Same Judge, Same Outcome

[SteelCurtain]

Isn't he, though?

[Regina]

I hate that I'm not shocked by anything anymore.

But this is clearly a judge who seriously lacks empathy, especially towards women. He needs punishment himself for perverting the course of justice.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Thanks TRJF. That actually makes a ton of sense. Too bad you aren't located in PA. I could use some help right about now.

Yeah I am! I'll PM you

[Thumpalumpacus]

Are you saying that actually happened, or that you're just guessing?

I was working from memory. In this case I got the basics right, but was wrong on one detail: the man was Latino, not black. Nevertheless, the white guy gets numerous exceptions and light treatment in a case where he was convicted of more crimes, yet the Latino guy gets years in prison, despite only being convicted of one crime, which he plead out on. The disparity is there.

In fact, this guy has a habit of presiding over sexual assault cases and allowing deeply troubling shit to go down: like the time he felt that provocative pictures of a 17-year old girl were deeply necessary evidence in her gang-rape case. Because who would want to rule favorably for a slut, right?

Thanks for the extra info, much appreciated.

Guy's a bag of dicks.

[Little lunch]

I'm sorry TheRealJoeFish.
Judges, lawyers and cops have been nothing but trouble for me for my entire life so I hope you understand.
If they're the good guys then I must be the bad guy.
But in the future I will try to keep these emotional insights on this topic to myself.

[The Valkyrie]

Isn't it funny how judges are meant to be really well respected in the community.
To me, if you're a judge, you are scumbag number one right at the bottom of the shit pile.
Lawyers come next.

Well, that's... upsetting to me.  I understand, though.  I swear to almighty Atheismo I'm one of the good ones!

In terms of this judge, I'm thoroughly disgusted (more so than I already was with the Turner case).  Here are my thoughts after reading the article:

1. This (s)ucker needs to be voted out at the first opportunity.  That's not impeached, that's not retained at the end of his term (I'll get to why I think this is an important distinction in a moment).  In most states, judges are elected to an initial term of 5 to 10 years (in California it's 6 years), and at the end of that term, they're subject to a retention vote.  That usually consists of an entry on the ballot in the (local, regional, statewide) election that says "Should Judge X be retained for another term of Y years?" and a Yes/No option.  It's uncommon - though not exceedingly so - for a judge to not be retained unless there's a devoted campaign to get people to vote "No".

Judicial autonomy is really really important, and it's also important that a judge's rulings - even if they're awful - not be grounds for immediate removal from office, even if a ton of people want him out, unless they're actually illegal, because such a process could just as easily be used for extremely partisan political grounds or to turn the judiciary into the enforcement arm of public opinion.  It's also really really important that, after his term expires and he's up for retention, people get off their butts and vote "No" in droves.

2. This also seems like a case where the DA's office did a really crappy job, or, if nothing else, a severe disservice to this woman and the rest of the public they're supposed to serve.  A quick primer: the way a plea deal works is that the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than going to trial on the original charge.  The DA can recommend a sentence to the judge, who is under no obligation to accept it (even after the defendant pleads guilty). 

Now, I'm rather pro-plea deal: if everything went to trial (or, if even 20% of cases went to trial instead of the 1% to 3% currently estimated), the system would run stupidly slowly (instead of just troublingly slowly), we'd need way more judges and lawyers (no one wants that, amirite, LL? ) and it would cost a ton of money to ensure people get their constitutionally guaranteed speedy trial. 

That being said, I think there probably are too few cases going to trial, maybe if only by a factor of 2.  Even without bringing more cases to trial, there are a few ways to make sure situations like this - where the DA's office agrees to an excessively lenient plea deal - are minimized:
a) Elect better District Attorneys.
b) Elect judges who are more willing to reject bad plea deals or differ from the DA's recommended sentence.  Initially, this may raise the number of trials anyway, as defense attorneys tell their clients "there's a chance the judge will sentence you for more than the DA wants, so go to trial"; soon, though, as the attorneys get overworked, they'll continue to be pressured to plea, and will start working to make more worthwhile plea deals.
c) This is the big one: whether it be preferred or mandatory, give victims of violence veto power on the plea deal.  If we're going to have more cases go to trial, they should be cases where a person who's been victimized wants to make sure of his/her own safety and the safety of the public going forward.  I was just involved with a case where a homicide suspect agreed to a plea for 25-50 years in prison (taking it down from a life sentence if convicted).  The DA asked the victim's family for their input, and they indicated they would not be satisfied with anything less than life in prison, so the DA's office withdrew the offer and proceeded to trial.  The guy was convicted.  This should be standard operating procedure for domestic abuse, murder/attempted murder, rape, and so on.

3. A state's Judicial Conduct Board isn't going to be able to do anything about decisions made in the exercise of the judge's legal discretion, however terrible they may be.  Things like sentencing too heavily or too leniently, incorrectly admitting or excluding evidence, or things like that are not in the ambit of the conduct review board (nor should they be; see above).  Things like courtroom demeanor, corruption, and crappy ethics, however, are their bread and butter.  Treating a victim rudely, especially the victim of a violent crime, is going to be... frowned upon.  Whether California's ethics guidelines and conduct board have any teeth is something I don't really know (I would guess that, in a state like California, they probably do).  If there is a pattern of poor behavior towards victims of crimes, especially for reasons like not having English as a first language, I would imagine that's something the conduct board will look into.  Penalties could include public reprimand, suspension, additional supervision, or removal from office (although it's very hard to get the conduct board to kick you off the bench).

I don't know if any of that clears anything up or makes things less clear or whatnot.  Let me know if there are any further questions.

I'm now picturing you riding a Lawmaster Bike.

[Jackalope]

Certainly there are scumbag lawyers and judges, but I have to say that the couple of times when I needed a lawyer, they did right by me.

TRJF is one of the good ones, I'd wager

[TheRealJoeFish]

I'm sorry TheRealJoeFish.
Judges, lawyers and cops have been nothing but trouble for me for my entire life so I hope you understand.
If they're the good guys then I must be the bad guy.
But in the future I will try to keep these emotional insights on this topic to myself.

No, hey, I totally get it. I think I was too blunt too. What I mean, I guess, is this: I consider myself a good ethical (almost-)lawyer, and I associate with a lot of good ethical judges and attorneys, some of whom are people I really really look up to. But there are bad awful asshole judges and attorneys, probably way more than in the background population (like with police and bankers and stuff, jobs that give people physical or financial power over people tend to expose those who are willing to exploit that). Quite frankly, when I was asked in job interviews and such "what was your least favorite part about law school", it was all I could do to keep from blurting out "the law students" (no one wants to hire someone who hates their coworkers)! And I think in a lot of cases, how people feel is a sort of composition issue: a lot of people say "I hate (lawyers/cops/republicans/welfare recipients/etc)" but 9 out of 10 times when they meet someone who falls into that category they like them/can be friends with them/at least sympathize with them.
So, definitely no offense taken. A whole lot of attorneys and judges and such are really good people. It's their (our) responsibility to get rid of the ones who aren't, like this guy in California

[TheRealJoeFish]

Certainly there are scumbag lawyers and judges, but I have to say that the couple of times when I needed a lawyer, they did right by me.

TRJF is one of the good ones, I'd wager

Thanks I certainly strive to be

[Thumpalumpacus]

Joe, regarding refusal of extensions, the most notable case I can think of (also in California) was that of Chief Justice Rose Bird, SCOTSOC, and two associate justices by voters in 1986 based on their record in overturning capital sentences. Being a politically-minded teen living there in the early 80s, I paid a bit of attention to the 1986 election which saw the refusals. The controversy was a long time brewing.

While I agree with you regarding your point about an independent judiciary, the prospect of six more years of these sorts of miscarriages (he was reconfirmed only this year) is galling. How much damage might he do to the justice system there by practicing his biases through adjudicating the law?

That is something each voter needs to balance against the idea of making judges beholden to public opinion. I have no easy answer, that's for sure.