A co-worker that became a friend was a core-man in Vietnam and it really screwed him up. He was still dealing with it [sometimes badly] 30+ years later. He could never talk about it directly but from the bits and pieces I am sure that he was ordered to kill squad-mates when they were suffering and going to die before he could get to medical help competent enough to save him, or perhaps the mission was judged to important to risk or end because of those injured? For whatever reason, he was ordered to kill [likely] friends. "Coreman, do your duty!"
When I was a young man I'm sure that would and f-ed me a bit to a lot. As a 61 yo sufferer of life and of evil, I'm sure I could do it and not be shaken too much.
In fact, after a parking lot fight I tried to avoid, and then nearly kill the man, scared the crap out of me and made 'Die without killing anyone' my top Bucket-list entry. It's been 40+ years of finger-crossed I am pleased to be much closer to death, and God Willing - anytime would be fine as long as I'm good with Him.
--
As a lawyer perhaps your perspective can help me.
Since I watched one of Jorden Petersons earlier lectures where he talked about 5-main personality traits and children poorly socialized and how they overlap into a type of violent sociopath that is [Sadly] best handled by prison until later 20's or early 30's when they start to mellow - I suppose I can phrase it that way.
I strongly believe that any prison term longer the 6 months damages the criminal and his society and family and in general us all, in complicitness is wasting his/her potential gifts to themselves and others. Yet, what is the alternative?
The best I could think of is that I would prefer and could benefit from working in a logging camp or similar isolated (from regular society) yet working with peers under some mentoring firm leadership, bootcamp like.
Yet could men (people) so explosive and violent do that without being a risk to self and others?
Other suggestions? This came up as I considered the comment about overly 'soft' Judges and repeat violent criminals and their victims.
Question: Do judges have any liability for consistently releasing convicted criminals with violent criminal histories who go on to reoffend? What if they are activist judges who have written voluminously about their intention to rectify the wrongs of the past through lenient sentencing. I know that they have broad discretion, but are there any ethical or statutory limits?
As a general rule the answer to your question is, no, in all states so far as I know judges have immunity from claims for damages for bad decisions. That is in my view as it should be; we don't want judges to be looking over their shoulder to see who might complain with a suit for personal liability if they got it wrong.
There are ethical limits to what a judge can say. Your hypothetical should disqualify a judge and a complaint to the judicial qualifications commission may get a result removing the judge.
As for statutory limits, all judges remain subject to criminal punishment for crimes committed while on the bench. The most notorious case I know of involves Judge Alcee Hastings, a federal judge in Florida who was convicted of taking bribes. While in prison the Senate voted to impeach him and he was thrown off the bench. The worst part of the story is that when he got out of prison he ran for and was elected to Congress for a district in Florida.
The other remedy in those states that elect judges is to not reelect them.
Mike - Don’t you think that there’s a difference between a judge making a bad decision and consistent soft on crime judicial activism? I know that this is thin ice because it’s a trade off between public safety and individual liberty, but recently I’ve seen numerous cases of repeat violent offenders being released by Seattle area judges only to go out and harm more people; most recently the savages who disemboweled the boy in Lynnwood. One of them was on monitored home release for a prior offense, but that did not deter him from committing this subsequent assault. I agree that the optimal solution is to vote the judges out of office, but most voters don’t follow this information closely enough to make informed voting decisions and simply return the incumbents to office.
A co-worker that became a friend was a core-man in Vietnam and it really screwed him up. He was still dealing with it [sometimes badly] 30+ years later. He could never talk about it directly but from the bits and pieces I am sure that he was ordered to kill squad-mates when they were suffering and going to die before he could get to medical help competent enough to save him, or perhaps the mission was judged to important to risk or end because of those injured? For whatever reason, he was ordered to kill [likely] friends. "Coreman, do your duty!"
When I was a young man I'm sure that would and f-ed me a bit to a lot. As a 61 yo sufferer of life and of evil, I'm sure I could do it and not be shaken too much.
In fact, after a parking lot fight I tried to avoid, and then nearly kill the man, scared the crap out of me and made 'Die without killing anyone' my top Bucket-list entry. It's been 40+ years of finger-crossed I am pleased to be much closer to death, and God Willing - anytime would be fine as long as I'm good with Him.
--
As a lawyer perhaps your perspective can help me.
Since I watched one of Jorden Petersons earlier lectures where he talked about 5-main personality traits and children poorly socialized and how they overlap into a type of violent sociopath that is [Sadly] best handled by prison until later 20's or early 30's when they start to mellow - I suppose I can phrase it that way.
I strongly believe that any prison term longer the 6 months damages the criminal and his society and family and in general us all, in complicitness is wasting his/her potential gifts to themselves and others. Yet, what is the alternative?
The best I could think of is that I would prefer and could benefit from working in a logging camp or similar isolated (from regular society) yet working with peers under some mentoring firm leadership, bootcamp like.
Yet could men (people) so explosive and violent do that without being a risk to self and others?
Other suggestions? This came up as I considered the comment about overly 'soft' Judges and repeat violent criminals and their victims.
God Bless., Steve
A well told vignette.
Question: Do judges have any liability for consistently releasing convicted criminals with violent criminal histories who go on to reoffend? What if they are activist judges who have written voluminously about their intention to rectify the wrongs of the past through lenient sentencing. I know that they have broad discretion, but are there any ethical or statutory limits?
Thank you, Ellis.
As a general rule the answer to your question is, no, in all states so far as I know judges have immunity from claims for damages for bad decisions. That is in my view as it should be; we don't want judges to be looking over their shoulder to see who might complain with a suit for personal liability if they got it wrong.
There are ethical limits to what a judge can say. Your hypothetical should disqualify a judge and a complaint to the judicial qualifications commission may get a result removing the judge.
As for statutory limits, all judges remain subject to criminal punishment for crimes committed while on the bench. The most notorious case I know of involves Judge Alcee Hastings, a federal judge in Florida who was convicted of taking bribes. While in prison the Senate voted to impeach him and he was thrown off the bench. The worst part of the story is that when he got out of prison he ran for and was elected to Congress for a district in Florida.
The other remedy in those states that elect judges is to not reelect them.
Mike - Don’t you think that there’s a difference between a judge making a bad decision and consistent soft on crime judicial activism? I know that this is thin ice because it’s a trade off between public safety and individual liberty, but recently I’ve seen numerous cases of repeat violent offenders being released by Seattle area judges only to go out and harm more people; most recently the savages who disemboweled the boy in Lynnwood. One of them was on monitored home release for a prior offense, but that did not deter him from committing this subsequent assault. I agree that the optimal solution is to vote the judges out of office, but most voters don’t follow this information closely enough to make informed voting decisions and simply return the incumbents to office.