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

#101

Post by FpUser » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

meddlepal wrote: post #5

chidog12 wrote: post #3

> Judge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets. The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time Alabama allows for negligent homicide. > Johnson’s three children were cast into foster care while she was incarcerated. One daughter was molested, state records show. Another was physically abused. Speechless... Makes my blood boil

This is the kind of stupidity you get with elected judges.

No. This is the kind of stupidity one gets when the judges are not controlled and allowed to do as they please. This fscking degenerate judge who put poor woman in jail for so long should be sitting there himself instead of being retired and getting pension.

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

#102

Post by Invictus0 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

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 they also don't run stories that go against their narrative, thereby omitting information that may inform you/provide greater context or nuance.

In any case, the solution here is the same as always; write to your representatives or get involved in a protest (all variations on "advocate for change").

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

#103

Post by ksdale » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #81

ksdale wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking non-rhetorically and in good faith, what are the plenty of other ways to enforce fines?

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

Thank you!

I'm not sure taking away the use of the vehicle is much more humane than prison for someone too poor to pay traffic tickets. Without a vehicle in the US, they likely won't be able to get to work, which all but ensures they won't be able to pay their tickets.

Same with revocation of the license, what if they drive anyway? What if they don't show up to community service? What if it's because they need to work? These punishments seem to me to need to be backed up by the threat of prison, or else they're just as toothless as the fines themselves.

Wage garnishment seems much better, though it requires that they have an identifiable employer and that they make enough to pay the fine and rent. Getting evicted because of wage garnishment, like the taking away of a vehicle, seems like somewhere near the same level of inhumane as prison time, for a person in that precarious of a situation. And what happens if the employer refuses to garnish the wages?

Though I know that some garnishments are income dependent, and employers are usually compliant, so that's probably the best of all worlds.

All of your suggestions seem more compassionate than prison, but I still think there is a major question of what happens if there is still non-compliance? Do we let violators go, or do we escalate until we are doing some violence, either through prison or confiscation of property?

And if we aren't willing to do violence, should the penalty exist at all in the first place?

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

#104

Post by wahern » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #81

ksdale wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking non-rhetorically and in good faith, what are the plenty of other ways to enforce fines?

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 rich and powerful because that's the very definition of power--capable of bending the system to your advantage.

The real problem is that the poor are very often unplugged from civil society as experienced by the middle classes. They don't have a stake in it. Rather than just throw up our hands, if we're serious about the plight of poverty and its ill effects, we should be more proactive. Keep the penalties, because jail time is something everybody understands, no matter how poor you are. But be proactive about not only enforcement but remediation. Send the darned judges to the people rather than making the people come to the judge. If all the person can afford is a quarter, then take the quarter and thank them for their time and their participation.

The goal afterall isn't punishment for punishment's sake, it's to heal the wounds to civil society caused by law breaking, repairing the relationship between the offender and the community, and bringing the offender back into the fold. If the offender doesn't have any sense of a personal relationship with the state, then punishment imposed from a distance can't meet even half of its function. Moreover, no penalty whatsoever, or one with no teeth, does absolutely nothing except reinforce the estrangement, which is worse. It's like leaving the mentally ill on the street to rot to death out of some absurd sense of individual liberty; it functions only to make the non-mentally ill feel more secure in their privileged circumstances, rather than addressing any of the real underlying issues.

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

#105

Post by godelski » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #91

godelski wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're not supposed to be appealing to anyone. Like... voters? > What would you like to see on a judge's website? Qualifications, what ideals are important to them, how they handled complex cases, etc > They shouldn't have any personal opinions! Unfortunately they are human, so they do have personal opinions. They are allowed to have personal opinions. They just aren't allowed to have party affiliations. But if yo…

This is bat-shit insane to me. The public elect the legislature who write the law... the judiciary implement it according to the legislation. They don't any personal opinions to it, that's not their job at all, they don't try to appeal to anyone, they just implement it. Is this not how it works in the US? In the US could a town elect a judge who says they're going to convict everyone who's left-handed?

Which part is confusing? Can you answer this? "Are laws objective?" It seems you think so. But if they aren't, then someone needs to interpret them. This is essentially what lawyers are doing and the judge and jury decides what is right.

> they don't try to appeal to anyone, they just implement it. Is this not how it works in the US?

On paper, yes. In practice, no. Because again, laws aren't objective.

> In the US could a town elect a judge who says they're going to convict everyone who's left-handed?

Let's rephrase it.

> In the US could a town elect a judge who says they're going to convict everyone who's black?

Welcome to Jim Crow era. So the answer is clearly yes. Of course, conviction still relies on the jury and "jury nullification" exists in an effort to put these types of judges in check. This is why you're supposed to be judged by peers. Now there is interpretation of what peers means. Or what community is. Is this your neighbors? Or is this just people that live in the town? Are people in the Brooklyn your peers if you live in Queens? What about if you live in Mountain View? If you do a search you'll quickly find different answers from legal scholars as to what "jury of peers" means. I brought up the first and second amendments because these are frequently debated in the public domain (where judges/legal scholars are debating and we the public can see and listen in).

To me, the idea that laws are objective and not up for interpretation is "bat-shit insane." To do so would require perfect humans writing laws and last time I checked we didn't have any of those.

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

#106

Post by ksdale » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 9:31 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…

This is excellent, thank you.

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

#107

Post by Kednicma » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #51

pmoriarty wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't that judges are elected, but that it's nearly impossible for voters to make an informed decision. In the last election, I tried to find out about the local judges on my ballot and could find virtually nothing. The media has been neutered in to an infotainment machine, so there's very little investigative journalism left even on issues of national or international importance, much less on small issue…

> The problem isn't that judges are elected I'm pretty sure it is... why would you elect a judge? They're not supposed to apply any opinion just interpret the law technically. What are people voting for them based on? Their political affiliation? That's absolutely bonkers .

The main boon is that a judge can be removed democratically. Obviously there are better ways to do that, like having a recall process or a vote of no confidence, but the USA's states were mostly created during a time when being able to vote judges out of office was politically trendy.

Also, speaking as somebody who recently voted for local judges and prosecutors, I got to choose a prosecutor who won't take police-union money and a judge who thinks they can do better than the possibly-corrupt incumbent. I wouldn't give up this vote just for some imagined peace in the political process.

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

#108

Post by godelski » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #96

godelski wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They should leave them at home if they're a freaking judge!! You're telling me that Gorsuch doesn't have biases? RBG? Kavanaugh? Roberts? Sotomayor? All these people interpret the same laws in different ways. If that isn't called bias than I don't know what is. The issue is that there is no objective truth, at least one which can be known. All laws are subject to interpretation. In fact, that is literally why we ha…

Do you realise that in most other countries judges don't expose any political bias? There are no right-wing judges or left-wing judges in the UK, they all just act fairly and interpret cases according to the law. If there are major questions of interpretation they leave it to the legislature to clarify.

I think you're confusing "publicizing political bias" with "having political bias." Judges aren't robots. They aren't void of emotion. They are humans. Yes, we all ask that judges do their best to remove their biases. Most do a good job. But as far as I'm aware, they are all still people.

I'm not sure why you would expect judges to be a special class of people that are void of opinions.

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

#109

Post by chrisseaton » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #105

chrisseaton wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is bat-shit insane to me. The public elect the legislature who write the law... the judiciary implement it according to the legislation. They don't any personal opinions to it, that's not their job at all, they don't try to appeal to anyone, they just implement it. Is this not how it works in the US? In the US could a town elect a judge who says they're going to convict everyone who's left-handed?

Which part is confusing? Can you answer this? "Are laws objective?" It seems you think so. But if they aren't, then someone needs to interpret them. This is essentially what lawyers are doing and the judge and jury decides what is right. > they don't try to appeal to anyone, they just implement it. Is this not how it works in the US? On paper, yes. In practice, no. Because again, laws aren't objective. > In the US co…

> But if they aren't, then someone needs to interpret them.

If they're open to too much interpretation... send them back to the legislature to clarify.

> Welcome to Jim Crow era. So the answer is clearly yes.

Well this seems like an indication to me that the system is not great.

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

#110

Post by Shivetya » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

chidog12 wrote: post #3

> Judge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets. The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time Alabama allows for negligent homicide. > Johnson’s three children were cast into foster care while she was incarcerated. One daughter was molested, state records show. Another was physically abused. Speechless... Makes my blood boil

What is truly criminal is many judges retire with seventy five percent to up to one hundred percent of their salary plus benefits.

I really wish people here would understand the real fleecing of America isn't by the CEOs of the country, they cannot make you pay their retirement but public servants can and those at the upper levels easily pull down one hundred thousand or more per year when retired!