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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Feedback is the breakfast of Champions.