Pathetic judges need to get off the bench!

[Lewkowski]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/us/sex...ord/index.html

This is quite pathetic. I've posted several times about people should need actual evidence in order to be convicted of rape - however when guilt is not in question why the hell aren't we throwing the book at scum like this?

1. Deterrence is a powerful incentive to decrease future rapes.
2. If you're in prison you aren't raping anyone else.
3. It provides closure for the victims.

A six month sentence for rape is a joke. I blame liberals and their idiotic desire to give criminals leniency. Put in mandatory minimums for horrific crimes like rape - don't let it be up to some bleeding heart judge.

[LittleFuzzy]

You did notice, Lewk, that the school did exactly what you constantly rail about?

[Lewkowski]

You did notice, Lewk, that the school did exactly what you constantly rail about?

There was ample evidence. The dude was *literally* caught in the act. That is a FAR cry from a 'he said, she said' situation.

[LittleFuzzy]

There was ample evidence. The dude was *literally* caught in the act. That is a FAR cry from a 'he said, she said' situation.

So? They still did one of their unaccountable tribunals, still acted far in advance of any trial, much less a conviction, and made a decision that was going to completely alter his life with no judicial oversight. But as you say your objection, as always, never had the slightest thing to do with principles but was always based on which side of a portrayal you "liked" (and identified with). Thanks for demonstrating what we all knew was true.

[Lewkowski]

So? They still did one of their unaccountable tribunals, still acted far in advance of any trial, much less a conviction, and made a decision that was going to completely alter his life with no judicial oversight. But as you say your objection, as always, never had the slightest thing to do with principles but was always based on which side of a portrayal you "liked" (and identified with). Thanks for demonstrating what we all knew was true.

You're being absurd and I think you know it. Just like a reasonable person could kick out OJ Simpson from their club due to the present danger he obviously represented despite his acquittal; organizations don't need to wait when there is *EVIDENCE* of wrong doing.

Take the exact same case. Eliminate ALL the evidence and just go based on the woman's word? Then yes that would have been an overreach but when actual evidence exists I have no problems with people acting with sanity.

Now let's go back to the actual purpose of the thread. Do you think the judge is an idiot? Do you think we should have mandatory sentencing for these types of crimes?

[LittleFuzzy]

You're being absurd and I think you know it. Just like a reasonable person could kick out OJ Simpson from their club due to the present danger he obviously represented despite his acquittal; organizations don't need to wait when there is *EVIDENCE* of wrong doing.

Take the exact same case. Eliminate ALL the evidence and just go based on the woman's word?

No one ever said there was no evidence in the cases from the spate of threads you made on the topic. You just acted like there was nothing else because you were then and remain now ignorant of the meaning of "proof" vis a vis "evidence."

And no, we should not have mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing is a deliberate abnegation of our ability to think and reason. If you wanted to remove the human component from the law, you should just dispense with judges entirely. But not before getting rid of juries, which are a far more volatile and unreasonable component of the process.

[Lewkowski]

No one ever said there was no evidence in the cases from the spate of threads you made on the topic. You just acted like there was nothing else because you were then and remain now ignorant of the meaning of "proof" vis a vis "evidence."

And no, we should not have mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing is a deliberate abnegation of our ability to think and reason. If you wanted to remove the human component from the law, you should just dispense with judges entirely. But not before getting rid of juries, which are a far more volatile and unreasonable component of the process.

So Affluenza teen was a great example of justice? Is this a great example of justice? Judges are not in anyway impartial *no one is impartial.* Society as a whole agrees that certain crimes are terrible - look at the number of people calling for the impeachment of this judge and the collective outrage over the sentence. The way to fix this is to stop letting judges play despot from the bench.

Judges are needed to oversee a trial, rule on matters of law. There is nothing that suggests that a justice system requires sentencing from a judge to be fair. In fact, the opposite is true. All the liberals crying about how minorities get harsher sentences actually have a point - justice isn't blind. So let's make it as blind as possible. A country that doesn't treat its criminals harshly is a country that doesn't care about victims.

[Flixy]

So Affluenza teen was a great example of justice? Is this a great example of justice? Judges are not in anyway impartial *no one is impartial.* Society as a whole agrees that certain crimes are terrible - look at the number of people calling for the impeachment of this judge and the collective outrage over the sentence. The way to fix this is to stop letting judges play despot from the bench.

Judges are needed to oversee a trial, rule on matters of law. There is nothing that suggests that a justice system requires sentencing from a judge to be fair. In fact, the opposite is true. All the liberals crying about how minorities get harsher sentences actually have a point - justice isn't blind. So let's make it as blind as possible. A country that doesn't treat its criminals harshly is a country that doesn't care about victims.

I thought your constitution mentions something about cruel and unusual punishment, isn't unfair punishment cruel?

[Lewkowski]

I thought your constitution mentions something about cruel and unusual punishment, isn't unfair punishment cruel?

Perhaps I should have reworded it.

"There is nothing that suggests a justice system requires sentencing from a judge in order for it to be fair." IE: Fairness is not dependent on the judge determine how long someone stays in prison. It could be done by statute.



Though on a side note the amendment states cruel AND unusual punishment. If its one or the other its fine.

[GGT]

So....do you prefer elected or appointed judges?

[Lewkowski]

So....do you prefer elected or appointed judges?

I really haven't given that much thought. However regardless of how the judge came to be a judge no one should be passing out pathetic sentences like that to rapist scum.

[LittleFuzzy]

Perhaps I should have reworded it.

"There is nothing that suggests a justice system requires sentencing from a judge in order for it to be fair." IE: Fairness is not dependent on the judge determine how long someone stays in prison. It could be done by statute.

No, no it cannot be done effectively by statute. That method abandons fairness, and most attempts at context, for mechanistic operations devoid of any attempt at exercising reason. I realize that you HATE your brain, you HATE the idea of thinking and just want all of life to follow strict formulas (no surprise you ended up in insurance) but there is nothing the least bit "fair" (or reasonable) about such a system.

[Aimless]

Judicial discretion doesn't warp justice, bad judges warp justice. The solution to bad judges warping justice isn't mandatory minimums, it's more judges with more discretion.

[LittleFuzzy]

Judicial discretion doesn't warp justice, bad judges warp justice. The solution to bad judges warping justice isn't mandatory minimums, it's more judges with more discretion.

And perhaps a better internal oversight process. The individuals on the bench in the US are very independent of each other and there is an issue with not being able to effectively deal with inappropriate/bad behavior by judges internally (and the external measures like impeachment are A)overkill, and B) not easy to use). They could do with a bit more "civil service" professional organization in the US.

[Lewkowski]

No, no it cannot be done effectively by statute. That method abandons fairness, and most attempts at context, for mechanistic operations devoid of any attempt at exercising reason. I realize that you HATE your brain, you HATE the idea of thinking and just want all of life to follow strict formulas (no surprise you ended up in insurance) but there is nothing the least bit "fair" (or reasonable) about such a system.

It removes any racial bias.

It removes any gender bias.

It removes bribery for leniency.

It removes any age bias.

It removes any religious bias.

Man that sure sounds a lot fairer than what is happening now - and I imagine even most liberals would agree with that statement when properly phrased to appeal to their predispositions.

[LittleFuzzy]

It removes any racial bias.

No it doesn't.

It removes any gender bias.

No it doesn't.

It removes bribery for leniency.

It would, but A) that's not common and is easily caught as it is, and B) it just means bribes would focus on the judges' behavior and attitude during trial and pre-trial (which is where it already is to the extent bribery is an issue, I expect)

It removes any age bias.

No it doesn't.

It removes any religious bias.

No it doesn't.

[Lewkowski]

How in the world does it not remove bias if all the punishments are equal across the board? Rob someone, get x sentence. Rape someone, get x sentence.

[LittleFuzzy]

How in the world does it not remove bias if all the punishments are equal across the board? Rob someone, get x sentence. Rape someone, get x sentence.

Because the biggest source of bias is in prosecutorial discretion and subsequent conviction rates. You actually see LESS bias in states where judges play a role in sentencing than you do in locations with either mandatory sentencing or in death penalty cases (where juries are involved)

[Lewkowski]

Because the biggest source of bias is in prosecutorial discretion and subsequent conviction rates. You actually see LESS bias in states where judges play a role in sentencing than you do in locations with either mandatory sentencing or in death penalty cases (where juries are involved)

You're talking about two different things here. When it comes to two people being convicted of the same crime - shouldn't they serve the same time?

[Lewkowski]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ca...-idUSKCN0Z01YQ

"The California judge facing criticism over his sentencing of a former Stanford University swimmer convicted of sexual assault was removed on Tuesday from a new sexual assault case after complaints by prosecutors, officials said.

"We lack confidence that Judge (Aaron) Persky can fairly participate in this upcoming hearing in which a male nurse sexually assaulted an anesthetized female patient," Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said in a statement. He called the move "rare and carefully considered.""

Hell yeah! Great job California!

[LittleFuzzy]

You're talking about two different things here. When it comes to two people being convicted of the same crime - shouldn't they serve the same time?

Why would we make two people with different contexts for their crime and different contexts for what effect a prison term will have serve the same time?

[Lewkowski]

Why would we make two people with different contexts for their crime and different contexts for what effect a prison term will have serve the same time?

Because it is fair? Because it prevents the worst possible of all outcomes (a criminal getting out too early). Sorry but if it is actually the same crime (and not that are often very clear gradients on the severity of a crime) then everyone should face the same time.

[LittleFuzzy]

Because it is fair?

No it's not, it's distinctly unfair.

Because it prevents the worst possible of all outcomes (a criminal getting out too early).

Actually, it would do the opposite since your stance would do things like invalidate all the variations on "three-strikes" law. . .

[Lewkowski]

Provide an example of how it would be unfair - it doesn't even have to be real.

Also I like 'three strikes' laws because the end result is criminals in prison longer. The implementation (and use of drug laws) is problematic.

[Timbuk2]

Give it up fuzz, our texan fella here has repeatedly demonstrated that he does not understand context or circumstance, nor why either should be considered in sentencing.

[Hazir]

You're talking about two different things here. When it comes to two people being convicted of the same crime - shouldn't they serve the same time?

No. Not necessarily. Because that's not always fair.