Should Judge be held responsible? - GoFuckYourself.com

pocketkangaroo · 03-16-2006, 04:52 PM

This comes from the huge child porn bust we saw the other day. It's a local story but one of the guys who got busted and is discussed in this story:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/...kidporn16.html

Well this guy fought hard to win custody of this kid awhile back. Hired a high priced attorney and essentially crushed the mother in court by portraying her as an unfit mother (she was poor, couldn't get good legal).

Either way, should judges be held responsible for these decisions? Should they not be suspended, fired, put in jail? Seems I turn on the news everyday and notice a kid being abused, molested, etc by a judge who gave custody, let a guy out early, or didn't put a harsh punishment on a child molester.

Libertine · 03-16-2006, 04:58 PM

Of course they shouldn't. A judge can only go by the evidence presented to him or her, the applicable laws and existing legal precedents. Most judges are not clairvoyant, and thus lack the ability to see the future effects of their rulings.

After Shock Media · 03-16-2006, 05:01 PM

I am despretly trying to see your point though I can not wrap my brain around something so illogical.

To answer the question, no I do not think judges need to be held responsible. They follow set rules and guidelines, they are also human and fallible like everyone else. It is their duty to interpret the law and ensure both sides get a fair trial. One can never really look into someone and know for a fact what they may or may not do in the future.

If anything I would like to see some of the original power judges once had restored. This meaning of course removal of all mandatory minimums that tie the hands of judges.

minusonebit · 03-16-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

I am despretly trying to see your point though I can not wrap my brain around something so illogical.

To answer the question, no I do not think judges need to be held responsible. They follow set rules and guidelines, they are also human and fallible like everyone else. It is their duty to interpret the law and ensure both sides get a fair trial. One can never really look into someone and know for a fact what they may or may not do in the future.

If anything I would like to see some of the original power judges once had restored. This meaning of course removal of all mandatory minimums that tie the hands of judges.

Oh my, someone else who has a clue. Sure dont see that very often.

If you dont like what a judge does from the bench, vote him/her/it out or go through the process of having him removed. Judges cant tell whats going to happen in the future any moreso than you or I.

Only in cases of (very) gross negligence should a judge be punished for the outcome after his ruling, and then only in cases where it was clear and evident that the judge ignored multiple warning signs that any ordinary person should have picked up on.

GlydeGirl · 03-16-2006, 05:49 PM

A judge's job isn't to punish people based on potential future crimes, their job is to rule on previous proven crimes. What should happen is that people who are convicted of crimes should get some REAL TREATMENT so that when they complete their sentences, they stop committing crimes. Jail should be a place where criminals are transformed into productive citizens.

03-16-2006, 04:52 PM	#1
pocketkangaroo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 8,452	Should Judge be held responsible? This comes from the huge child porn bust we saw the other day. It's a local story but one of the guys who got busted and is discussed in this story: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/...kidporn16.html Well this guy fought hard to win custody of this kid awhile back. Hired a high priced attorney and essentially crushed the mother in court by portraying her as an unfit mother (she was poor, couldn't get good legal). Either way, should judges be held responsible for these decisions? Should they not be suspended, fired, put in jail? Seems I turn on the news everyday and notice a kid being abused, molested, etc by a judge who gave custody, let a guy out early, or didn't put a harsh punishment on a child molester.

03-16-2006, 04:58 PM	#2
Libertine sex dwarf Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 17,860	Of course they shouldn't. A judge can only go by the evidence presented to him or her, the applicable laws and existing legal precedents. Most judges are not clairvoyant, and thus lack the ability to see the future effects of their rulings. __________________ /(bb\|[^b]{2})/

03-16-2006, 05:01 PM	#3
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	I am despretly trying to see your point though I can not wrap my brain around something so illogical. To answer the question, no I do not think judges need to be held responsible. They follow set rules and guidelines, they are also human and fallible like everyone else. It is their duty to interpret the law and ensure both sides get a fair trial. One can never really look into someone and know for a fact what they may or may not do in the future. If anything I would like to see some of the original power judges once had restored. This meaning of course removal of all mandatory minimums that tie the hands of judges. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

03-16-2006, 05:49 PM	#5
GlydeGirl Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,516	A judge's job isn't to punish people based on potential future crimes, their job is to rule on previous proven crimes. What should happen is that people who are convicted of crimes should get some REAL TREATMENT so that when they complete their sentences, they stop committing crimes. Jail should be a place where criminals are transformed into productive citizens.