Judicial Reform

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by JoakimFlorence, Apr 1, 2016.

  1. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Right now under the law judges have a tremendous amount of discretionary power.
    In many cases judges can basically sentence someone who has been convicted of a crime to whatever they see fit, be it 1 year or 100 years. Judges even have the power to jail someone who has not been charged by a prosecutor (known as civil contempt).

    With all the powers granted to judges you would think there would be more oversight, but the truth is there is virtually none. A judge could go on making a series of bad decisions, case after case, and never face any consequences. Judges are well aware of this, and many have become arrogant, or in some cases even sadistic, casually condemning those who have been convicted to long prison sentences that may not be deserved.

    Federal judges, who have lifetime appointments, hold positions that give them unique power to control the future of defendants who appear before them in proceedings. However, when it comes to examining the personal conduct of these judges, they are surrounded by a cloak of secrecy so impenetrable that only the most heinous misconduct ever comes to light to members of the public.

    Of the 15 federal judges to be impeached since the nation's founding, three resigned prior to their trials in the Senate. Of the remaining 12, four were acquitted of the charges against them and remained on the bench; only nine have been convicted and removed from office in the past 240 years. The rarity of the impeachment process is indicative of the apparent immunity from discipline federal judges enjoy. Anyone may file a formal complaint against a federal judge; the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court where the complaint originated is then tasked with reviewing the complaint and determining whether to take corrective action, dismiss the complain, or appoint a special committee to investigate.

    It is also notable that no federal judge has ever been removed from office for issuing an inappropriate court order in the course of performing his official duties.

    According to First Look Media, a source of "original, independent journalism", an overwhelming number of complaints against federal judges are dismissed. In fact, First Look reported, of the 1,219 judicial complaints filed in 2013 alone, 1,153 were dismissed and only two referred for investigation. In the 12-month period ending on September 30, 2014, of the 1,233 complaints filed just four were referred to a special committee of a circuit court's Judicial Council for review. If unsatisfied with the the decision of a Judicial Council, the complainant can appeal to the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

    Judges have a tremendous level of power, and I am just suggesting there should be more oversight, that there should be officials tasked with overseeing individual cases and reporting any bad decisions and keeping track of the case record of specific judges to be on the lookout for improper conduct. There should also be committees who are not themselves composed of individuals drawn from the same pool of judges, who are not going to be biased against finding that a judge has habitually made a bad series of decisions.
     
  2. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I found this post written by a police officer in another forum:

     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yup no better than any other 3rd world banana republic, well unless we want to consider stealthier better.

    If there was ever anything that should shake people up the idea that this crap goes on along with cases like the avery case and the gubmint gets away with it should strike true fear in everyone from the dumbest box of rocks to the most vested.

    The unfortunate thing however is that we have become numb and trained to live under this corruption because we have no say in the gubmint on any level that counts for anything.
     
  4. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Actually those mystical beings in black robes only have the power, discretionary or otherwise, that the parties allow them. No they don't have the power to jail except under the coercion of those in his court with guns. If you are falsely kidnapped and held for ransom, file charges.

    What powers have been granted? Stolen perhaps but nothing has been granted. Judges should never make any decisions, period. It is not their court as the court belongs to the plaintiff. In reality, their is no such thing as a judge, they are magistrates whose sole purpose is to maintain order and keep the case moving toward completion. It is the people with their mistaken impression that another has some powers in excess of their own but how can that be? It can't!!! Where did they get them? False impressions based on gross assumptions as no one may delegate to another that which they do not possess.


    Even the constitution doesn't agree with you as it only allows for terms during "good behaviour". But what right did they have to do this. The constitution purports to be based on the Declaration of Independence that clearly states:


    So where did the framers of this document get their consent to have some supreme being known as the chief executive appoint one's that have the power to control people according to the current sway of the supreme political? Even worse, which people consented? Was not ratification done by another political body acting as representatives? Representatives of whom?

    Yep, what can one expect when they ignore the important and fail to act. Whining and crying gets one nowhere.
     
  5. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
  6. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While a judge could theoretically sentence you to life in prison for a shoplifting conviction, it would be overturned on appeal if he exceeded the maximum set forth in the statutes.


    That may depend on where you live. Some places elect their judges. In addition, my state requires Judges be reappointed periodically, so if they make bad decisions, there is a safety valve in the legislature; the Supreme Court of my state itself evaluates judges by polling all the lawyers who have appeared before them, and the bar itself has a special section to deal with judges and their performance. You are probably more talking about federal judges.

    What exactly about them do you want to know?


    The SCOTUS and appeals courts check them.

    Do you have an example of a Judge that needed to be removed and why?

    Maybe the overwhelming number of them were nuisance complaints by parties that didn't get what they wanted.

    "bad" decisions is subjective.
     
  7. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And if the prosecutor levels enough charges against you, that maximum allowed by law could be very very long.

    There's a lot of overlapping laws on the books, so a single criminal act could be construed as a violation of a dozen different criminal statutes, if a prosecutor really wanted to go after you.
     
  8. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Depends on what you were involved in, but theoretically true...

    though your sentencing would probably be concurrent on the many charges.
     
  9. JoakimFlorence

    JoakimFlorence Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,689
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...sconduct-new-orleans-louisiana_n_3529891.html

    The story of John Thompson is particularly egregious. Because of prosecutorial misconduct, he was wrongly convicted two separate times, for a carjacking and a murder. He spent 18 years at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, 14 of them on death row. His death warrant was signed eight times. When his attorneys finally found the evidence that cleared him—evidence his prosecutors had known about for years—he was only weeks away from execution.

    What most enrages Thompson is not that he was wrongly convicted, but that there was no accountability. “This isn’t about bad men, though they were most assuredly bad men,” Thompson says. “It’s about a system that is void of integrity. Mistakes can happen. But if you don’t do anything to stop them from happening again, you can’t keep calling them mistakes.”


    An insider's view of prosecutorial culture

     
  10. Guyzilla

    Guyzilla Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Messages:
    13,230
    Likes Received:
    2,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Judiciary NEEDS its Teflon coating. To make them subject to the whims and fashions of the PUBLIC, is to lose the REPUBLIC, for which it stands.

    Judges are given discretion, as they are HIRED, TO USE DISCRETION. Mandatory minimums, are why we have more prisoners per capita, than almost all other nations.

    Mandatory minimums, and demands for thorough prosecution will skyrocket our expense for the justice system. And make POLITICIANS, more than ever, the REAL LAW.
     

Share This Page