I stole this meme from another .win channel, yet i thought it very appropriate. Judges need to be held accountable for their actions, too.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (40)
sorted by:
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.