Liberal attitude toward due process

[Guest]

Liberals blasé attitude toward judicial impeachment and victim impact statements in the Turner case, then, must be viewed as part of a larger trend: the willingness among a certain faction of the American left to jettison progressive principles in a good-hearted but profoundly misguided effort to stop sexual violence. That is a noble cause, but it cannot justify unraveling the most cherished safeguards of our criminal justice system. What Brock Turner did was sickening; what he received as punishment is far less than what he deserved. But eroding due process and threatening judicial independence is not the way to bring his victim justice.

Source

 

A lot of good points about victim impact statements, and judicial impeachment, and the liberal stance that is increasingly against due process.

 

In other cases, people are questioning why a US citizen was legally able to buy guns after being investigated by the FBI, which is another stance that includes the destruction of due process. Despite current liberal belief, we don't take away someone's liberty just because someone thinks that maybe they did something bad or might do something bad in the future.

[Poe Dameron]

For what it's worth, attacking judges for lenient sentences isn't exclusively a leftist thing. I know Bill O'Reilly has made it a mission to drum up a few public outcries to remove a judge on that basis. Though I've always considered O'Reilly a weird populist/conservative hybrid.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

For what it's worth, attacking judges for lenient sentences isn't exclusively a leftist thing. I know Bill O'Reilly has made it a mission to drum up a few public outcries to remove a judge on that basis. Though I've always considered O'Reilly a weird populist/conservative hybrid.

Nor is publicly criticizing (or shaming?) judges who habitually hand down too lenient a sentence for criminals who deserve more a bad thing, and I don't see how that violates due process in most cases. That is assuming the trial is already over, defendant is guilty, and it is a case where the judge is showing a bias, when sentencing. I think a judge shouldn't necessarily be bound by mandatory sentencing, and should have some leeway to sentence differently (within the law), as those convicted deserve. For example, an otherwise law abiding young kid who makes a dumb mistake shouldn't be sentenced the same as a habitual criminal. But I think when a judge has a particular bias, and sentences too lightly based on that bias, they should be called out.

[Poe Dameron]

In some ways I agree. In other ways, you've got to be really careful about politicizing sentencing. Especially these days when our politics tend to be more mob rule by motivated and empowered fringe groups than actual thought.

[Guest]

 

For what it's worth, attacking judges for lenient sentences isn't exclusively a leftist thing.

Nor is publicly criticizing (or shaming?) judges who habitually hand down too lenient a sentence for criminals who deserve more a bad thing, and I don't see how that violates due process in most cases.

 

It isn't exclusively a leftist thing, and that's rather the point: it has, more recently, been an activity that's been more on the right. Now the left is jumping on the bandwagon in a big way.

 

I would argue that it violates due process in two ways: victim statements are designed to make the sentencing hearing an emotional matter rather than a legal matter.

 

Also, when a judge has to fear the mob rather than making the decisions that are based on the case being presented, that destroys the ability of the court to do their job.

 

It basically turns into the lay person, while grabbing their digital pitchforks, saying that they know more about the law, punishment and rehabilitation than a judge. And, for most of us, that is nowhere near the case. You might know more in specific cases, like I've had to educate a judge and lawyers on insurance law, but for the most part, they are the experts. Certainly not the mob.

[Poe Dameron]

 

 

I would argue that it violates due process in two ways: victim statements are designed to make the sentencing hearing an emotional matter rather than a legal matter.

 

I really don't have a problem with that. It's not just emotional, it's showing the judge the consequences of the crime that was committed. And the convicted has an opportunity to sway the judge to mitigate the punishment as well.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

I have to agree with you on your two points, Fozzie.

 

This idea that the law is some unemotional, cold, unfeeling, and completely and purely logical set of infallible rules created by unfeeling robots where the human equation doesn't even factor in is just, well, ridiculous. Laws are created by humans. Emotional, feeling, flawed humans. Honestly, laws are just rules humans agree upon to govern their general behavior in a given society. Also, it is a mechanism that takes personal vengeance out of the hands of individuals, and dubs it "justice," which is really a collective and limited measure of vengeance placed in the hands of the society in question. So, the very idea that victim input can't factor into a decision on sentencing, is a flawed argument. When a victim, or their survivors speak at sentencing, I think it is a very necessary process, that puts a face to those who have been wronged. Oftentimes, during the trial, the defendant is often portrayed as the victim, and those actually wronged are portrayed as the villain, by the defense attorney. During the process, the focus is all on the accused, and oftentimes, the victim is forgotten, or even vilified through sophestry. I think by letting victims and survivors of victims speak at sentencing allows for a focus to be put back on the victim, and reminds the judge how the crime committed has impacted the victim, and the victim's family/friends. Without that, you might as well have a slide rule that calculates a sentence. The law is more than that, and it ought to be.

 

 

Also, judges are elected officials. They are elected to do a job, which is to interpret law, and impose sentences. Except for SCOTUS, judges can be "hired and fired" just like everyone else. And as public officials, if people feel they aren't doing their job (IE imposing light sentences to undeserving career criminals), the people have the right to speak their minds. If people aren't happy with the job a particular judge, they have the right to get rid of them, and they do so by speaking out and making the public at large aware of what this judge is (or isn't) doing. That isn't "mob rule," that is civic duty. Just as much as if someone isn't happy with a representative, or a president. I'd much rather see people expressing their opinions about a judge on facebook, than taking to literal pitchforks and torches at midnight, at the steps of city hall.

[Poe Dameron]

 

 

Also, judges are elected officials. They are elected to do a job, which is to interpret law, and impose sentences. Except for SCOTUS, judges can be "hired and fired" just like everyone else.

 

This is not true. All Federal judges once they are confirmed "hold their offices during good behaviour" (Article III: Section 1). Which effectively translates to a lifetime appointment.

 

State and local judges are selected through a myriad of methods ranging from direct elections through independent commissions. Terms are variable as are term limits, whether they can be recalled, whether they will face the voters for retention, whether a potential election is partisan or nonpartisan (the judge's party affiliation shows up on the ballot), etc.

 

Some places judges are elected, sometimes the people have no direct say whatsoever. It depends on where you live and what court you're going to.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

OK, true. It is harder once you get to the federal level, but it isn't a lifetime appointment. Judges can be impeached, or removed through legislative address. If it can be demonstrated that they have done something improper, or have enough pressure put on elected officials to remove said judge, it can be done. Very difficult, but not impossible. Which, by the way, is all the more reason for people to voice their opinions!

 

As for local level judges, yes it depends on where you live, but more often than not, judges are elected, or appointed by elected officials. So there is at least an indirect say of the people.

[Guest]

Given that California has a method already set up to handle areas of judicial misconduct, I can't support the mob mentality. Especially for people who have zero connection to the state of California having a say.

 

And these people aren't just protesting:

 

Even worse, Persky has received anonymous threats from social justice advocates outraged by his ruling. These hecklers may believe their cause to be noble, but they are taking a page straight from Donald Trump’s playbook—not a good look for activists hoping to combat everything Trump stands for.

Also:

 

Victim impact statements introduce a massive amount of emotion into the proceedings, allowing the judge or jury to be swayed by emotional response rather than logical reflection. That, in turn, shifts the focus away from the defendant and toward the victim while injecting arbitrariness into the sentencing process. The defendant’s punishment may well hinge on how emotionally compelling the victim can make his or her statement.

The law is supposed to be blind, not emotional. Do emotions enter in? Sure. Should we embrace that? I say that if we are going to embrace it, let's be honest about it and do away with the legal system entirely and just let people get their own revenge for a crime.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

 

The law is supposed to be blind, not emotional. Do emotions enter in? Sure. Should we embrace that? I say that if we are going to embrace it, let's be honest about it and do away with the legal system entirely and just let people get their own revenge for a crime.

The law is intended to be blind, as in being impartial when it comes to determining guilt. Not stupid, nor deaf to the impact of what an already convicted criminal has done. When a criminal is convicted, their guilt has already been determined, and due process has already been executed. The sentencing phase is all about determining what should be done with said convict. When a judge is trying to decide what should be done, the defense automatically has the ability to argue for leniency. There is also a mechanism to keep said sentence from being cruel or unusual. There should be a counter balance to that argument, which is where the victim's own account of how that crime impacted them (or their survivor), for the judge to put in perspective the scope of the crime.

 

 

Given that California has a method already set up to handle areas of judicial misconduct, I can't support the mob mentality. Especially for people who have zero connection to the state of California having a say.

 

I agree that when it comes to this case for example, Californians should be the ones protesting Californian judges. Protesters from Maine should not be bused in to create a false sense of outcry and outrage, for example. Then again, it isn't illegal. As far as online criticism, that is purely free speech. Words are just words. If judges can't take criticism, they ought not be judges. And if their actions bring about criticism, and there is a case to be made they are impartial or doing something improper, they deserve said criticism and should be removed, when possible. That process starts with free speech. Sounds to me like you oppose free speech in this case.

[Poe Dameron]

 

 

The law is supposed to be blind, not emotional. Do emotions enter in? Sure. Should we embrace that? I say that if we are going to embrace it, let's be honest about it and do away with the legal system entirely and just let people get their own revenge for a crime.

 

Do you object to judges taking the convicted's level of remorse into account? The judge's subjective perception of the person's ability to be rehabilitated?

 

 

 

or removed through legislative address.

 

Impeachment is the only method for Federal judges directly. There are a few workarounds (Jefferson eliminated some court positions and simply kept others from opening) but those are even more controversial than impeachment, which is near impossible by itself.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

 

Do you object to judges taking the convicted's level of remorse into account? The judge's subjective perception of the person's ability to be rehabilitated?

No. I think that is relevant, AS A FACTOR of determining sentence, and should be handled case by case. Like I said earlier, if it was an otherwise law abiding young person, and they show true remorse, a judge should be allowed to factor that in. Of course, if it is a repeat, or serial murderer or rapist, how sorry can they be if they keep doing it?

 

 

 

Impeachment is the only method for Federal judges directly. There are a few workarounds (Jefferson eliminated some court positions and simply kept others from opening) but those are even more controversial than impeachment, which is near impossible by itself.

For local, there is judicial review, and legislative action for appointed judges.

[Poe Dameron]

 

 

For local, there is judicial review, and legislative action for appointed judges.

 

We were explicitly talking about Federal judges there. Please don't shift the topic.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

The original article is specifically referencing CA judges.

[Poe Dameron]

Oh for Pete's sake... Here's the conversation thread:

 

You:

 

Except for SCOTUS, judges can be "hired and fired" just like everyone else.

 

Me:

 

This is not true. All Federal judges once they are confirmed "hold their offices during good behaviour" (Article III: Section 1)

 

You:

 

OK, true. It is harder once you get to the federal level, but it isn't a lifetime appointment. Judges can be impeached, or removed through legislative address.

 

Me:

 

Impeachment is the only method for Federal judges directly.

 

You:

 

For local, there is judicial review, and legislative action for appointed judges.

 

Me:

 

We were explicitly talking about Federal judges there. Please don't shift the topic.

 

You:

 

The original article is specifically referencing CA judges.

 

You made a series of incorrect statements about the lifetime tenure of a Federal judicial appointments. You confirmed that you were talking about Federal judges each time. I corrected you each time also confirming that the this was in regards to Federal judges. Now you're trying to say that we were talking about state and local judges this whole time.

 

You could have just admitted that you were wrong and pivoted back to state and local judges.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

I was speaking about both the federal and local level. You are the one limiting it to federal.

 

But arguing over semantics as you are is exactly the type of deviation you were complaining about. Why don't you take your own advice and stick to the topic of judges, and those who protest them?

[Poe Dameron]

[Guest]

So now if anyone even stands up for the defense, they're attacked by the liberal mobs.