FWIS3

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/1 ... ostpopular

Drunk 16 year old gets probation for killing four people in his pickup truck.
Who says the law treats everyone equally?

Love the spin the defense lawyer puts on it. Like somehow this was way worse than the getting a prison sentence.
I can just imagine the kid saying, "Yeah, I killed four people driving drunk...the bad part is I have to go do these really lame therapy sessions. It's such bullshit. It's not like they were important or rich or something like that".

Same as the throw the blame on the parents bullshit. That poor precious little child.

Funny how you never hear about poorfluenza, where kids born to single parent drug addicts and then raised in the foster care system are yelled at to take accountability.

Affluenza..... right.

Is it me? or is it just chance that it happened in Texas?

Rommie wrote:Funny how you never hear about poorfluenza, where kids born to single parent drug addicts and then raised in the foster care system are yelled at to take accountability.

We expect better of the poor and expect nothing of the rich.

The obvious answer, if the parents are to blame for this, is to put the parents in prison.

SciFiFisher wrote:The obvious answer, if the parents are to blame for this, is to put the parents in prison.

That can't work. It's like politicians when they say, "I take personal responsibility". Nothing needs to be done apparently about it other than say those magic words.
Same thing here.
Parents are to blame for their behaviour. Kid gets to go free because the parents were responsible. Parents aren't liable because they didn't do it and all the rich folk are happy. As is the $450,000 p.a. clinic that the kid goes to which was part of the deal.

What a joke.

beyond pathetic, between that and the fact that archaic gun ownership laws cannot be discussed even after Sandy Hook, it's obvious that that society is doomed.

Morrolan wrote:beyond pathetic, between that and the fact that archaic gun ownership laws cannot be discussed even after Sandy Hook, it's obvious that that society is doomed.

I sometimes wonder how much the US is in a "frog in pot, increasing water to boil" effect these days. It's the only way I can explain some of the new normal, because there's no way in hell a lot of it would've been acceptable a decade or two ago.

Well: considering the outrage this decision is raising, I think the water was a bit too hot this time.

Hell, the "Newly Libertarian" Washington Post was particularly snarky about it

Families of victims file multi-million dollar lawsuit against Affluenza teen

I kinda like the dialogue here:

Teen's Lawyer: The poor kid has so much money he doesn't know right from wrong.
Victims' Lawyers: We can fix that!

I do expect some to start criticizing the victims for being greedy though...

Rommie wrote:Families of victims file multi-million dollar lawsuit against Affluenza teen

I kinda like the dialogue here:

Teen's Lawyer: The poor kid has so much money he doesn't know right from wrong.
Victims' Lawyers: We can fix that!

I do expect some to start criticizing the victims for being greedy though...

That's the problem with affluenza. It''s contagious.

I don't particularly like how civil lawsuits are used to right criminal issues in this country, but that's the way the system is set up. And that's all I'll say on that.

It's obviously not unusual for a judge to utter such a thing (particularly in Texas), but the most telling thing is this case to me is the fact that the Texas judge doesn't think the Texas juvenile system can help this kid. That's where the system is broken. For the affluent and the poor, the system should be funded well enough to provide the services needed. Presumably, were that the case, this judge would have ruled differently.

What makes it more galling is that the same judge sentenced a 14 year old kid (who wasn't rich of course) to 10 years in jail

Of course, it's not as simple as that. According to the article linked. the judge pushed for rehabilitation, but nobody would take the little sociopath. So she had to send him to jail.

The judge has been pressured to step down and she won't run for re-election

The last article linked claims that the system was "build on rehabilitation".

Be that as it may, it still glossed over two things that are particularly enraging

A) Built on rehabilitation? maybe, maybe it was the idea, but apparently they didn't create the facilities for that.

B) The boy's parents' MONEY kept him out of jail, even ASSUMING the best of intentions from the part of the judge, it was an "unintended consequence".

So, IMHO the whole Texas justice system and the judge deserve the flak they're getting.

And THAT leaves the victims no choice but to follow civil litigation. Talk about another "unintended consequence"

Agreed, geonuc. Entirely. Also, and once again, elected judges? Seriously? Recipe for disaster.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:Agreed, geonuc. Entirely. Also, and once again, elected judges? Seriously? Recipe for disaster.

this.

Not that I disagree but what's the difference between elected judges and elected politicians?
Technically the latter have more power and don't even require any education.

FZR1KG wrote:Not that I disagree but what's the difference between elected judges and elected politicians?
Technically the latter have more power and don't even require any education.

And while we're on the subject, who appoints judges in countries where they are appointed rather than elected. Is it elected people?

SciFi Chick wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:Not that I disagree but what's the difference between elected judges and elected politicians?
Technically the latter have more power and don't even require any education.

And while we're on the subject, who appoints judges in countries where they are appointed rather than elected. Is it elected people?

It varies. In the US if a judge gets appointed he is usually appointed by an elected official of one sort or another. Take the US Supreme Court for example. My problem with judicial appointments is that they often are for life. Or for periods of time that are too long. With an elected judge if he is being a jack wagon you can vote him out.

In other countries the appointments are probably made by the governor, a government attorney general (or equivalent) or the local head honcho i.e. Baron This or General That.

FZR1KG wrote:Not that I disagree but what's the difference between elected judges and elected politicians?
Technically the latter have more power and don't even require any education.

The purpose of politicians is to represent the views of constituents. This has everything to do with public opinion. Thus elections make sense.
The purpose of judges is to determine what the law actually says and apply it properly. This has nothing to do with public opinion. Thus elections do not make sense.

SciFi Chick wrote:And while we're on the subject, who appoints judges in countries where they are appointed rather than elected. Is it elected people?

I don't know how it works elsewhere, but in Canada it's the Prime Minister. On the advice of the legal community. And it works - we do not have a politicized judiciary, unlike the US. The courts are apolitical, non-partisan, and one of the most well-respected public institutions in the country. They have been for decades. If you want proof that the system works, look at the outcomes that the system has brought about. The Canadian legal/judicial system is far less insane than the American one.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:[
The purpose of politicians is to represent the views of constituents. This has everything to do with public opinion. Thus elections make sense.

They also make laws. IOW, we get people who have no training making laws for the country and that's considered ok.

TSC wrote:The purpose of judges is to determine what the law actually says and apply it properly. This has nothing to do with public opinion. Thus elections do not make sense.

So they interpret the meaning of a law devised by politicians who are reflecting the public's opinion when making the laws.
Not to put too fine a point on it but it's like trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear while arguing about the choice of the tailor that's should do the job.

Nonsense. That's why we have a constitution and judicial review. The point is that the politicians can do any crap they please to win votes... within limits. The constitution and the courts define those limits. When politicians overstep, they get slapped down.

Also... who do you think writes laws? It isn't politicians. They figure out what constituents want. Then they make general policy guidelines. Those guidelines are sent of to a building full of government lawyers who write the bill. Then the politicians vote on the bill.

Politicians don't need to know how to write laws since that isn't their job and they have people to do that for them. What politicians need to know how to do is take the views of their constituents and turn them into general policies to send off to the people who do need to know how to make laws.

I think you missed my point.
The public supposedly tells the politicians what they want.

What is so different about them choosing the judge that applies that want as well?

What happens when there is a judge that comes in that the public don't want.
One that they actually really decide they don't want to serve in judging them for whatever reason. If they can vote, he's gone.
The way I'm seeing voting for judges is that if they are all qualified technically it makes no difference who gets voted in. If it makes a difference then it's admitting that it's important to decide which judge you put in place. It also implies that judges aren't as impartial or corrupt as some would want us to believe. If it's a case of competence then why did the prospective judge qualify in law when not competent.
Basically what I'm saying is that if you are qualified to be a judge then you are qualified and it makes no difference who gets in.
If what you say is true they must all be impartial and held accountable then what difference is there in letting the public choose who?
The answer is they aren't all the same, some are not trust worthy, some are not as competent, some aren't impartial.
So why can't the public decide that they aren't worthy of the position?

As an example, I don't need to be a lawyer not want any particular lawyer to represent me.
I don't need to be a doctor not want any particular doctor to treat me.
I don't need to be a judge to not want to be judged by any particular judge.
As in all the above, if I think someone has been wronged, I can go get another person, likewise with a judge. What's wrong with the idea that I can make sure of that by my vote.

Probably didn't come out right because I'm freaking exhausted. So off to bed I go and I won't be back for a couple of days. Boat shift starts at 6am tomorrow...

FZR1KG wrote:I think you missed my point.
The public supposedly tells the politicians what they want.

What is so different about them choosing the judge that applies that want as well?

You've missed my point. Which is that it isn't the job of judges to do what people want. It's the job of judges to interpret and apply the law correctly. That isn't a matter of public opinion, so votes shouldn't come into it.

What happens when there is a judge that comes in that the public don't want.
One that they actually really decide they don't want to serve in judging them for whatever reason. If they can vote, he's gone.

This makes no sense to me. It makes no sense for the public to make that determination. It doesn't even make sense for the public not to want a person to be a judge. The whole thing is an apolitical process and system.

The way I'm seeing voting for judges is that if they are all qualified technically it makes no difference who gets voted in. If it makes a difference then it's admitting that it's important to decide which judge you put in place. It also implies that judges aren't as impartial or corrupt as some would want us to believe. If it's a case of competence then why did the prospective judge qualify in law when not competent.

Right. The only reason to elect judges is if you want the judiciary to be political and you want judges to both a) represent the politics of the people who elected them and b) base their legal decisions on their political views. Which is bad.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you are qualified to be a judge then you are qualified and it makes no difference who gets in.

I agree. With the caveat that some people are better than others. You can barely meet the minimum standard, or you can soar over it.

If what you say is true they must all be impartial and held accountable then what difference is there in letting the public choose who?

The current Canadian process (appointments) is apolitical, chooses apolitical judges, and encourages apolitical rulings. The current American process (elections) is political, chooses partisan judges, and encourages political rulings.

The latter harms impartiality, since it means that judges intentionally make partisan decisions. Not only is that behaviour encouraged because that's the sort of person who gets elected, the very process of election requires judges to be political, since that's how to please an electorate.

My point is that appointed judges have incentives to be impartial and serve the law; elected judges have incentives to be partisan and serve political interest groups.

The answer is they aren't all the same, some are not trust worthy, some are not as competent, some aren't impartial.

Sure. But which selection process is more likely to result in apolitical, non-partisan, impartial judges? The political selection process that incentivizes political behaviours? Or the apolitical selection process that incentivizes impartial behaviours?

So why can't the public decide that they aren't worthy of the position?

Because elections are incapable of producing apolitical, non-partisan, impartial elected officials. Look at Congress. Look at Parliament.

This is the crux of my point: elections select for the wrong things and are thus wholly inappropriate for selecting judicial officials.

As an example, I don't need to be a lawyer not want any particular lawyer to represent me.
I don't need to be a doctor not want any particular doctor to treat me.
I don't need to be a judge to not want to be judged by any particular judge.
As in all the above, if I think someone has been wronged, I can go get another person, likewise with a judge. What's wrong with the idea that I can make sure of that by my vote.

Again, no. For the reasons above. You want an impartial judge. Elections are unlikely to produce one because of the implicit incentive structures built into them.

Probably didn't come out right because I'm freaking exhausted. So off to bed I go and I won't be back for a couple of days. Boat shift starts at 6am tomorrow...

No, I understand you. I just don't think you understood me.

Electing judges is different in practice than having judges appointed by elected officials. Theoretically, it might seem the same, but not in practice.

The difference is the ignorance of the general public as to what a judge does, or is supposed to do. As TSC explains, the job is to interpret the law and apply it to cases brought before them. The public has no good method for evaluating whether a particular judge is doing the job properly. Not only is the general public not qualified to make that evaluation, the information one needs to make the evaluation is usually scarce. They may know rulings but have no clue why the judge ruled as she did. Moreover, they may wrongly attribute the actions of a jury to the judge.

Contrast that with electing representatives. Needless to say, the American system of democracy has some serious issues with how we run elections, but by and large, the people we do elect have a much, much greater knowledge and appreciation for the roles and responsibilities of judges and are therefore far more qualified to make the selection. This is, in fact, the reason we have elected representatives - to make decisions that are either beyond the ability of the general public to deal with, either because of ignorance or because we are too busy with our own jobs and there are too many decisions to be made. So we elect someone we trust to make the decisions for us. Snark all you want about trustworthiness, but that is the system and it works better than most.

Another way to look at it is that judges do not (are not supposed to) exercise independent political thought in doing their jobs. They interpret and apply rules. In this way, they are no different than other administrative officials - the FDA commissioner, the dog catcher, a national park ranger, the Director of the CIA. Do we want to hold elections for those posts too? Obviously, no.

All that is reason enough not to elect judges, but when you throw in the political process involved with getting elected to pretty much any post in this country, it becomes a no-brainer. You do not want judges campaigning on issues. You just don't.

I do support term limits for judges, particularly federal judges (all of whom are appointed by the president and require Senate confirmation). US Supreme Court justices I would limit to eighteen years, more for appellate and circuit court judges. Similar for state and municipal judges.

This all sounds great, except for one problem: it doesn't account for elected politicians deliberately flouting the rules. If judges are appointed by elected officials, those officials can deliberately choose people who are known to be biased in favor of their ideologies. (c.f. the Bush administration.)

Also, while elected officials may generally know more about such things than the public, there have been some very high profile exceptions lately. This comes back (again) to the question of whether an arbitrary bunch of elected officials are really more qualified than the general public to make high-impact decisions. (Hint: I don't think so.)

(That mention of the CIA hits on a special sticking point with me. The CIA has at times committed war crimes under its veil of secrecy; and I believe that's been aided by assumptions that so-and-so people are qualified to handle secrets, and should not be second-guessed by the public. Saying that the public shouldn't second-guess whoever is a serious problem; there always, always needs to be accountability for criminal behavior.)

tl;dr I think having judges appointed is a good way of dealing with incompetence, up to a certain level. But if incompetent (or malicious) people deliberately try to trash the system, en masse, it's not going to help much.

Edit: when you think about it, it all comes down to education. The proper functioning of a democratic nation hinges on an educated public, who can (at least) elect decent officials. But never mind that, soldiering is far more important than teaching! OOH RAH!