https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...llion-lawsuit/
Anger-management classes.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...llion-lawsuit/
Anger-management classes.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Having, but not using a weapon gets you 2 years in prison. Torturing someone with a weapon gets you probation. Seems fair.
Hope is the denial of reality
I guess what I really want is some sense of proportionality in his punishment, so that electrocuting someone who isn't posing a threat gets him an appropriately severe punishment that matches the standards set by the defendant's punishment. I obviously don't really want a 70-y-o asshole to be electrocuted daily for a year, please don't investigate me.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Forced to retire, and given a one-year sentence (and of course a criminal conviction on record). But yeah. It's because it doesn't count as an assault. I've mentioned it maybe once or twice on here but the #1 pressing need in judicial reform here in the US isn't about discrimination, police conduct, consitutional theory, etc. It's the dearth of oversight or tools for correction against poor behavior by judges in their courtrooms/courthouses. You should see the way various judges collect sexual harassment complaints which no one has the power to do anything about. They're not in civil service jobs, they aren't under the authority of the legislature or executive after being successfully appointed because the judiciary is an independent branch in every jurisdiction in the country, and in most states the law/constitution makes little to no provision for how the judiciary may govern itself or enforce its members. And while the judiciary doesn't have a lot of power, its members have a LOT of authority. But it's a more or less invisible problem to everyone outside the legal profession.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I'm curious as to what level of escalation of force should be used. Judging from the awful grainy video it seems like force was used too quickly but I'm curious what you, Loki and Fuzzy would *WANT* to happen as a matter of policy if someone refuses to stop disrupting a court proceeding.
Step 1: Verbal request - feel free to state the # of times you think is appropriate. I don't really care as much at the number but what I am curious to see is what is step 2 on courtroom control.
Step 2: Gag? Muzzle? Baton to the head? Dragged out of the court room? You tell me what is appropriate. Play sole dictator of the court of law - tell me the process you want.
There is already a standard process for incorrigible disruptives in the courtroom. It's called contempt of court. If the plaintiff or defendant (or a witness, a lawyer, a juror, a bailiff or other member of the court staff, etc) will not comply with the judge's verbal directives than s/he holds them in contempt of court and has the bailiff (or other security personnel) take the offending person into custody until they feel like behaving. It is just about the only legal way to be tried in absentia in the US. If a defendant won't cooperate then the court will just carry on proceedings without them physically present. Since this defendant was also his own defense counsel, carrying on proceedings without him would also involve rustling up a public defender to continue the proceedings while he is allowed to carry on to his hearts' content back in his cell.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
It's amazing how consistently you're willing to punish people for crimes you think they will commit. And of course you don't apply that logic evenly across religions and racial groups.
Hope is the denial of reality
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
How does literally every other judge in the country manage to deal with this issue?
Hope is the denial of reality
I assume dragging the defendant out. But not always...
http://radionb.com/news/local-news/a...nt-life-prison
"After several more similar warnings, Judge Boyer became fed up with the defendant and ordered that he be physically gagged by having bailiffs wrap silver duct tape around his head in order to cover his mouth. That gag remained in place throughout the rest of the proceedings on Tuesday where the jury returned a guilty verdict on both Tampering with Evidence charges, which would normally carry a sentence of 2 to 10 years in prison. But because of Pizzo’s prior criminal history, including a previous conviction for sexual assault of a child, the charges were elevated to 1st degree felony-level crimes, and the jury sentenced him to the maximum sentence: life in prison. Pizzo was then returned to the Comal County Jail where he now awaits transfer into the state prison system."
But I'm sure you probably find issue with that too!
I do find issue with it, not because it's excessive force, but because it sends a very clear signal to the jury which side the judge is on. Forcing the defendant to leave the courtroom and watch the proceedings from elsewhere seems like a better alternative.
Hope is the denial of reality
I think A) fat chance. B) . . . there's a lot of churn among DAs and ADAs. By the time a conviction gets overturned on ground which you might actually want prosecutors to face consequences for, they're often not still serving in that jurisdiction as prosecutors anymore. Which will usually prevent any kind of administrative penalties and would be pretty markedly discriminatory against those who try to make a career in one area/office.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I don't see why prosecutors should be responsible for wrongful convictions.
A prosecutor can't convict alone. It takes a jury, judge, defending lawyer etc involved too. Unless new evidence subsequently comes to light, the defending lawyer is almost more to blame for failing to win the case he should have won than a prosecutor is.
It is, but ignoring the fact that prosecutors tend to protect their own and engage in discretion to not prosecute them, it's also hard to secure enough court-admissable evidence to sway a jury even if others are inclined to prosecute. That's why the usual tack is a fairly cumbersome process for getting the relevant bar association to disbar them. The Bar Overseers (by whatever name applies in a state) is technically the process doing what Dread asked, but it's not really oriented for that and its goal is protecting the integrity of the association, not the public interest.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The only real way that this gets addressed is if the DA's office fires a prosecutor and it's made so public were basically the guy can't find another job in his chosen profession.
And that's no guarantee either.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita