Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 121 posts

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#91

Post by SkyMarshal »

michaelmrose wrote: post #88

This is probably why 2 separate judges upheld a cops decision to arrest me for using bad language while walking away from officer that had been harassing me as I was walking home from work. The law in SC is literally that bad language on the public road is a crime. They ignored 2 pages of precedents.

>The law in SC is literally that bad language on the public road is a crime. They ignored 2 pages of precedents.

Not clear what you mean here. If the law is “literally” that bad language on the road is a crime, doesn’t that mean the 2 pages of precedents support it?

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#92

Post by roenxi »

alkonaut wrote: post #47

Are there many places that have elected judges? Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require qualifications”?

At heart, if the law is so complicated that only a trained professional can interpret it then it is unreasonable to ask people to follow the law. The people vote for the law so it isn't actually that obvious why their voice should then be abstracted away and filtered out from enforcing and interpreting the law.

I am certainly more comfortable formally restricting positions of power to the over-educated elite; although rather those with technical degrees over legal ones. But from that perspective it is clear to me why a polity might prefer not to have a legal degree as a requirement.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#93

Post by Teknoman117 »

t-writescode wrote: post #76
beagle3 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why elected rather than hired? It’s supposed to be a mostly scientific job with no agenda.

Prestige of being an elected office might draw more candidates to an otherwise undesirable job

I would argue that we'd be better off not electing the prestige seeking people. We want the best person for the job, not someone viewing high offices as a prize.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#94

Post by scottlocklin »

>Their ranks include a Greenville lawyer appointed to the bench after siphoning thousands of dollars from accounts he managed;

Yeah, OK, so they lead off with a guy who is actually a lawyer and did shady things.

I'll give another example: 3 (elected) judges with law degrees who got into a brawl involving pistols at a white castle: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/779339897/3-indiana-judges-su...

Here's another one: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/29/pneumatic_judge/

I don't care if a judge has a law degree. Most lawyers I've met in the US are functionally morons anyway. This is just dipshits with a certificate trying to protect their perquisites. I'd honestly rather a barber judge me in a trial than most lawyers, and anyone on here who is trying to make the law so godawful complex it needs an "expert" to interpret it, you're part of the problem.

While I'm dropping links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#95

Post by danielisaac »

lurquer wrote: post #60
danielisaac wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Criminal law is literally a set of statutes. Simply untrue in common law countries (e.g. the US). Criminal law is absolutely driven by judicial opinions and statutory interpretation. > In most states, the formal rules of evidence don't apply. This isn't about evidence. It's about interpreting many doctrines that vary wildly between states. A single statute (re: defenses, attempt, conspiracy, the requisite mens rea…

You are clearly not a lawyer. Stay within your own lane. South Carolina magistrates handle minor criminal cases where the fine can't exceed $350 or 30 days in jail. Their jurisdiction in civil cases extends to matters involving less that $7500. As noted, if you disagree with the judgment, you get a brand new trial before the elected circuit court judge. There are no convoluted legal mysteries involving whether a tena…

This is my lane.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#96

Post by roenxi »

michaelmrose wrote: post #30
SamReidHughes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is by construction a partisan process, with the outcome matching politics of the median lawyer, instead of the median voter.

You want medical practice dispensed by the median doctor not the median patient. The median voter already sits on juries.

But the only similarity between a judge and a doctor is they both traditionally require degrees. If we accept that a judge doesn't need a degree then there is no comparison to a doctor. Ie, that is probably a form of circular reasoning.

Degrees might be a reasonable proxy for general intelligence which is nice to have in a judge, but so is popular support. We already let any fool off the street write the law, they should also be qualified to interpret the law.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#97

Post by Mathnerd314 »

I've often wondered why they don't teach the law in grade school or high school, since it is (in theory) supposed to be known and followed by everyone. The best answer I have so far is that education is in the public sector too so it's subject to similar problems with lack of training and inflexibility.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#98

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

roenxi wrote: post #92
alkonaut wrote: post #47

Are there many places that have elected judges? Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require qualifications”?

At heart, if the law is so complicated that only a trained professional can interpret it then it is unreasonable to ask people to follow the law. The people vote for the law so it isn't actually that obvious why their voice should then be abstracted away and filtered out from enforcing and interpreting the law. I am certainly more comfortable formally restricting positions of power to the over-educated elite; althoug…

This is like expecting physics, engineering, or medicine to be simple.

Law is inherently complex - partly by design, partly because of politics, but also because law is based on established concepts that are non-trivial.

Even a supposedly simple concept like "guilty" includes shades of culpability that an untrained view won't appreciate. This has a direct and very obvious effect on the level of fairness and justice available in the legal system.

So no - generally you do not want untrained people making important decisions about other people's lives. Ideally you want people with wisdom, maturity, and strong personal integrity making those decisions. If that's not available - it often isn't - then a professional knowledge of precedent and case law is the next best thing.

Lawyers are only over-educated in the sense that law is also about manipulating juries, judges, and other lawyers through drama, rhetoric, and grandstanding.

Essentially you can win a case by putting on a good show rather than winning on facts and substance. And that's not a good thing, because it has no relationship to justice.

Without that element - or at least with much less of it - lawyers would have to work harder, but the results would be fairer.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#99

Post by lisper »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #90
lisper wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jumping? I'm not jumping, I'm applying the principle that people who have influence over the application of the law should have some training. If judges need special training, why not legislators? And if both judges and legislators need special training, why not citizens? Note that we already do apply this principle to naturalized citizens! It is only people who acquired their citizenship by birth who never need to s…

There is nothing "logical" about your extending the idea that judges should not have to have legal training before sentencing people to jail. Not to mention, legislators are kept in check by another branch of government which can strike down laws created by legislature. The indigent and commoners hauled before these magistrates are granted no such meaningful review.

Not so. Judges can be impeached by the legislature and recalled by the voters. And there are appeals.

BTW, one of the reasons things are the way they are is that the "indigent and commoners" don't necessarily believe they'll get a fairer shake from someone who has a JD from Harvard than someone who doesn't.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#100

Post by mnm1 »

How is this different than being judged by a drunk king based on his whims? It's not at all. So what happened to rule by law? How does such a system exist? How does it have supporters? This is perplexing. Sure justice is not valued at all in American culture but do south Carolinians not care at all about justice or having a civil society? It is beyond appalling to give stupid idiots (and there's no kinder way to describe someone with no legal training acting as a judge) power over others based on whatever they feel like doing since there is no legal framework in place.

In such a system where one randomly gets punished without any evidence of a crime being committed, why should one not turn around and assault or even kill the judge? After all in a society without laws, without morality, and without even common sense like south Carolina, that shouldn't even be a problem. It's just savages vs. savages once you get to this point. Why would anyone act ethically in such a horrific situation?

Post reply on HN