Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench • Hacker News Board

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#151

Post by pessimizer » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 11:19 PM UTC

Invictus0 wrote: post #102

alexashka wrote: post #70

This article is depressing. What I find troubling is not only what's in the article, but what's left out. There is no call to action, there is no information provided as to what a reader can do, to help fix this disaster. It leaves you feeling deflated, because now what? Now you go about the rest of your day with this burden of knowledge. This is very common with these types of stories - it's not enough to complain,…

Reuters is just a newswire agency: it just does research and provides the facts. Downstream news outlets like Fox and NBC are the ones that will put the spin on it, and boutique outfits like commondreams and Mother Jones will give you the call to action if they cover it. The problem with Mother Jones and publications like it is that they have a pretty strong slant (they are trying to persuade you, not inform you) and…

> Reuters is just a newswire agency: it just does research and provides the facts.

Reuters isn't some neutral-fact agency. Reuters does tons of editorial, and has an overall editorial slant, but its customers are news outlets, not readers. Articles written from vague perspectives can run in a wider variety of publications.

What you're reading here is highly editorial (though I like it.) Reuters is choosing to report on an issue that could be interesting to people by highlighting a few individual stories of lesser appeal. They could have not covered this and covered anything else (there was no "news" event.) They could have taken the position that too many judges had been removed from the bench, implying that there was a bias against judges. The reporter made a journalistic choice to investigate the crimes of judges. The reporter then made the editorial choices to report it though these particular examples, and to highlight criminal judges still serving rather than criminal judges that have been removed, or even the relatively low crime rates in judges as a demographic as compared to many other demographics. Reuters then made the editorial choice to publish the piece - which may have been preceded by sending it back with suggestions to change previous editorial choices, or maybe even handing it off to another journalist to finish.

The idea that there are neutral fact-delivering voices of god somewhere is destructive, and easily taken advantage of by the people who own these voices of god. The Moonies bought UPI.

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#152

Post by thex10 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 11:21 PM UTC

logicchop wrote: post #121

lmkg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fine with a broad range of judicial discretion. Human judgement is a necessary part of the judicial system. I am not fine with someone being sentenced and jailed for a crime they were not found guilty of, which is what you're describing. That's an abuse of power and a deprivation of due process.

I am not replying to disagree with the spirit of your comment. I just think you should be a bit more careful thinking about it. Obviously she was not jailed for a crime she didn't commit and wasn't convicted of; she was jailed for a crime she did commit and was convicted of. The question is psychological though, about whether the sentencing decision, within the in murky realm of discretion, was based purely on facts…

> [...] imagine a case where there is absolutely compelling grounds for thinking that [...]

FYI the system which we are discussing does not entertain such a notion. Or else we wouldn't need or bother with juries, whose main job is to deliberate and argue over whether presented evidence is compelling enough to remove any possibility of doubt.

> So given the legal "room" to hand down a harsher-than-would-otherwise-be sentence for some separate offense, that doesn't strike me as totally inappropriate or out of line with our expectations about what judges should do

I... _wildly_ disagree with this. Not that my disagreement here should matter much – surely the justice/legal system has its own expectations here, that would trump yours or mine?

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#153

Post by godzillabrennus » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 11:22 PM UTC

wang_li wrote: post #148

godzillabrennus wrote: post #145

I mentored a convicted felon through Defy Ventures a few years ago. He had a wonderful idea for an app. Something that stuck with me for the last few years. Why isn’t there a yelp for the public sector including the judicial system? Every day you walk into a court room how do you know what to expect? If you are suddenly in front of a judge that decides your life’s fate wouldn’t you want to pull up historical data tha…

It would turn into what every review system on the web is: a place to get petty revenge. Make people use their real identity and have criminal liability for lies of commission and omission, then you might have something. But probably just one more mechanism for idiots to go to jail.

You could do drop down answers to rate officials instead of free form text. Don’t know how it would work for verifying a real identity. Maybe require Moderation and only licensed lawyers can approve a new user?

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#154

Post by FpUser » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 11:32 PM UTC

logicchop wrote: post #122

FpUser wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Just prohibit jailing people for being too poor to paying tickets and similar "crimes". This definitely does not require mandatory sentences which is an evil on its own.

Your "Just prohibit.. " line sounds like a mandatory sentence to me; just in this case a mandatory sentence of "none." What would be left to the judge's discretion exactly?

"sounds like a mandatory sentence to me" - it is not sentence. It is a correction of gross injustice (actually crime in my eyes).

"What would be left to the judge's discretion exactly" - f..n work within the limits of laws and regulations. The existing framework gives judges plenty of discretion as it is.

And the last thing. Sounds like you do not mind people being jailed for the sake of the judges having discretion? I guess you would not mind then going away for a couple of years for spitting on a sidewalk or something similar.

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#155

Post by SpelingBeeChamp » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 11:34 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #57

ipython wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget the 2008 kids for cash scandal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal . At least those judges were eventually tried and are serving time.

Convicted in 2011, disbarred in 2019. The guild will go to great lengths to protect their most guilty.

Don't forget that disbarment is not permanent in a majority of states.

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#156

Post by SpelingBeeChamp » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 11:37 PM UTC

elbigbad wrote: post #141

SkyBelow wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you effectively are creating a maximum punishment that could easily be ignored by some of the population. Take speeding tickets. What if a person just decides not to pay and keep speeding? Not that they can't, but they don't. Eventually you lose your licenses. You continue to speed, getting more tickets, and now also getting tickets for driving without a license. You continue to refuse to pay the fines and conti…

> Then you effectively are creating a maximum punishment that could easily be ignored by some of the population. No, just moving what the maximum punishment is from jail time to a boot on their tire. Conversely, who says jail time is enough? Why not make the maximum even worse than jail? At some point you have to have a max, just advocating that the max is reduced. > Take speeding tickets. What if a person just decid…

You seem thoughtful and reasonable. Keep doing that.

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#157

Post by alasdair_ » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 11:42 PM UTC

wahern wrote: post #104

kube-system wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Towing, impound, booting of the vehicle? Revocation of license? Community service? Wage garnishment?

For the very poor, a short (few days) stint in jail would be far preferable to having your car impounded. That's the problem with these debates about penalties--for the very poor, any penalty might be life destroying. But then how do you incentivize certain kinds of behavior? And how do you determine when somebody is too poor to be subject to any kind of penalty? Any loopholes you create will always be abused by the…

>But then how do you incentivize certain kinds of behavior? And how do you determine when somebody is too poor to be subject to any kind of penalty? Any loopholes you create will always be abused by the rich and powerful because that's the very definition of power--capable of bending the system to your advantage.

Base the fine on income. Say, a traffic ticket is 0.1% of your income, while running a red light is 1% and a DUI could be 10%.

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#158

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #92

rayiner wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes years for a conviction to become finalized. He was temporarily suspended in April 2012, while he appealed his conviction. The Third Circuit denied his habeas petition on March 2019. He was disbarred in October 2019. http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out... .

Is there a reason why they can't be disbarred upon conviction, and then reinstated if the appeal goes through? After all, it's not like you can avoid prison time while your conviction goes through the appeal process.

> After all, it's not like you can avoid prison time while your conviction goes through the appeal process

You can, though it's not very common, and, in the US, it's not available in all jurisdictions.

See, e.g., https://www.justia.com/criminal/bail-bonds/bail-while-pursui...

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#159

Post by justaguyhere » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 11:55 PM UTC

salawat wrote: post #142

justaguyhere wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't that judges are elected This is definitely one of the problems. There was a study that showed judges were handing stricter sentences for the same crime during election years than non election years ("tough on crime"). Elections are a popularity contest in a way, even well informed voters do not always make rational decisions. If one doesn't have elections to worry about, he/she can do their job to t…

Yes, because unaccountable lifelong appointed judges works so well in other spheres, yes? Jefferson, Madison, at al feared the Judiciary for a reason. Particularly the Federal tier. Elected judges have a built in check in that they are subject to periodic reaffirmation of confidence from the populace. An appointed judge just needs the right connections once, and to not do anything on such a regular basis that they be…

I never said appointed judges are a great idea, especially lifelong ones. I simply said electing judges is a bad idea.

I don't know which one is worse. Maybe both are equally bad.

Re: Thousands of U.S. judges who broke laws, oaths remained on the bench

#160

Post by tomohawk » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 11:57 PM UTC

All judicial positions should have a set term, after which a new judge is appointed to the position, even at the Supreme Court level.

For example, at the Supreme Court level, if each position was an 18 year term, each offset by 2 years, then a new justice would be nominated every other year to serve no more than 18 years. If a judge left early, the position would be filled until the end of the term.

This would prevent some of the shenanigans where partisan judges wait until the political winds are blowing in the right direction before stepping down to ensure that "their side" doesn't lose out.

This would also prevent judges serving for several decades with no realistic way to remove them.

Having served once, a judge could be renominated, but would have to go through the approval process again.