Well, I have never been a judge and cannot speak directly about what that job is like. But we all see the revolving-door problem in many big cities, and we know instinctively that something is wrong.
There has to be some space between ‘throw the bums out’ and ‘let people do whatever they want.’
What I am suggesting is greater visibility and easier ways to assess repeat, pattern-based outcomes — including how often violent crimes are later committed by offenders who were released early, repeatedly diverted, or never jailed at all.
That is only a first step. As several readers have already pointed out, we need to understand how pervasive the problem actually is before we can solve it.
Doing nothing, however, is not a serious option. Too many innocent lives have already been broken.
By the way, the ABS system is working great in baseball. Attendance is way up! Americans love a fair system.
Three strikes and you are out. I vote for a system that shows the public just how bad certain judges’ records are. Make it painfully obvious. Then get rid of them. We can’t go on like this. Public will not tolerate it.
Presumption of innocence is good--it's how the system was designed to protect the truly innocent. But after endless re-arrests and re-releases of career criminals, how much innocence is left to be presumed?
Judges frequently run unopposed with no need to explain their ideological bent. Recall made easier? Or maybe removal of indemnity when their judgement fails?
Thank you for opening the discussion to much-needed reform of a broken system with three major issues.
First is the enormous chasm between public perception of and many judges’ practices in administering justice. The judiciary is first to cite any restriction on sentencing as infringement on “judicial discrimination”. Sentencing leniency became such a problem that “minimum sentencing laws were passed and these only partially relieved fair sentencing for repeat offenders.
Most of us would support offering a “second chance” to an offender of a non-injury or non-fatal crime including a minimum sentence. A second chance is just that and only that. It doesn’t include “more chances” for any reason. Repeated “second chances” only encourage the convicted of there always being another chance and the full sentence won’t ever apply to them – in effect, placing them above the law.
Crimes causing injury or death deserve little or no leniency and definitely no “second chances”. Setting strong sentencing standards across this type of crime could be a force multiplier to reducing such crimes.
Second is judicial adherence to the written law opposed to exercising their personal convictions. Far too often a judge weighs in for the perpetrator leaving the victim suffering from the law instead of being remedied by it. Either way suggests some means of qualification to ensure the community good.
Third is what you proposed with review of the sentencing record and reasonable means to replace judges who are not performing.
Okay, you're gonna get some negative feedback on this one, Jim. I spent 25 years as a civil trial attorney and 25 years as a judge, in California. I acknowledge that I did not work on criminal cases, only civil (mostly accident claims). Having said that, my concerns are the overall movement toward measuring human conduct by specific and [arguably] inflexible standards.
Yes, a ball that is outside the strike zone but called as a strike can cost a baseball game. And yes, the loss of a game is financially and emotionally upsetting in many ways. But consider that such reactions are generally recoverable. And yes, an early release of a dangerous criminal is may also be called emotionally and financially a disaster, certainly to victims. But the nature of the victim of the criminal is different from the nature of the "victim" of the inaccurate call by the umpire.
I won't argue the infallibility of judges, they put their pants on one leg at a time. And yes, they are as prejudiced and influenceable as the next person. Yes, you can probably fire an errant umpire easier than an errant judge. Lord knows, we've all seen both types of idiots, on the bench and behind the plate. And yes, many, if not all of the sporting calls may be mechanized just as mechanical evaluations of criminal conduct can be mathematically measured and absolutely accurate calls may be made.
Here's what would happen. In the courtroom, do you plan on using a mathematical model to decide the admissibility of evidence, the analysis of the emotional reactions of the parties (witnesses, victims (who happen to survive), experts (like police, doctors, engineers, etc.)? What about jurors, who also have backgrounds and undisclosed prejudices...or will they also be replaced by AI?
We're all fallible, a concept that doesn't depend on the nature of the situation but on the makeup of any given individual. Replace some levels, most levels, all levels of human judgment? Yes, that would be extreme. But those in The Terminator didn't think so.
Well, I have never been a judge and cannot speak directly about what that job is like. But we all see the revolving-door problem in many big cities, and we know instinctively that something is wrong.
There has to be some space between ‘throw the bums out’ and ‘let people do whatever they want.’
What I am suggesting is greater visibility and easier ways to assess repeat, pattern-based outcomes — including how often violent crimes are later committed by offenders who were released early, repeatedly diverted, or never jailed at all.
That is only a first step. As several readers have already pointed out, we need to understand how pervasive the problem actually is before we can solve it.
Doing nothing, however, is not a serious option. Too many innocent lives have already been broken.
By the way, the ABS system is working great in baseball. Attendance is way up! Americans love a fair system.
Three strikes and you are out. I vote for a system that shows the public just how bad certain judges’ records are. Make it painfully obvious. Then get rid of them. We can’t go on like this. Public will not tolerate it.
Presumption of innocence is good--it's how the system was designed to protect the truly innocent. But after endless re-arrests and re-releases of career criminals, how much innocence is left to be presumed?
Judges frequently run unopposed with no need to explain their ideological bent. Recall made easier? Or maybe removal of indemnity when their judgement fails?
Thank you for opening the discussion to much-needed reform of a broken system with three major issues.
First is the enormous chasm between public perception of and many judges’ practices in administering justice. The judiciary is first to cite any restriction on sentencing as infringement on “judicial discrimination”. Sentencing leniency became such a problem that “minimum sentencing laws were passed and these only partially relieved fair sentencing for repeat offenders.
Most of us would support offering a “second chance” to an offender of a non-injury or non-fatal crime including a minimum sentence. A second chance is just that and only that. It doesn’t include “more chances” for any reason. Repeated “second chances” only encourage the convicted of there always being another chance and the full sentence won’t ever apply to them – in effect, placing them above the law.
Crimes causing injury or death deserve little or no leniency and definitely no “second chances”. Setting strong sentencing standards across this type of crime could be a force multiplier to reducing such crimes.
Second is judicial adherence to the written law opposed to exercising their personal convictions. Far too often a judge weighs in for the perpetrator leaving the victim suffering from the law instead of being remedied by it. Either way suggests some means of qualification to ensure the community good.
Third is what you proposed with review of the sentencing record and reasonable means to replace judges who are not performing.
Okay, you're gonna get some negative feedback on this one, Jim. I spent 25 years as a civil trial attorney and 25 years as a judge, in California. I acknowledge that I did not work on criminal cases, only civil (mostly accident claims). Having said that, my concerns are the overall movement toward measuring human conduct by specific and [arguably] inflexible standards.
Yes, a ball that is outside the strike zone but called as a strike can cost a baseball game. And yes, the loss of a game is financially and emotionally upsetting in many ways. But consider that such reactions are generally recoverable. And yes, an early release of a dangerous criminal is may also be called emotionally and financially a disaster, certainly to victims. But the nature of the victim of the criminal is different from the nature of the "victim" of the inaccurate call by the umpire.
I won't argue the infallibility of judges, they put their pants on one leg at a time. And yes, they are as prejudiced and influenceable as the next person. Yes, you can probably fire an errant umpire easier than an errant judge. Lord knows, we've all seen both types of idiots, on the bench and behind the plate. And yes, many, if not all of the sporting calls may be mechanized just as mechanical evaluations of criminal conduct can be mathematically measured and absolutely accurate calls may be made.
Here's what would happen. In the courtroom, do you plan on using a mathematical model to decide the admissibility of evidence, the analysis of the emotional reactions of the parties (witnesses, victims (who happen to survive), experts (like police, doctors, engineers, etc.)? What about jurors, who also have backgrounds and undisclosed prejudices...or will they also be replaced by AI?
We're all fallible, a concept that doesn't depend on the nature of the situation but on the makeup of any given individual. Replace some levels, most levels, all levels of human judgment? Yes, that would be extreme. But those in The Terminator didn't think so.
Feedback is the breakfast of Champions.