Girl provoked pedophile - judge

[Heracles 417]

I guess I figure we can all see that it's wrong when a zero tolerance policy at a school means someone gets suspended for hugging his girlfriend because the rule is 'no touching anyone ever' and the principal has no choice, or when a five-year-old kisses his classmate and is hit with sexual harassment. We say, 'what a stupid rule.' We think it's crazy having to deal with the draconic step-by-step rules of immigration where one tiny screw-up means you get denied. I see no reason the legal system should emulate immigration.

Immigration should not be a walk in the park anyway. Immigration is not a right but a privilege. Many forget that.

The zero tolerance policy does work. To the contrary allowing kids to believe they run the show is actually what has stuffed up the school system in numerous western nations. I dare a kid to throw something or abuse a teacher in the middle east or in China. Teachers are the ones who personally see and experience the consequences of not having a zero tolerance policy. The no touching rule was probably initiated because some dumbass parent complained about it; Therefore the schools had to follow the PC line. Anyway, kids should be at school to learn and not to occupy their time with social BS.

Zero tolerance actually needs to be extended to other aspects of society such as: What is a 10 year doing on her own? Second of all where are her parents??

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Christ. What a ###### up judge. I would still, on balance, rather have a system, though, where decisions like sentencing in some matters should be at the judge's discretion, subject to review by attorneys general and guidelines. This guy isn't a good argument for mandatory minimums because his abuse is already corrected by measures in place, like the AG's office.

Steven's example is good. Do you think the 19-year-old boyfriend deserves to go to jail for ten years, where he'll probably be abused and never stand a chance of holding a decent job? What about the teacher at the school who showed a roomful of kids porn images accidentally because the computer was taken over by a virus? Don't you want a judge to be able to say, technically, you're guilty, but the community knows it was an accident?

Even the pressure for plea bargains is bad. If you knew you were innocent, but that a mandatory minimum for the crime would put you away for 10 years, wouldn't you plea to a lesser charge? Hope that plea doesn't keep you from getting a job or immigrating.

I guess I figure we can all see that it's wrong when a zero tolerance policy at a school means someone gets suspended for hugging his girlfriend because the rule is 'no touching anyone ever' and the principal has no choice, or when a five-year-old kisses his classmate and is hit with sexual harassment. We say, 'what a stupid rule.' We think it's crazy having to deal with the draconic step-by-step rules of immigration where one tiny screw-up means you get denied. I see no reason the legal system should emulate immigration.

I think this is another example where people are claiming more knowledge of the law than they really have. There are already minimum and maximum sentences prescribed by law for given offences. Within that the judge does have some latitude to use his discretion based on the idiosyncracies of the case - but not to a very wide degree. A 1st degree murder charge still carries a 'no less than' clause attached to it.

What seems to be being suggested here (as I think Steven pointed out) is that the judge ought to have no say in how he applies the law to a specific case. Nor would I think that judges like the one in the OP article are in anyways typical of 'most' judges. Not sure there's a valid reason for penalising all judges just because of the actions of a few 'rogue' crazies - judges whose decisions, as you say are subject to review and appeal.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Christ. What a ###### up judge. I would still, on balance, rather have a system, though, where decisions like sentencing in some matters should be at the judge's discretion, subject to review by attorneys general and guidelines.

Please tell me you misspoke. Your statement that the Attorney General should have the discretion to review sentences is like saying "If a plaintiff in a civil suit thinks they didn't get enough money, they should be allowed to review the judge's decision and take more if they think the decision was unfair." The Attorney General is the plaintiff in a criminal case.

Decisions are subject to review by appellate courts. Not the Attorney General.

As far as I know, in every state and the federal government, sentences are determined by guidelines and then the judge can, for good cause shown, impose less or more than the guidelines, subject to review by the next court up. [Although the Supreme Court has held that *some* reasons need to be proven to a jury, the judge can't just decide they happened and impose more because of them. The death penalty being the classic example, that always needs to be decided by a jury.]

The article is about the UK though - I believe the attorney general, has ultimate authority over public prosecutions and can refer a case for judicial review.

[Heracles 417]

I think this is another example where people are claiming more knowledge of the law than they really have. There are already minimum and maximum sentences prescribed by law for given offences. Within that the judge does have some latitude to use his discretion based on the idiosyncracies of the case - but not to a very wide degree. A 1st degree murder charge still carries a 'no less than' clause attached to it.

What seems to be being suggested here (as I think Steven pointed out) is that the judge ought to have no say in how he applies the law to a specific case. Nor would I think that judges like the one in the OP article are in anyways typical of 'most' judges. Not sure there's a valid reason for penalising all judges just because of the actions of a few 'rogue' crazies - judges whose decisions, as you say are subject to review and appeal.

The judge should solely interpret the law and apply it to the case. Yet the judge does not represent the people. The people should have a right to decide the appropriate punishment for the crime. In this case the girl has no one to support here. Therefore it is up to the people to support the most vulnerable and demand the appropriate justice. A 24 year old male not being able to distinguish the difference between a minor is utter rubbish.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Infidel

[Caladan 19]

The article's about the UK. In the U.S., it's the appellate courts plus whatever mechanisms are in place for reviewing and reprimanding bad judges.

[Mark&Steph 0]

I think this is another example where people are claiming more knowledge of the law than they really have. There are already minimum and maximum sentences prescribed by law for given offences. Within that the judge does have some latitude to use his discretion based on the idiosyncracies of the case - but not to a very wide degree. A 1st degree murder charge still carries a 'no less than' clause attached to it.

To me it seems that, even if the rape victim was 16, it's a lenient sentence. The guidelines for rape are a minimum of 5 years, and with mitigating circumstances, a sentence range of between 4 and 8 years. With a person under 13, it's 10 years and a sentencing range of between 8 and 13. Of course, that's just a starting point (and a big generalization), but it seems a huge drop from 4 years to 18 months.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The judge should solely interpret the law and apply it to the case. Yet the judge does not represent the people. The people should have a right to decide the appropriate punishment for the crime. In this case the girl has no one to support here. Therefore it is up to the people to support the most vulnerable and demand the appropriate justice. A 24 year old male not being able to distinguish the difference between a minor is utter rubbish.

You're assuming that the law is a matter of absolute, indisputable fact - when in most cases its open to some degree of interpretation. Isn't that why, for example, there's all that wrangling in the US over whether or not abortion is constitutional & legal?

As I said - I don't see why you're so offended by this to the extent that you think an extreme case like this is reason to rubbish the justice system - when this decision will be subject to a judicial review (the purpose of that mechanism being to catch just that sort of thing). I'm not sure why you're so surprised that a judge could make a bad decision. Would you be equally surprised if I told you that there are good judges as well as (gasp) bad ones...?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think this is another example where people are claiming more knowledge of the law than they really have. There are already minimum and maximum sentences prescribed by law for given offences. Within that the judge does have some latitude to use his discretion based on the idiosyncracies of the case - but not to a very wide degree. A 1st degree murder charge still carries a 'no less than' clause attached to it.

To me it seems that, even if the rape victim was 16, it's a lenient sentence. The guidelines for rape are a minimum of 5 years, and with mitigating circumstances, a sentence range of between 4 and 8 years. With a person under 13, it's 10 years and a sentencing range of between 8 and 13. Of course, that's just a starting point (and a big generalization), but it seems a huge drop from 4 years to 18 months.

Which is why it will be reviewed and amended (and the judge could be struck off if he's shown to be particularly incompetent). I don't agree with the decision - but I'm not sure why people thing that the bad decision of one bad judge is reason enough to significantly change the powers available to court judges. Its a non-issue IMO.

[Caladan 19]

Most crimes have mins and maxs. When people say they're against mandatory minimums, what that means is not that the judge should be able to do whatever, but that restricting the judge beyond the minimum isn't necessary. The "three strikes and you're out" laws for repeat offenders are good examples where the individual crime might be pretty small, but upon the third offense the judge can't take into account good behavior.

And it's not like charges and convictions always make a lot of sense. Some states if you call the cops because your husband or wife is beating you, you both get charged.

[Mark&Steph 0]

Which is why it will be reviewed and amended (and the judge could be struck off if he's shown to be particularly incompetent). I don't agree with the decision - but I'm not sure why people thing that the bad decision of one bad judge is reason enough to significantly change the powers available to court judges. Its a non-issue IMO.

I agree. This is one judge and a different judge probably would have sentenced differently (based on what little evidence is in the article.) The laws and sentencing guidelines are in place, and I'm sure the majority of judges follow them.

[GaryC 7]

I am sticking to my guns on this one. There should be minimum penalties for every crime. This will put an end to relativism. And Steven, accusing me of getting my opinions from ORielly is choice considering you get all your opinions from others.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Which is why it will be reviewed and amended (and the judge could be struck off if he's shown to be particularly incompetent). I don't agree with the decision - but I'm not sure why people thing that the bad decision of one bad judge is reason enough to significantly change the powers available to court judges. Its a non-issue IMO.

I agree. This is one judge and a different judge probably would have sentenced differently (based on what little evidence is in the article.) The laws and sentencing guidelines are in place, and I'm sure the majority of judges follow them.

Indeed. Otherwise surely the judges could start making up the rules as they go (i.e. "you shot your wife, but I like your face - so you can go free"). Hence we have oversight - as it should be.

I am sticking to my guns on this one. There should be minimum penalties for every crime. This will put an end to relativism. And Steven, accusing me of getting my opinions from ORielly is choice considering you get all your opinions from others.

Why do you think its necessary when there are procedures and safeguards in place to stop abuses?

And I ask the same question that Infidel ignored - You're assuming that the law is a matter of absolute, indisputable fact - when in most cases its open to some degree of interpretation. Isn't that why, for example, there's all that wrangling in the US over whether or not abortion is constitutional & legal?

[Caladan 19]

"Put an end to relativism" is a jargon phrase in search of a meaning.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"Put an end to relativism" is a jargon phrase in search of a meaning.

"Relativism" is inevitable with regards to the law. Otherwise we wouldn't bother with lawyers to interpret points of law across different contexts.

[GaryC 7]

"Put an end to relativism" is a jargon phrase in search of a meaning.

"Relativism" is inevitable with regards to the law. Otherwise we wouldn't bother with lawyers to interpret points of law across different contexts.

Lawyers are for representing defendants and the state. Judges are for applying the law. Appellate courts are for interpreting the laws.The laws need to be thought out enough to remove the ambiguity that requires relativism.