I stole this meme from another .win channel, yet i thought it very appropriate. Judges need to be held accountable for their actions, too.
Comments (40)
sorted by:
Problem is humans have some kind of free will - assumed by our legal system - which puts the guilt on the offender for their choices (not the judge)
Dogs lack this ability to choose like humans, so owners of dogs are responsible instead as they are able to make choices of how dogs are handled and responsibility can be assigned to the owner that has the capacity for choice (where dogs simply act on blind instinct)
It's an obviously inapplicable analogy.
A better analogy is how a doctor can or should be held to account for malpractice. Professional responsibility sort of thing.
That said, absolutely judges need to be held to account for misapplication of their role. Bad judgments, horrible judgments, and decision that ultimately (and consistently) result in hurt and damage to the community, judges must be held to account for these things.
So, we're faced with multiple problems: one, horrible judges making horrible decisions, two, entangled judicial system where judges are NOT being held to account.
The second problem is the real one. This then begs the question, why on earth are these sort of judges NOT being held to account for catastrophic and horrible decisions?
There is a problem with the system.
Wrong. It is a very good analogy. Reality check though: if a judge is literally held accountable for a ruling that allows someone to go free who then ends up committing murder or another egregious offense LATER then all judges would never allow a non guilty verdict for anyone ever again! You can't incentivize a judge this way. It is insane to even say this. There ARE very good and realistic ways to deal with bad Judges. Even better: don't allow anyone to become a judge unless they are highly scrutinized and proven to follow the constitution. If they have even one hint of criminal connections then fucking RICO them!
Uk, Ok. If you say so? (Assertion, but zero argument provided.)
Why it isn't a suitable analogy.
Dogs are not humans, and do not have the same free will or accountability as a human. Dog owners have a responsibility to train, guide, upkeep and maintain the dogs behavior and health, etc. Judges don't have that responsibility OR capability under our judicial systems.
Once a criminal or other person is released by a judge, the judge essentially has not control or direct influence over the subsequent actions of the person. The owner of a dog will have continuing influence and control over that dog.
But, we are in agreement on one thing: the approach suggested would be completely ineffective in incentivising a judge.
Are you just ignoring what I said again? I did provide an argument. A very simple one in fact. Read my comment again, slowly.
Not as far as I can see. But 'again'? Hmmm...
But... did you ignore (or misunderstand) what I wrote? I commented on the applicability of the analogy: 'obviously inapplicable' and offered what I think is a better analogy.
So, there are two points of focus here: one, the responsibilities that a judge has and then, how or if they should be held accountable for execution of those responsibilities, and two, use of an analogy to highlight the first point (responsibility and accountability).
OK, I guess I missed it. Was it in this particular thread?
The way I read your commit is like this.
One, you made a simple statement, regarding the dog owner analogy that BluewhiteandRed and myself directly discussed. "Wrong. It's a very good analogy". End of statement.
Two, you made an argument labeled 'Reality Check though' on the topic of holding judges accountable for the actions of people they release or put into the public sphere, which I read as quite separate from the analogy. The 'though' reads like a 'but'. "No, but..." "Wrong, but..."
I very much agree with your second 'reality check' arguments, but they don't in anyway address the idea of whether the analogy of a dog owner's responsibility is applicable or appropriate to a judge's responsibility in the court.
Am I missing something? Did you address the applicability of the dog owner's responsibility analogy? I'm not seeing that anywhere.
Saying that you did would logically mean you are saying that 'dog owners should not be held applicable for their dog's actions, because if we did, no dog owners anywhere would ever take responsibility for their dogs', which makes no sense.
So, I repeat: If and how should judges be held accountable for their decisions? and what would be a good analogy to illustrate that?
if you think that the dog owner thing is a good analogy, why? How does it relate?
Here is another thing to ponder deeply: Lets say that you hold a judge accountable for a murder that someone he/she had previously ruled innocent on commits. Now that judge is held accountable. He would be held accountable by another judge. Is the second judge held accountable for his ruling on the first judge? Do you see how much this would put a bias on all judges to rule a guilty verdict which in turn would completely undermine a fair trial and justice itself? Also, what about every citizens right to a jury trial? Do we hold all the members of a jury accountable if they provide an innocent verdict and then that person gos and commits murder? If that became law why would any jury rule innocent? This would completely undermine justice and the constitutional American way of innocent until proven guilty. Would you like to live in a world where anyone who ends up in a court room (even on trumped up charges) for murder is going to get convicted? Any corrupt officer of the law could get a person put away for life or executed just by charging them with murder. They wouldn't even have to do a good job of faking the evidence anymore...
Don't look now, but you are making a good argument why the dog owner thing is not a good analogy to illustrate how or why judges should be held accountable for their decisions.
Um, yes. This is what I've been saying the whole time Op's analogy is wrong u/bluewhiteandred's analogy is correct... Ok, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just not paying attention to the conversation and not just trying to be a troll
/u/bluewhiteandred Had a good analogy. You said it wasn't good. I said that you were wrong in saying that because judges obviously cant be incentivized that way. I also said in my first reply that there are better ways to hold judges accountable and listed a few. I never one said they shouldn't be held accountable. I only said they cant be held accountable in the way that OP said because of the obvious fallacy which I explained clearly and also provided examples.....If you are still trying to say i'm wrong then are you just mad because you know I'm right or what? You seem to have a weird problem with logic and paying attention peoples points when you get proven wrong...Honestly bro, you kinda argue like a liberal. You need to have a little more humility when you are obviously incorrect on a something....I mean, if you honestly cant understand how a judge cant be impartial with an extreme conflict of interest then maybe just don't get involved in this subject mater anymore....
Let’s be clear. The judges are not exhibiting “poor judgement” in these cases. They are knowingly and purposely controlled. By who? The same apparatus that funds the never ending “corporate” non-organic protests, where protesters are paid to be there and scream (or worse). These judges are bankrolled by the usual suspects, and most likely under threat of being offed if they deviate from the agreed upon path. The effect (terror and murder in the streets) is part of their game plan. That an individual (judge) is willing to do this (fully knowing what the eventual outcome will be) sheds much light into their moral character - no different than the murderers themselves. They deserve to be thrown into the fiery pit.
I like the idea of putting a financial microscope up the @$$ of judges to see if they have large sums of money being brought into their coffers which is far and above their regular salaries or winning the lotto.
Follow the money, where possible.
It's long been understood by the wisest of believers that we should probably leave that sort of judgment up to God.
But you are arguing about their motive for the decision they put out. That's conjecture, but still, likely to be accurate in many cases. In some, I think its just that they are overtaken by their own version of the woke mind virus. Some might (probably are) being controlled via direct threat, but I think a lot of them are either corrupt or extremely deluded, if not sort of insane.
My point, however, is not that they are simply exhibiting poor judgment. It is that judges need to be held to an objectively determined standard of judgments. You cannot convict people simply on the basis of their motives. That's what 'hate crimes' are all about (i.e. things that are not actually criminal, except for what you asserted to be thinking).
Yes.
AND - fines, penalties and punishment needs to be EXTREME... because they're supposed to be held to higher standards in that position.
u/#enjoythestorm
THEY WALK ON WATER you don’t, “YOU “ allowed it, when only 20% of registered voters show up to vote you get this and they know it. If a population of 1 million and 20% votes 800 hundred thousand stay home they still. Vote unknown to themselves. 20% get go and vote, 200,001 votes for one party gets to control of 100% of the population. Stupid citizens you get this fuck up tax’s, unbelievable amount of fraud, illegal invasion and it’s on the 80% who didn’t vote😱🇺🇸😵
Great point. Its been this way for a very long time and no one really talks about it on here....This is one of the main reasons why we had to be shown how bad it could get by going through covid19 and and Biden.
Absolutely. We have judges, who aren’t even lawyers, releasing criminals to commit more crimes. Many of them had been previously arrested and released.
Just like bartenders that continue to serve intoxicated patrons, they can and will be held responsible if a drunk leaves the bar and kills someone.
The bartender should not be held responsible. Who would know if the guy/gal just brought his own alcohol in a flask or ect. to save money and was drinking it in the bathroom or as he was leaving the bar? People do that all the time. There should be cops monitoring the areas near the outside of the bar and checking people who look and act too drunk to drive instead. Use some of the money from the crazy high taxes that are already on alcohol to pay for it......."Across states, Washington levies the highest excise tax rate on distilled spirits at $36.98 per gallon. The next highest rates are levied in Virginia, at $23.47 per gallon, and Alabama, at $22.87 per gallon"......
You raise a valid point.
Hey, hey, slow your roll...that's way too much Common Sense for some...whoa there!!...sarc
I made a post about Roy Cooper (who release the guy that killed Irina from a life sentence during vivid the other day...
This is inescapable logic -- simple accountability for the impacts one creates on others -- part of natural law.
And parents whose children commit crimes are being held accountable. Judges need to be held to higher standards than the average American.
FUCKING “A”****(Meaning: that "Fuckin' A" means "Fucking Awesome."“)
Conviction rates just went to 100%
Everyone goes to jail no matter what.
I'd say perhaps there's a better way, like finding the dirt on the judges and just arresting them for that.
Japan enters the chat...
Yeah, I was just talking to my friend about the criminal who stabbed the girl on the train was let go due to incompetence to stand trial. I said the same thing, if a dog attacks someone, they are unable stand trial, but are put down.
Like the way you think
Given the huge trust and power we the citizens give them as part of the unwritten social contract, they should be treated with extreme severity if they are involved in any kind of immoral or illegal act.
Releasing a criminal without any consequences of their actions against society, who goes on to commit further crimes makes the judge an accessory to these crimes.
The judge should face capital punishment, after a short jury trial which includes victims of the crimes. They hold the power of life and death, they should be punished accordingly.
Citizens need to regain control of their countries away from the treasonous, corrupt, unaccountable public servants.
Well spoken, fren!