Judges are immune from civil liability. Releasing an individual who has not been convicted yet, merely accused, on bail is a presumption in most state constitutions. District judges at the Federal level who overstep their authority are remedy by the Circuit Court of Appeals and SCOTUS. System may not be perfect but it works.

The bartender doesn't get arrested, he gets sued civilly, called "Dram Shop Liability."

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
System may not be perfect but it works.

Does it? Clearly not.

quote:

The bartender doesn't get arrested, he gets sued civilly, called "Dram Shop Liability."

They also, while rarely, can be held criminally liable.

But, even if it were only civil, should we then allow judges to be held civilly liable for their decisions? Seems fair to me. If a physician can be sued into bankruptcy for a poor decision, why can a judge not face the same consequences?

Bail system is good in concept but if a judge repeatedly releases an accused who then commits another crime, his integrity, his obligation to society through the job, his competency should be questioned. The more serious the crimes, the more serious the scrutiny.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Bail system is good in concept but if a judge repeatedly releases an accused who then commits another crime, his integrity, his obligation to society through the job, his competency should be questioned. The more serious the crimes, the more serious the scrutiny.

Are we mollified with just "scrutiny"? If a physcian's poor decision causes a family members death, should he just be held to "scrutiny" or should there be more severe punishment?

I don't have the right answers and I suppose that that is crux of the thread. Clearly we have a problem with the judicial branch in this country and something should be done about it. I just don't know what can be done about it.

No real remedy for such a subjective system without some kind of consequences.

Judges think they’re above everything. It’s why they think they’re superior and issue rulings and injunctions on things not within their duties. And none have been prosecuted or jailed yet.

Impeachment is a slap on the wrist and a waste of time. To stop them from continuing to make things up as they go along the punishment has to be the same as trying to overthrow the government.

Their penalties should be as harsh if not more draconian if we want this crap to stop.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Are we mollified with just "scrutiny"? If a physcian's poor decision causes a family members death, should he just be held to "scrutiny" or should there be more severe punishment?

I don't have the right answers and I suppose that that is crux of the thread. Clearly we have a problem with the judicial branch in this country and something should be done about it. I just don't know what can be done about it.

Of course not. But an assessment is the first step preceding any recourse. The severity of recourse should match the assessment, anything from immediate removal, to disbarment, through criminal prosecution. But I think an assessment against a standard is key, not just the feelings and opinions of an impeachment panel.

How does a lawsuit benefit victims? A return to an "eye for an eye" doctrine will be more effective.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
System may not be perfect but it works.

Does it? Clearly not.

Gustofer, can you think of a better system anywhere in the world today?

The answer to this problem is for people to study civics. Our system is working exactly how the Founding Fathers intended it to work. Just because you don’t like a judge’s ruling doesn’t mean a judge is an activist judge.

The Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority from the oppressive will of the majority. That’s why most people don’t like it when the Bill of Rights works.

Judges are the one group that is supposed to be free from outside influence. That is why they are given broad immunity. that is also why they are also appointed for life.

I guess Gustofer will be calling for the abolution of the Electoral College next.

quote:

But, even if it were only civil, should we then allow judges to be held civilly liable for their decisions? Seems fair to me. If a physician can be sued into bankruptcy for a poor decision, why can a judge not face the same consequences?

In the doctor example, there is a direct link between his mistake and the injury. With the judge, you're asking him/her to control the actions of a third party. (If they do, if they get together and somehow arrange for the criminal to get out and commit more crimes, that is a criminal conspiracy, a different matter.) Do we hold gun makers civilly, let alone criminally, liable for unlawful shootings committed by others, or car makers for the drivers getting into accidents, or booze makers for alcoholics? Of course not. (That people still try it, and sometimes even win, is a different matter, but it doesn't invalidate the rule.)

To borrow from Dirty Harry, "I hate the system, but until somebody comes up with changes that make sense, I'll stick with it." The things you want, even if initially successful and they feel good, will lead to worse things down the road.

Well said, egregore.

The problem in finding a solution is that we either have judicial discretion within prescribed boundaries (e.g. bail) or there is zero discretion.

Sometimes bail is reasonable, and sometimes not. Sometimes a short or suspended sentence is reasonable, but other times not. Sometimes an injunction is reasonable.

Legislatures could write laws removing discretion. I don't think we would like the results.

A middle ground might be more detailed laws that remove discretion under specific circumstances. Prior convictions or a certain number of prior arrests.

if the judges want to remain judges, then let them deal with the law, not make it

if they stray into making decisions for purely political purposes to hamstring or otherwise interfere with another branch of government then they've lost any and all claims to impartiality and the people should determine that their immunity is rescinded

just make an example out of some of the more egregious people calling themselves judges and the problem will fix itself quickly

we can no longer afford to be nice.

quote:

Originally posted by Broadside:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by spunk639:
System may not be perfect but it works.

Does it? Clearly not.

Gustofer, can you think of a better system anywhere in the world today?

The answer to this problem is for people to study civics. Our system is working exactly how the Founding Fathers intended it to work. Just because you don’t like a judge’s ruling doesn’t mean a judge is an activist judge.

The Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority from the oppressive will of the majority. That’s why most people don’t like it when the Bill of Rights works.

Judges are the one group that is supposed to be free from outside influence. That is why they are given broad immunity. that is also why they are also appointed for life.

I guess Gustofer will be calling for the abolution of the Electoral College next.

I would argue that hybrid systems that incorporate elements of civil and common law are superior to the U.S. system. Japan would be a pretty good example. Our system is just too subjective for a politically divided nation. When which judge you get decides whether you are guilty or innocent the system isn't working properly. The Founding Fathers worried quite a bit about an imperial judiciary and deliberately left the judiciary at the mercy of the executive for enforcement. We do have a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
We see daily reports of felonious crimes being committed by people released from custody for previous felonious crimes.

How do we stop this?

First of all, if most persons capable of shooting a firearm well carried a weapon anytime when out in public, this would stop most violent crimes.

Second, keep up the work on secure elections. Once the Dems learned they could cheat to stay in power, their misdeeds increased dramatically. And third, keeping illegals from voting.

Hopefully the Republicans will keep up the good work. Part of our decent into hell began because of Bush Jr. and GW2. Keeping much of the old guard Republicans from power will help to keep the population looking for something different, like Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by Broadside:
Gustofer, can you think of a better system anywhere in the world today?

I never claimed that there was one.

quote:

Judges are the one group that is supposed to be free from outside influence.

Supposed to be...but are not. So how do we correct that and get it back on track?

quote:

I guess Gustofer will be calling for the abolution of the Electoral College next.

Yeah, that's exactly what I want.

Yes, alcohol and tobacco brands have been held responsible. I'm not saying that I agree with that, as it is indirect.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
The things you want, even if initially successful and they feel good, will lead to worse things down the road.

How so?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Don’t care about the bartender. I’m asking you a specific question. You want to hold these judges ”criminally liable”. So I ask you, what crimes did they commit?

If I understand the thrust of the OP correctly (and it is entirely possible that I don’t), then consider that in many states there are laws that hold bartenders liable if they knowingly overserve someone who in their overserved (drunk) state cause an accident.

To my knowledge, there is no law that holds liable either judges or prosecutors that release an obvious dirtbag who then goes on to kill, rape, mutilate, or otherwise abuse law abiding citizens. I suspect that the OP thinks that perhaps there should be. I’m not sure that I disagree, but I fear that the devil would be in the details and I am not sure how such a law could be reasonably structured.

The problem of activist judges interfering in the administration of the country would seem to be an entirely separate problem, and while it would be nice if at the very least SCOTUS would tell them to sit down, shut up, and mind their own knitting, I don’t see that happening much less them being tossed from the bench, disbarred, and handed long prison sentences. Nice fantasy, but I really don’t see that happening…

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
To my knowledge, there is no law that holds liable either judges or prosecutors that release an obvious dirtbag who then goes on to kill, rape, mutilate, or otherwise abuse law abiding citizens. I suspect that the OP thinks that perhaps there should be.

Yes.

Every other profession has standards that one must abide by. If I give someone too much of a drug or the wrong drug, my career is potentially over and I lose everything. The legal profession, however, seems exempt from this.

How do we fix that?

I think most workers anywhere are held to account for mistakes that cause harm. I wonder if a business's policies can be held to account