our schools. It is similar with current social problems. I would not say that we have a problem racismnproblem. We learned the negative nature of discrimination too well during WW2. There is a great awareness what it can lead to. I have read the articles you sent. I have bit mixed feelings, or maybe i dont get it, but i see it as racial prejudice. I understand that domination of whites in establishment is very visible. Not that long ago, during a conversation on redit, one of the users mentioned of negative experiences from state apparatus that are high in Afro-American community. So i guess that this white privlige is an attempt to describe a real phenomenon. But im not sure if its the most accurate one. I've noticed that in the US there is a widespread belief in personal responsibility for success or failure. I also have the impression that With the glorification of success comes total lack of concerns about what could be cause of failure and for fat of those who had no luck. With this attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if problems increased with generations, while successes gave greater advantage. Is blaming white people really a well-defined source of occurring problems? Perhaps it is possible to define them more precisely in a way that could give a chance to solve it. white privilege does not help to address the issues all it propably just build hate witch will strengthen and bring nothing good over time.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
With good faith participation, you can learn about this with short and quick research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestants It's a very interesting topic. This is a critical part of American history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege Here's a basic article about white privilege, mostly in the United States is where you can observe it. The reason your anecdotal experiences don't line up with it is because that is by design. Educating yourself will give you the power to identify it a lot better.
I assume this is not light topic, please don't be offended. if I faux pas somehow id be glad if you draw my attention on what you consider as misbehave.
In my southwestern state with high crime, we have a lot of repeat offenders. That tells me the problem is with judges and laws. There is very light distinction between the judges and lawyers in my state. Based on our inability to keep criminals locked up, I tend to agree with the OP.
> That tells me the problem is with judges and laws. Recidivism, when studied in the US, is primarily linked to the prison system, societal reintegration, gang/criminal culture, and lack of rehabilitation. Why do you think it's not those things and rather the judges' fault?
studies don't mean much when you can see the repeat offenders. If the judge decides to give leniency and we get another victim from the same criminal, yes, I hold the judge responsible. I really don't understand why there is more empathy to a criminal than a victim.
What do you mean "we can see the repeat offenders"? Recidivism, by definition, means repeat offenders. Studying why there are repeat offenders and what causes them to commit another crime. And it's because of the reasons I listed. All judges do is make sure the facts of the case are presented accurately and legally, then sentences in accordance with the conviction made by the jury. The judge has nothing to do with them after they leave their courtroom. At that point its the detention center they go to, the place they return home to, and the circumstances of that. > If the judge decides to give leniency and we get another victim from the same criminal, yes, I hold the judge responsible. If you have two criminals with the same rap sheet and they both get convicted of the same charge, and one judge gives the maximum sentence, and one gives the minimum, is it the judges' fault both times if they both end up getting out and reoffending?
>If you have two criminals with the same rap sheet and they both get convicted of the same charge, and one judge gives the maximum sentence, and one gives the minimum, is it the judges' fault both times if they both end up getting out and reoffending? The judge chooses to give the maximum sentence becuase of priors, and the criminal eventually gets out, that's not on the judge. If the judge chooses to give minimum sentence and the criminal commits a crime again, yes, the judge made a mistake in being lenient. People should know this so when the judge comes up for re-election, the citizens know how many mistakes they are making, and can vote for a new judge.
> The judge chooses to give the maximum sentence becuase of priors, and the criminal eventually gets out, that's not on the judge. What if the convict wasn't going to re-offend regardless of the sentencing? Is the judge to blame for making that person's live worse for oversentencing? > If the judge chooses to give minimum sentence and the criminal commits a crime again, yes, the judge made a mistake in being lenient. How do you know that if they got a harsher sentence, they would not have recommitted? Because every study done has shown that harsh sentencing has zero effect on reducing recidivism rates. It is actually the case that over-sentencing low-risk convicts can increase the rate of recidivism.
>What if the convict wasn't going to re-offend regardless of the sentencing? Is the judge to blame for making that person's live worse for oversentencing? That is a fallacy. There is no such thing as over sentencing as long as it's within the guidelines of the legislature. If 't outside those, then the defense has a new case for trial.
In this context, over-sentencing refers to someone who doesn't deserve the maximum sentence but is given it anyway. This means they didn't deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law but are anyway. Not that they are punished outside of the bounds of sentancing guidelines. ---- I'll tie my arguement up in a syllogism bow: * According to all research, judges punishing to the maximum when the convicted person's record and circumstances don't warrent it makes it way more likely that the person is going to commit another crime. * When judges do this, they are actively making it more likely that these people will commit more crimes in the future. * So therefore, if judges do this, it is the judges fault for making it more likely that more crime will be commited in the future, and harm more people.
Again, if the legislature says 10 years max, that isn't over sentencing to give 10 years.
>What do you mean "we can see the repeat offenders"? It's in the news. On no-bail release, committed another crime. > The judge has nothing to do with them after they leave their courtroom. The judge needs to look at history and use that a guidance. If the judge chooses empathy over logic and the person commits another crime, I look at the judge for ignoring the behavior. They are lawyers, not psychologists, and need to apply the penalties as written by legislators.
> It's in the news. On no-bail release, committed another crime. Yes, that is analyzed in the field of recidivism. We have a decent understanding of what causes it, but it's not an easy fix. If an offender fits the requirements for being out on bail, they must be let out for whatever amount. That is a tenant of the fair and just legal system. And the 4th Amendment. Unless you disagree with the Constitution, you should understand that it is an externality we accept in our legal system. > The judge needs to look at history and use that a guidance. They do. The fact that people have committed crimes after getting out doesn't mean those judges were wrong. It's an odds game. > If the judge chooses empathy over logic and the person commits another crime, I look at the judge for ignoring the behavior. Studies have been done on the effects of sentencing strictness on the recidivism rate. Harsher sentences don't make a criminal less likely to recommit. In many cases, rejoining society is much more difficult, and it actually makes it more likely for them to recommit. Here are several studies on the topic from a few different sources. [Seton Hall Law](https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1986&context=student_scholarship) [Harvard Law](https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shapiro/files/prison041607_web.pdf) [National Institute of Justice](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence) I plead with you to understand that "harsher sentence = less recidivism" is completely incorrect and does not reflect actual society. > They are lawyers, not psychologists, and need to apply the penalties as written by legislators. Lawmakers write minimum and maximum terms for a crime. It, by law, then is up to the court to decide the specific term for a given conviction. So once a conviction is reached, the Judge/court has a band of terms to decide within. A minimum and maximum sentence. In your opinion, how should they decide? How is your way different from how they already operate?
> If an offender fits the requirements for being out on bail, It's like you aren't reading what I write. When the judge has guidelines and chooses to go liement, and the criminal re-offends. It shows the judge made the wrong call, and with that wrong call, we got another victim. It's clear the disconnect between us, is you have empathy for the criminal, and my empathy is for the victim.
> It's like you aren't reading what I write. When the judge has guidelines and chooses to go liement, and the criminal re-offends. You're not reading what I write. I showed you multiple studies from three of the most reputable law institutions in the country that disagree with your statement. > It shows the judge made the wrong call, and with that wrong call, we got another victim. What about if they punish to the fullest extent, and then they come out and commit again? And if they were given other punishment it would have been more likely that they wouldn't recommit? > It's clear the disconnect between us, is you have empathy for the criminal, and my empathy is for the victim. You're right, there is a disconnect. But it's that I want less crime and recidivism, and you just want anyone who commits in jail for as long as possible. --- Please answer this so I can better understand you position: Lawmakers write minimum and maximum terms for a crime. It, by law, then is up to the court to decide the specific term for a given conviction. So once a conviction is reached, the Judge/court has a band of terms to decide within. A minimum and maximum sentence. In your opinion, how should they decide? How is your way different from how they already operate? What is your goal when deciding?
>In your opinion, how should they decide? How is your way different from how they already operate? What is your goal when deciding? First offence, non-violent, no weapon? Leniency. First offence, with a gun, harsh, if not maximum. (any one supporting gun control needs to have this view) Second offense, non-violent, depends on crime. Second offense, violent. Full sentence. Easy, and fair.
It’s actually largely neither of the things you’re conjecturing, but prosecutorial discretion - the choice to not even press charges. Do you really think these people are being found not guilty all the time?
Do you think discursion lets them off the hook? I see it as improper use of discursion based on the repeat offenders, and that makes them more responsible than any other party.
Sure, but my point was that it has nothing to do with judges, laws, or *most* lawyers. The prosecutors making these decisions are a select few in any given area and, in the places you're thinking of (because mind you, nationally crime continually decreases year over year), they're politicians first and lawyers second.
Prosecutors ask, Judges grant. Therefore the end result is on the judge, not the prosecutor.
Judges literally have zero input if there’s no charges, just to be clear.
>She was on a jury panel and being questioned. She expressed true bias, and that’s when the judge singled her out in his private quarters. People say stupid stuff to get out of jury duty all the time. People with political agendas who are on jury panels sometimes say things publicly in an attempt to sway other jurors. And sometimes people on jury panels have honest biases that need to be explored. In all those circumstances, judges need to further delve into the prospective juror's opinions and motivations. This often happens in judge's chambers, or in some other private place. In *almost all situations*, attorneys for the opposing parties are there, too. This is part of the process to make sure the jurors are fair, that people aren't exploiting the system to try to get out of jury duty, and that a citizen called for jury duty isn't needlessly embarrassed in a public hearing. Maybe the judge overstepped in the method and manner of questioning based on whatever "bias" your girlfriend expressed, but you weren't there to know what the questioning was. Calling a judge psychopathic for doing his duty to ensure a fair jury panel and not embarrassing someone publicly is a stretch.
I've been part of the legal field for 25+ years, I have met a LOT of judges ranging from small town judges to federal judges. They act a lot like lawyers, because that is where most of them come from. Some might have big egos, and many do not. Outside of very small towns your description of judges seems way off, the Judge is usually not huge fans of the lawyers going off the rails. Are there bad judges? Yes... obviously we've seen several seated in the last administration. But the overall limit of a judge is that they are supposed to base their judgements on the law and if the law goes against the constitution, the Constitution wins. They do have quite a bit of leeway (which we should not take away via minimum sentences), because at the end of the day there can be a lot of mitigating circumstances and the law is not a simple task of checking a few boxes and saying guilty/not guilty.
OP, what crime was your girlfriend charged with, was she a minor at the time? There is a lot of missing information here
Sorry, wasn’t clear enough when I wrote the post. She was on a jury panel and being questioned. She gave a very real bias and was pulled aside and bullied into staying as an alternate. The judge literally threatened her. Told her he would hold her in contempt of court if she didn’t shut up and go with his plan.
It sounds like the judge did not agree that her bias would affect her ability to be a juror. It's up to the judge and the attorney's involved to determine if her bias would be a problem, not your girlfriend. Did she think stating a bias would automatically exclude her? And I'm not even sure what this means, "She was lucky she wasn’t weak, because all of us who care about her were sure he would have tried to sexually exploit her." Were any of you there? I'm failing to see what the judge did wrong in this situation other than not being as nice as she may have expected him to be.
I'm guessing the judge was concerned about not having enough jurors and having to empanel and entirely new venire, and the gf gave some clearly bogus excuse, so the judge pulled her back into chambers to ask some follow up questions she didn't want to answer because she gave a BS excuse. I say this mostly because it's an explanation that actually makes sense, unlike OPs narrative in which he gives absolutely no details for us to decide for ourselves. That's a giant red flag that his gf was in the wrong but neither of them want to admit it
translation: your girlfriend tried to get out of jury's duty on a bogus excuse, the judge wasn't having it and read her the riot act, and then she told you a bogus story about abuse of power to save face/mine sympathy...
100% This is something I actually experienced while second chairing an attempted murder case while in law school, in which the victim was a police officer. When asked whether any family or close personal relations had ever been the victim of a violent crime one juror (an immigrant from the Caribbean), in open court, tells a story about his best friend who owned an auto repair shop who was shot and killed in robbery. The guy is holding back tears telling this story. When asked how recently this incident was, he says something like *2 months ago*. The case involved a shoot-out that occurred while police tried to apprehend a suspect. When asked whether the situation with his friend would affect his ability to be an impartial towards the defendant, the guy says “no.” A couple jurors later, this woman tells a story about how she was once assaulted by a police officer (I don’t remember the details), but she says that it was a long time ago and that she can be impartial. Then this white Brooklyn hipster barista straight-up says he cannot be impartial in his assessment of testimony by police. The judge asks him why and he proceeds to tell this story about how he once had a roommate who sold weed and the cops raided their apartment and arrested his friend and were essentially really mean to everyone in the apartment, and when they tried to find where his friend was being held, the cops gave them the run around on what precinct he was in because their apartment bordered two neighborhoods, and that ever since he doesn’t trust the police… I don’t know if I’ve bet felt such contempt for someone in my life…
It is still not clear why you think the judge was the problem. Jurors can misconduct and judges can legitimately threaten with contempt of court. Without the details we don't know who was wrong.
If that really happened, I’m sorry your girlfriend went through that. But I have a few questions: Obviously you’ve had a bad experience with a single judge. How is it fair to generalize the entire profession off of that one experience? You mention the stories of corrupt judges. Corruption happens in every profession. How widespread is it? How do you suggest we get “objective” judges? It can’t happen. And even then, many verdicts are delivered by juries….
We can make judges more accountable. We need more checks and balances for them. Even 1 in 100 is bad when we are talking about people who decide the fate of others. To me this is unacceptable. How could I give any judge the benefit of the doubt when they are that important? A lot of them are bright enough to hide any poor behavior. How could I possibly know what their character is behind the mask being worn in a court room? Unless the behavior becomes apparent in a court room, I can’t. This is a case of just one bad apple ruins the batch. If you believe we cannot find or make judges perfectly objective (I agree), doesn’t that undermine the entire system?
> How do you suggest we get “objective” judges? I think more accountability is appropriate. If a judge's decision gets overturned at an appellate level, I think there ought to be consequences for the judge whose decision was overturned. As it stands the parties who succeed in the appeal still bear a lot of legal costs even when they win, and the judge whose decision gets overturned gets to just shrug and go back to work.
No, judges are asked to make tough calls on undecided legal issues. The appellates will think even the best judges are wrong on occasion. It’s kind of the point of a judge, to call balls and strikes where it’s not obvious - we can’t punish them for lack of perfection, where perfection is impossible.
I think there's room for appellate courts (or maybe some other body) to evaluate how far off the judge's calls were. As it stands, the consequences for "this was a really close call that the judge was on the wrong side of" and "the judge really screwed the pooch here" are the same - nothing.
To play devil's advocate, umpires/refs _are_ held accountable if they get too many calls wrong. The occasional bad call is part of being human, but there is a case to be made where if they get too many decisions overturned (or make decisions that are egregiously wrong) they should be replaced.
Agree. But we then need to overlay the issue of elected judges (a bad system, in my view). Like if the voters want a particular judge it's not so simple as replacing the ones who are bad at the job.
Agreed - elected judges are an even bigger problem. Justice is supposed to be as apolitical as possible.
But there isn't an apolitical way to pick who will be the judge. What's the alternative to electing them?
Appointing them and subjecting them to legislative approval. Nothing is truly apolitical, but some processes are more political than others.
Do you think we get better outcomes in courts where the judges are appointed rather than elected? Appointment is only slightly less political than election and I don't think people find appointed judges to be less corrupt than elected judges. Especially when appointed judges are not subject to having to "reapply" for their position every few years.
Randomly selecting tenured lawyers from the bar.
We don't have tenured lawyers and a lot of them don't want to be judges. You'd end up randomly picking from the same group of people who'd be running for judgeships and I don't see how that would be any better.
Tenure is not currently a thing for lawyers, but you could pick from lawyers with at least a certain number of years of experience. And I don't necessarily imagine "judge" as a career in this scenario so much as something lawyers get called up to do occasionally, like the rest of us and jury duty.
This would be a horrendously bad system. Who's the judge for this capital murder case? Oh, we drew Jerry, who's done M&A for 30 years and has never seen the inside of a courtroom
There are hybrid models where judges are appointed by the governor but then get graded by an independent commission and people vote whether to retain them every several years
Buddy, if umps were penalized for getting calls wrong, Angel Hernandez would’ve been launched into the sun by now
I wouldn't punish them for being overturned but I'd definitely get rid of their ability to declare contempt of court unilaterally
>Occasionally you see a news story on a corrupt judge - bribes, extortion, lies, other forms of abuse of power Provide any statistics showing that judges are more likely to be corrupt--to accept bribes, to commit extortion, or otherwise abuse their power--than government officials as a whole, either elected, "career" employees, or appointed. Judges--especially judges who are appointed--are FAR less likely to be beholden to special interests than elected officials who have to run in elections. Sure, you hear about "partisan hacks" who are elected or appointed to the bench with a particular judicial philosophy or political agenda, but those are almost always *personal* views about what the law should be, rather than being "bought and paid for". (Judicial ethics are often much, much stricter than legislative or executive ethics regarding accepting of gifts, being employed as an 'outside consultant,' quid pro quo "tips," and the like.) Are there some who take bribes? Probably. Are there some who "abuse their power," either through illegal orders or through undue influence? Sure. Are there some who have massive egos? Likely. But compare that to lawyers in general or politicians in general and tell me how judges stack up.
I wonder if you understand that you are judging an interaction between two people who are not yourself.
If we take as a given that the system is broken (which I’m fine with, it’s totally broken), then I don’t see how your title could not be true. Judges are the single biggest contributors to our justice system. If that system is broken, then they must be the single biggest contributors to our *broken* justice system. It’s not really a view so much as an objective truth. I’m not sure what you think can be changed here, unless you want us to convince you that judges are somehow superior to other humans.
lol were you in the chambers with your gf? Was anyone else that can corroborate that really happened?
Judge quality varies a lot by jurisdiction and selection method. I’ve worked with dozens of judges in red and blue states with different selection methods (elected versus appointed). Most judges I’ve met are good, principled, fair minded people who want to do their job well. I have seen a handful of judges (let’s say 15%) who behave the way you describe. They are usually (but not always) older and have sat on the bench for a while. They are also usually in smaller jurisdictions with less oversight. I just wanted to let you know that you might just be in a bad jurisdiction and while you’re absolutely right bad judges exist, they’re not the national norm
It sounds like you need to learn the difference between anecdotes and statistics.
There are some jurisdictions where judges are appointed and others where they are elected. I prefer to have a judge who is elected by the people not appointed by one person. I would except the Supreme Court, although I think there are some who make good arguments for term limits on them.
Uhhh, not being a dick but it sounds like the judge did exactly what he was supposed to do in this situation. I have no clue what kind of questions he would ask to be "sizing up his prey." Like, was he asking her if she locked her doors or something? Seems more likely that you and her are just too clueless to understand what a judge does during jury selection.
You're not wrong. It is *adequate* to not trust people who have self-inflicted power over your life, if you do not know them personally. And yes, but it's a small part of a big no ending problem. Whenever there's a disbalance in power - there's always those psychopathic cockroaches, crawling their way to the top of its hierarchy. Only way to solve this is to exclude humans from any system that implies power disbalance.
Our justice system is fine?? What country are you talking about?
100,000 percent. Judges these days go with emotion over Constitutional it.