Yeah, yeah – I know. My friends in the legal community will argue that the process of appointment, however flawed, is still superior to the excesses that occur in the US system in which those who sit on the bench must pander to the lowest common denominator among an electorate uneducated in the nuance of the blah blah blah blah blah.
Enough.
The Gated Community community has had their chance.
The 25-year-old woman was released after Justice Gerald Jewers gave her a sentence equal to the approximately two years she had already spent in pretrial custody. Her 39-year-old common-law husband was given another seven years behind bars.
CTV Winnipeg’s Kelly Dehn reported that the two victim’s families reacted in shock to the sentences.
“One woman was crying as she was walking out of the courtroom, saying that (the wife) was Manitoba’s answer to Karla Homolka,” Dehn reported. “She says she could not believe what she was hearing in that courtroom.”
The couple sexually assaulted young girls they lured into their home. The wife was convicted of three charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement, while her husband was convicted of eight charges, including kidnapping and sexual assault.
In handing down the sentences, Justice Jewers argued the couple had not had any serious prior convictions. Jewers also said not all of the counts could be proven to his satisfaction.
Mike On Crime has more.
Police have called this one of the worst cases they’ve ever seen.
Ladouceur and Traverse created a welcoming environment for neighbourhood youths by offering alcohol and marijuana for several years beginning in 1999, court was told.
They even went after family.
A 12-year-old relative told court how she was held as a “sex slave” by the couple for several months.
On at least two occasions, the girl said she was given pills and alcohol and tied to a bed and raped by Ladouceur while Traverse looked on.
Police later found disturbing evidence to support her story, including a small baggie containing 85 plastic ties stuffed in between the basement ceiling tiles and heating duct and two vials of blue and orange pills in the kitchen. The teen testified that Ladouceur threatened to get members of a Winnipeg street gang and the Hells Angels after her family if she didn’t comply with his sadistic demands.
We must find a mechanism to fire some of these unaccountable twits. “Judicial independence” is no excuse for incompetence.
And while on the subject of unaccountable twits – check out this wagon circling editorial attacking Justice Minister Vic Toews for “tinkering” with “a legal system that has served us well“.
Unbelievable.
Update – from Bruce, in the comments;
And the worst of all are the nine elitist, unelected, red-velvet-and-ermined-robed former flower children that constitute the SCC.
Perhaps their finest hour *sarcasm on* was during the Milgaard enquiry, where at least some of the judge’s were hearing evidence in a court room for the very first time. On a Friday afternoon, after hearing from a particularly dubious witness, the then-chief justice ordered that he given a polygraph (lie detector) test, with the results to be heard on the following Monday.
Those of us then in the law enforcement commmunity experienced a collective dropping of jaws, realizing that those on the highest court in the land were apparently the only parties in the criminal justice sytem who didn’t know that polygraph evidence was not admissable in court in Canada. The obvious embarrassment on the faces of some of the judges on the following Monday was palpable.
Small wonder that one of the most circulated jokes among police and prosecutors after a number of the Charter decisions emanating from the SCC in the late 80s was as follows:
Q: What do you call a lawyer in Canada who knows virtually nothing about criminal law and procedures?
A: A justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I don’t think election of judges is right. It makes judges have to think about the political consequences of finding someone guilty or innocent. Justice isn’t about trying to make the public happy. Justice is supposed to be about finding people guilty if their presupposed innocent is found to be lacking.
What needs to happen is minimum sentences to be toughened up so that if a person is found guilty that judges have less leeway as to what sentence to hand out. I especially would agree with this on murder or sexual crimes.
“What a really, really bad idea. Imagine, being elected based on who has the best ads, or on how much dirt (whether tru or not) one can smear on one opponent. Knowledge of the law…eeehhhh optional.”
Murray, that’s a crock. Maybe in lib-left land do the ads work without any thought, but conservatives actually look into what the ads are saying and how much the truth is being distorted. On our streets. In Canada.
“As for Kate’s, et al’s. concern over the judgement in Winnipeg…rather than complain about the how the sentence was reduced, how about getting more judges into the system, which would move these cases through faster, which would reduce the amount of double time occuring…and so on.”
How about getting judges into the system that have a clue? How do you do that? Not by appointing those who have brown-nosed the best, but by electing the ones people want. And yes, more judges wouldn’t be a bad idea to give an enema to a bunged-up justice system.
“And rehab does work, just not on everyone. And it get’s people less likly [sic] to re-offend out of prison, leaving more room for those who really deserve to be there.”
It’s the “likely” that concerns me. Would you want a convicted pedophile or murderer let loose in your neighbourhood, because he/she is supposedly “rehabilitated”? I personally wouldn’t take the chance.
“And such things as “three strikes and your out” and elected “get tough” judges are merely panaceas in my opinion. They look good, but really don’t address the problem.”
Of course they do. If you’re in jail, you can’t be out on the street to commit crimes. I know it sounds simple, but that’s because it really is. Nobody seems to want to accept responsibility for his/her own actions, and that’s wrong. If you do something wrong, you should face the music. And admittedly there’ll be different volumes to the music.
Murray with all due respect don’t you think playing both sides of the fence, in some cases only leads to confusion and lack of change?
I always cringe when I hear someone use ” root of the problem”, like its so hard to find!
Why do we turn so many negative things that affect our society into make work projects for bureaucrats, and the people that love having lunch with them.
Oh and one more thing, Murray:
“Unfortunately, this might cost money, and conservatives seem allergic to spending money.”
This is slightly off topic (sorry, Kate), but you’re dead wrong.
Conservatives are allergic to WASTING money. For examples, see:
Gagliano, Alfonso
Stewart, Jane
Brault, Jean
Coffin, Paul
Chretien, Paul
Accord, Kyoto
For a generation, health care (FPMPM)
Layton, Jack (pretty much anything he ever says)
And according to a recent study commissioned by the RCMP in BC, the average length of sentences imposed on grow-op operators actually DECREASES as the number of convictions against a particular individual increases…strange reasoning.
Those rashly calling for judicial elections as a way to increase accountability in the bench would do well to consider the fundamental importance of judicial independence as a precondition for democracy. I’m not advocating the status quo. The current system is far from perfect, but options are available to increase accountability without fundamentally reforming the judicial selection process.
Those who oppose the current appointment process, however, should give sober consideration as to whether their proposed alternative–first-term judicial elections–offers any better solution. Empirical evidence–rather than ideology or common sense assumptions–suggests that it does not.
Take the experience in the US, where elections for first-term judgeships has not actually increased public accountability, and in fact may have undermined both judicial independence and public confidence in the process. There, jurisdictions that favour judicial elections have observed an increase in partisan politics; a worrisome level of campaign financing contributions from business and corporate interest groups; a wider but not necessarily better qualified candidate pool; electioneering soundbites, mudslinging, and broken campaign promises from candidates; and a subsequent decline in public confidence in the impartiality of the courts. Virtually all states are now pursuing judicial selection reforms in an attempt to depoliticize the process and restore public confidence in the system.
Is this really where we in Canada want to go? A system where judicial candidates make campaign trail-style promises (e.g., “I promise to crack down on drug offenses!”) that may effectively restrict their options when making court rulings once in office (and open the door to countless s.11(d) Charter appeals by convicted offenders)? Where court rulings are based as much upon public appeasement (recalling Mill’s fear of the ‘tyranny of the majority’) as on the impartial application of statutory and case law? Where judges, faced with re-election ambitions, may opt to do what’s popular (and easy) rather than what’s right (and difficult)?
A middle path, balancing judicial independence with judicial accountability, must be sought.
Zip writes: Can anyone come up with a reasonable answer why it would be a bad thing for a police officer to help selecting our Justices?
You should reread the editorial a little more closely, which notes that “if Ottawa wants police represented, the minister can use one of the three at-large appointments.”
The real reason for Minister Toews’ proposed amendments is to create a fourth at-large position, and discourage the chair from voting on appointment recommendations. On a panel of seven voting members (plus the non-voting chair), the Government could–via the four at-large appointees–effectively take full control over the recommendation process. This would, of course, be in violation of the traditional separation of powers, and should rightly be opposed by both the legal community and the public. Indeed, conservatives (as distinct from Conservatives) who support restrictions on government powers should be among the most vocal critics of this proposed change.
Why is it a good idea to elect law makers and not judges? Why do I get the feeling that if the main stream media and academia werent socialist then the idea of elected judges would be pushed by these same people. As it is they know that the only way their agenda can be advanced is by non elected judges.
The reason why judges are appointed, is because the ‘law’ is an ass- so it is better served by appointed assholes.
“One question, Yer Honour: Have you ever had a REAL JOB? Or- have you always been a pimp for the attorney general department?”
on of the biggest loopholes in this country as far as justice goes is that sentences are concurrent. i.e. murder X number of people but it only counts for one. i wish mr. toews would have charges made consecutive. that would surely put the brakes on a great deal of criminal activity if the perpetrator knew he was going to get nailed for each charge he is up against. plea bargining is another area that should be curtailed, at least in the way it is presently being mis-used. time for change.
A little background for those attempting to contrast Canada with the US, from an American lawyer with a longstanding interest in comparative law: I’d point out that elected vs. appointed is not a dichotomy, but a spectrum with points all between. The US is not a monolith: the way each state’s operate differs more than between provinces in Canada. Some states do NOT have judicial elections. Some have elections for every judicial position; some have some elected, some appointed, and the methods of appointment vary.
In my own Florida, to pick an example, trial judges are elected, but appellate judges are appointed by the Governor from lists drawn up by a Judicial Nominating Commission. Judicial elections are non-partisan and judicial candidates’ “campaigning” is highly curtailed by the rules of judicial ethics. Some counties have lots of contested races, and in others, judges tend to run unopposed for reelection practically all the time. Appellate judges here are subject to something else you might want to think about: retention elections, in which there is no opponent on the ballot, but simply the question, “Shall Judge X be retained in office?” No Florida appellate judge has ever been “un-retained”, but it’s come close, and there have been other judges in other states voted out in similar systems (most famously Rose Byrd, who was Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court).
And, of course, that’s just talking about the state courts: in the federal courts, all judges are appointed by the President for life, subject to confirmation by the Senate.
Please read a newly released Canadian book, Against Judicial Activism (Queen’s-McGill University Press) by Rory Leishman. This fine book meticulously documents the damage the Charter and its minions–our non-elected, elitist judges–have exacted on this country.
Please read a newly released Canadian book, Against Judicial Activism (Queen’s-McGill University Press) by Rory Leishman. This fine book meticulously documents the damage the Charter and its minions–our non-elected, elitist judges–have exacted on this country.
Elect judges that will uphold the U.S. Constitution and send these dangerous crinimals to life or death and would not be influnced by the UN
With respect, Kate, I disagree with the suggestion that Judges should be elected. Unfortunately very few people pay attention to politics. There is no guarantee that elections would produce better Judges than appointments.
Judges should be faithful to the law, common sense and the interests of the community, not the demands of those who elected them.
I have been a lawyer for 32 years. In my opinion we are far too harsh on people who are struggling through life (because of a poor choice of parents) and too easy on people who are truly evil. And I think a lot of Judges don’t understand the difference.
We need to elect more people who would never appoint soft headed Judges or people like Louise Arbour.
Member: Justice Gerald Jewers
The Manitoba Law Reform Commission is an independent agency of the Government of Manitoba established by The Law Reform Commission Act, C.C.S.M. c. L95. The Commission’s duties are to inquire into and consider any matter relating to law in Manitoba with a view to making recommendations for the improvement, modernization and reform of law including: the removal of provisions of the law which are outdated or inconsistent; the maintenance and improvement of the administration of justice; the review of judicial and quasi-judicial procedures under any Act; and the development of new approaches to and new concepts of law in keeping with and responsive to the changing needs of society and of individual members of society…
gov.mb.ca/justice/mlrc/members
Here’s a solution: anyone ever heard of an appeal?
OK Terry, the un-informed public that shouldn’t elect judges, should elect politicians that should elect them instead?
You may be right about the parenting thing. That’s why I think early intervention would be a good thing. So many people are opposed to curfews, one of the arguments being that parents aren’t there to care anyways. Would that not be an opportunity to introduce that family to FCSS programs? Maybe if we were to put more into early identification and intervention? Would that would not ease the pressure on the correction end?
I don’t know the answers but it seems to me nothing’s working and things are getting worse by the minute. How much longer are we to stand by and blame everything on ‘bad parenting’?
If a criminal serving his “sentence in the community” meant that the criminal lived at some a-hole judge’s house, there’d be a whole lot less of these dished out. If the parole board were put into a cell to serve the sentence of a criminal charged while out on parole, there’d be less of that idiocy too.
What we need is stronger laws. You have to eliminate the discretion of judges to do this type of idiocy. We need to make sure that the laws stipulate that the sentences are X except for special circumstances listed specifically under list Y.
Judges need to be held accountable after they’re appointed.
The selection must be more open, have more representation from groups aside from criminal lawyers and the law societies which have obvious bias and agendas (especially the criminal lawyers.) We have to have prosecutors, victim’s groups, and police on the system as well as the advocates for criminals (lawyers – and our current judges.)
The hubris of this band of arrogant pricks is stomach-turning. They may be the only group to make surgeons look humble by comparison.
Cities are just too big now, with the judges happy to let monsters go free and walk among the commoners.
“What a really, really bad idea. Imagine, being elected based on who has the best ads, or on how much dirt (whether tru or not) one can smear on one opponent. Knowledge of the law…eeehhhh optional.”
Murray, that’s a crock. Maybe in lib-left land do the ads work without any thought, but conservatives actually look into what the ads are saying and how much the truth is being distorted. On our streets. In Canada.
———————–
Well Dave…I must thank you for the addition to by Conservative buzzword bingo card…”Lib-left”. And having suffered through the conservative ads from the last Federal Election and from the US election, it seems obvious that Conservatives think the public are mushrooms.
The so-called “lib-left” has no mononply on distortions.
——————————
“As for Kate’s, et al’s. concern over the judgement in Winnipeg…rather than complain about the how the sentence was reduced, how about getting more judges into the system, which would move these cases through faster, which would reduce the amount of double time occuring…and so on.”
How about getting judges into the system that have a clue? How do you do that? Not by appointing those who have brown-nosed the best, but by electing the ones people want. And yes, more judges wouldn’t be a bad idea to give an enema to a bunged-up justice system.
——————————–
Does “have a clue” a secret code for seeing things thru a right wing filter?
And just what do you think an election is, hm? Brown-nosing to the public. And I wager this idea, especially on this board, would rapidly head South if a Plethora of “lib-left” judges were elected.
—————————–
“And rehab does work, just not on everyone. And it get’s people less likly [sic] to re-offend out of prison, leaving more room for those who really deserve to be there.”
It’s the “likely” that concerns me. Would you want a convicted pedophile or murderer let loose in your neighbourhood, because he/she is supposedly “rehabilitated”? I personally wouldn’t take the chance.
————————————————
Is the murderer a serial killer, someone convicted of 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter? If serial or 1st degree, I would not be comfortable, and would want them locked up. 2nd degree I’m iffy on. Manslaughter I don’t think I’d mind too much.
As for a pedophile, I’d be worried for the kids. I’d like him/her kept away.
Aside from that, why are we filling up the jails with people with petty crimes (this of course is a loaded term. What constitutes petty?) or first time offenders of relatively minor crimes. Rehab or other sentences for them, and the freed up space can be used for murderers and other such criminals.
————————————–
“And such things as “three strikes and your out” and elected “get tough” judges are merely panaceas in my opinion. They look good, but really don’t address the problem.”
Of course they do. If you’re in jail, you can’t be out on the street to commit crimes. I know it sounds simple, but that’s because it really is.
———————————–
Is 3 pickups for minor shoplifting equal to 3 murder ones? To armed robbery? Armed robbery where someone is killed?
While our minor shoplifter is in prison, he/she could be learning more interesting ways to cause trouble. What you’ve done is trained a more serious criminal. Hope you can afford that.
————————
Nobody seems to want to accept responsibility for his/her own actions, and that’s wrong. If you do something wrong, you should face the music. And admittedly there’ll be different volumes to the music.
———————————–
Nobody want’s to accept responsibility for their [criminal/bad] actions?
Welcome to humanity. Where have you been?
I agree. Pay your dues if you do a crime? But is it one size fits all? Fit the punishment to the seriousness of the crime?
And how will “say anything to get elected” judges help?
mugs
Murray with all due respect don’t you think playing both sides of the fence, in some cases only leads to confusion and lack of change?
I always cringe when I hear someone use ” root of the problem”, like its so hard to find!
Why do we turn so many negative things that affect our society into make work projects for bureaucrats, and the people that love having lunch with them.
———————————-
Playing both sides of the fence? I suggest more judges to cut down on wait times, thus cutting down on double time banking, thus giving more jail time to serious criminals…and I’m playing both sides of the fence??
yeeesh.
I cringe as well when I hear “root of the problem”. Fortunately, I never said that.
As for you last bit…I never understood the appeal of having lunch with “3 strikes and your out” advocates. Talk about you make work project. More people in prison=more prisons=more employees=more bureaucrats administering them=more lunchs.
It’s a vicious cycle.
here in goofyland the biggest hick town in canada the local judge let a black dude out free and clear on bail after taking pot shots at FOUR people.
the chief of police was understandably most fumed.
as were many others.
they cant find the gunman now, he’s disappeared.
“Here’s a solution: anyone ever heard of an appeal?”
Ever heard of “abuse of discretion?” An educated guess is that’s the standard by which Canadian appellate courts review sentences imposed by trial courts: it’s an exceedingly high standard, giving great deference to the trial court. It’s not like reviewing questions of law. If you have a vast number of bad trial judges, you can’t expect the appeals process to save you.
Canada-wide warrant issued for notorious sex offender John Robin Sharpe
…Sharpe came to prominence in 1999 when he won two lower court rulings in British Columbia arguing Canada’s laws against possessing child pornography violated his Charter rights…
Sharpe came to prominence in 1999 when he won two lower court rulings in British Columbia arguing Canada’s laws against possessing child pornography violated his Charter rights.
canada.com
More fuel for the fire.
Pedophile on his second conviction (also convicted of forcile confinement of a boy aged 9 who was tied up with a rope) gets TIME SERVED.
The judge’s concern is evident in the coverage of his comments ,(ones that will rank right up there with- ‘the cheque is in the mail’).
“Broad’s release concerned Superior Court Justice Robert Riopelle.”
“I’m sure you’ll be back before a court judge someday, leaving a wake of tattered and shattered lives,” Riopelle said in Timmins court Tuesday. “I hope I’m wrong.”
GRRR.
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/CityandRegion/2006/11/17/2391161-sun.html
I’m not sure if electing judges is the right way to go, but what we have now is not working.
Perhaps all judges, including the supremes should
be appointed for set periods of time. Right now they are on the gravy train forever. If they faced the propect of returning to chasing ambulances for a living they might remember that they are suppose to protect the citizens from the criminals not the reverse.
A related story; why didn’t this judge toss this charge out?
Man rescues woman from rape, thumps the perv in the process and rescuer ends up charged as well! Jury has more of a ‘clue’ than the police or idiot judge. This is worth the time to read; it raises the question: will bystanders now get involved in a similar situation given what is in this report?
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2006/11/17/2391109-sun.html
IMHO the situation in our courts is hopeless, these perps have rights don’t you know.
“Well Dave…I must thank you for the addition to by Conservative buzzword bingo card…”Lib-left”. And having suffered through the conservative ads from the last Federal Election and from the US election, it seems obvious that Conservatives think the public are mushrooms.
The so-called “lib-left” has no mononply [sic] on distortions.”
And having suffered through Liberal ads from the last federal election, it’s obvious (doesn’t even seem) that the Liberals only care about power–not what’s good for Canada.
——————————
“Does “have a clue” a secret code for seeing things thru a right wing filter?
And just what do you think an election is, hm? Brown-nosing to the public. And I wager this idea, especially on this board, would rapidly head South if a Plethora of “lib-left” judges were elected.”
Nope, “having a clue” is not setting people free after 3 years served for raping children. As for your last comment, I would wager that the people on this board are all in favour of representative democracy. Thus, we KNOW that, while not by all judges (because of the diversity of opinions in this country), our values (remember that word?!) would be represented, and not just the anything goes-he screwed kids, well he must be a good guy inside so let’s let him free and tell him not to do it again-liberal judges.
—————————–
“Is the murderer a serial killer, someone convicted of 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter? If serial or 1st degree, I would not be comfortable, and would want them locked up. 2nd degree I’m iffy on. Manslaughter I don’t think I’d mind too much.
As for a pedophile, I’d be worried for the kids. I’d like him/her kept away.
Aside from that, why are we filling up the jails with people with petty crimes (this of course is a loaded term. What constitutes petty?) or first time offenders of relatively minor crimes. Rehab or other sentences for them, and the freed up space can be used for murderers and other such criminals.”
Well, if you want a 2nd degree murderer living with you, be my guest. Invite him/her into your home for tea and crumpets. Not mine.
You’re right, the use of the term “petty crime” is loaded. Ask the clerk who’s just been robbed or the bank teller who’s had a gun pointed at her. I’m not saying stick ’em all in jail and let God sort ’em out, but for heaven’s sake, let’s have some real consequences for bad actions.
————————————–
“Is 3 pickups for minor shoplifting equal to 3 murder ones? To armed robbery? Armed robbery where someone is killed?
While our minor shoplifter is in prison, he/she could be learning more interesting ways to cause trouble. What you’ve done is trained a more serious criminal. Hope you can afford that.”
If you’re a repeat offender, be it shoplifting or murdering, then that’s a sign that you’re once again likely to reoffend. In that case, they’re not equal to murderers, but I don’t think they should be let out post haste.
And while our minor shoplifter is out free, he/she realizes that he (going to the single pronoun) can get away with it, and then rips the wallet out of your pocket while you’re waiting at the bus stop; you don’t want him to take your wallet, so you resist. He pops you one in the jaw. You fall to the ground, and buddy takes your wallet anyhow. So instead of learning that he can’t get away with it, he learned that he **can**. And this time, you’re the victim. Hope you can stomach that.
————————
“Nobody want’s [sic] to accept responsibility for their [criminal/bad] actions?
Welcome to humanity. Where have you been?
I agree. Pay your dues if you do a crime? But is it one size fits all? Fit the punishment to the seriousness of the crime?
And how will “say anything to get elected” judges help?”
I should have been more clear. Nobody on the left wants to think they’re responsible for their own actions. And the judges on the left perpetuate this by making people **not** responsible for their own actions. (Otherwise we’d see about 2/3 of the higher-ups in the Liberal party in jail by now.)
About the “say anything to get elected judges”, well, that’s infinitely better than the “who the hell is he/she” judge selection system we have now. We’re bound to make a few mistakes, but in the end, it’ll turn out to be that much better a system because we’ll tend toward reasonable, sane, ACCOUNTABLE judges. And I think that’s the crux of this matter–what recourse do we have w.r.t. this judge, now that the pedophiles have gotten a slap on the wrist?
**Sigh** my heart hurts for those poor kids.
I should have been more clear. Nobody on the left wants to think they’re responsible for their own actions. And the judges on the left perpetuate this by making people **not** responsible for their own actions. (Otherwise we’d see about 2/3 of the higher-ups in the Liberal party in jail by now.)
———————–
Ah…the fallacy the the left believes no one has responsbility.
And the right is all for taking responsibilty when they do somethign wrong?
———————–
About the “say anything to get elected judges”, well, that’s infinitely better than the “who the hell is he/she” judge selection system we have now. We’re bound to make a few mistakes, but in the end, it’ll turn out to be that much better a system because we’ll tend toward reasonable, sane, ACCOUNTABLE judges.
————————–
We will tend towards political judges. ..judges who will base descisions on their chances at the ballot box…not on justice. To pretend otherwise is a conservative-land pipe dream.
If this is your idea of a “reasonable, sane, ACCOUNTABLE” system…your welcome to it.
Democracy — the worst system except for all of the other systems. Electing judges would allow us to at least keep the very worst of them off the bench.
BTW, is that story about the Supreme Court judge ordering a lie detector test actually true? I could believe it, but I’ve never heard that one before.
“Ah…the fallacy the the left believes no one has responsbility.
And the right is all for taking responsibilty when they do somethign wrong?”
In a word, yes.
———————–
“We will tend towards political judges. ..judges who will base descisions on their chances at the ballot box…not on justice. To pretend otherwise is a conservative-land pipe dream.
If this is your idea of a “reasonable, sane, ACCOUNTABLE” system…your welcome to it.”
As opposed to now, where we have judges basing decisions on … well, I tried to think of something but I couldn’t come up with it, as we’ve shown judges to have, at times, asinine rulings. And when I think about it more, what’s wrong, exactly, with judges basing decisions on their chances at the ballot box? I mean, it means they’ll have to a) actually pay attention to what the general public (aka the great unwashed) feels is correct, all the while b) sticking to the law. The best of both worlds, IMO. But please, if you have a better idea, I’m all for hearing it.
As opposed to now, where we have judges basing decisions on … well, I tried to think of something but I couldn’t come up with it, as we’ve shown judges to have, at times, asinine rulings. And when I think about it more, what’s wrong, exactly, with judges basing decisions on their chances at the ballot box? I mean, it means they’ll have to a) actually pay attention to what the general public (aka the great unwashed) feels is correct, all the while b) sticking to the law. The best of both worlds, IMO. But please, if you have a better idea, I’m all for hearing it.
——————————
Well, based on how current elections work…these judges, if they want to keep their jobs, would skew their descisions away from the idea of Justice towards what will get them elected…and this includes those who fund their elections. Imagine, being beholden to lobbyists who apply big bucks to a judges campaign.
If the “public” want’s to execute shoplifters, and they elect a hanging judge who promply starts executing shoplifters, is this Justice? Or mob rule?
If this same judge lets a CEO, who bilked millions from his company’s shareholders, off with a light sentence because said CEO and his lobby supported the judges candidacy…is this Justice?
If someone complains about this inconsistency (one theft gets you hung, another theft gets a slap on the wrist), the lobbyists just give the judge more money to fund ads to a) spin and b) attack other candidates.
Politicising justice in this way a stupid solution to the problem.
I already offered one solution. You apparently don’t want to hear it.
CJ posted:
“BTW, is that story about the Supreme Court judge ordering a lie detector test actually true? I could believe it, but I’ve never heard that one before.”
Regrettably, it happened just the way I described.