Should people be locked up for criticizing judges?

[Twilight Hue]

Can a judge be impeached? Who does it?

I dunno. I suppose any elected official can be impeached. Personally I didn't look into her background to determine whether she was appointed or elected to the bench.

She's definitely open to a civil lawsuit I think.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

She's definitely open to a civil lawsuit I think.

I would hope. I haven't been able to find anything about impeachment that would apply to a "regular judge" at her level. But there's surely something to remove a judge who commits such a blatant and obvious abuse of power.

 

[Enoch07]

Apparently, the judge in this divorce case awarded custody to the mother, but the father and his attorney warned that there were "red flags" and suggested that she wasn't fit.

Then the child died, although investigators said there wasn't evidence to show that the mother was responsible for the death.

Not surprising women disproportionately get custody of children over men. Even when it's been shown the woman is unfit to be a parent.

Definitely an abuse of power. Had the man said these things in court, then that contempt for sure. But jailing him for posting criticism online is without a doubt an abuse of power.

These falls under freedom of speech. The judge needs to be removed and spend some time in jail him/herself.

 

[bobhikes]

It's not really the same thing, since this isn't a case of a neighbor yelling at someone at their place of residence. It was a case of a person criticizing a public official on social media.

Yes on a public media site it is much worse. With a neighbor its only between you and them. On public media someone, anyone may act out for you. The judge could be shamed in public by anyone who takes his cause to heart.

The point is the guy was warned and let go and decided to not obey the warning so they step it up. Is he going to spend years in jail doubtful unless he try's it again. Hopefully he will learn his lesson this time. Your personal grief does not overrule another's personal grief.

 

[Revoltingest]

Any time a judge improperly jails someone,
the judge should spend an equal amount
of time in jail....on bread & water.

 

[HonestJoe]

Apparently, the judge in this divorce case awarded custody to the mother, but the father and his attorney warned that there were "red flags" and suggested that she wasn't fit.

Then the child died, although investigators said there wasn't evidence to show that the mother was responsible for the death.

So in other words, no evidence that the initial ruling was flawed. The tragic death of the child didn't necessarily have anything to do with the custody situation at all. Grieving people often need to find someone or something to blame and understandably, aren't always rational about it.

The father started posting messages on his Facebook page criticizing the judge.

Multiple times, continuing after being initially charged and including threatening to "dig up dirt" on the judge. Legal or not, and with all sympathy for his tragic circumstances, can we agree that his actions as reported were wrong?

I do find it interesting in a society where political speech and open criticism of public figures is often done against politicians in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, yet a different standard is held regarding criticism of the Judicial Branch.

You want to turn the courts in to the stinking mire that is politics? The judiciary should be above politics (I don't think judges should be elected) and if anything the push should be in the other direction to clean up politics.

And what the heck is "malicious use of telecommunications services" supposed to mean?

You're on the internet so you could have looked it up if you really cared. Of course, that would make it harder to spin rhetoric from the unusual legalistic wording.

A clever politician could simply declare that he/she is "uncomfortable" and let the chips fall where they may. And it would be perfectly legal, thanks to the precedent set by Judge Rachel Rancilio.

They can "declare" anything they want. They could also make a formal criminal complaint on the basis of this legislation and, if the subsequent investigation discovers evidence that the accused is guilty of breaking the law you didn't bother looking up, they could be convicted.

 

[Curious George]

Was the case sealed? Did the posts reveal personal information such as the judge's address? If not then I 100% suspect this judge has gone above their authority and is impeachable. Judges have to be kept in check, and somebody has to be able to criticize them in case they take bribes or otherwise wield power improperly.

Why do you blame the judge? The prosecutor would have to give the ok. Now if you are suggesting the judge leaned on the prosecutor to go after the dad, then maybe. But i don't see any impeachable acts here just old boys club type behavior and seemingly trumped up charges. It would be interesting to get the case records.

 

[Stevicus]

So in other words, no evidence that the initial ruling was flawed. The tragic death of the child didn't necessarily have anything to do with the custody situation at all. Grieving people often need to find someone or something to blame and understandably, aren't always rational about it.

The grandmother was quoted in the article:

“His lawyer said something is going to happen to this child. You need to get him away from the mother. There are too many red flags. And the judge said, oh that is in the past,” said Deborah Vanderhagen.

Of course, they couldn't include every detail or piece of evidence in this particular article, but where there's smoke, there's fire.

Multiple times, continuing after being initially charged and including threatening to "dig up dirt" on the judge. Legal or not, and with all sympathy for his tragic circumstances, can we agree that his actions as reported were wrong?

He did nothing which deserves being put in jail. He didn't harass the judge directly, nor did he threaten or commit any acts of violence. Also, the judge is a public official and considered fair game in public discourse. News organizations and other public interest groups can and often do "dig up dirt" on public officials, celebrities, athletes, etc., oftentimes when their actions are questionable. Such is considered normal and appropriate in the US political system.

You want to turn the courts in to the stinking mire that is politics?

You think they're not already? That's a very naive view you have.

The judiciary should be above politics (I don't think judges should be elected) and if anything the push should be in the other direction to clean up politics.

The judiciary is part of government, and government is politics. Read the excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi in post #8.

You're on the internet so you could have looked it up if you really cared. Of course, that would make it harder to spin rhetoric from the unusual legalistic wording.

It was a rhetorical question indicating that they probably misused the statute, which normally has to do with telephone harassment, not making a public criticism on social media. By using it this way, it can lead down a very deep slippery slope.

They can "declare" anything they want. They could also make a formal criminal complaint on the basis of this legislation and, if the subsequent investigation discovers evidence that the accused is guilty of breaking the law you didn't bother looking up, they could be convicted.

We will see.

 

[Shad]

Grieving dad jailed for repeatedly criticizing court system



Apparently, the judge in this divorce case awarded custody to the mother, but the father and his attorney warned that there were "red flags" and suggested that she wasn't fit.

Then the child died, although investigators said there wasn't evidence to show that the mother was responsible for the death.



The father started posting messages on his Facebook page criticizing the judge. The judge saw the posts and felt uncomfortable, although an investigation revealed that he never threatened any harm or violence. Yet, he was still locked up for "malicious use of telecommunications services."





I do find it interesting in a society where political speech and open criticism of public figures is often done against politicians in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, yet a different standard is held regarding criticism of the Judicial Branch. For some reason, there's an expectation that judges should be treated with kit gloves, which is inconsistent with how members of Congress, the president, or others in positions of power are generally treated.

And what the heck is "malicious use of telecommunications services" supposed to mean? Sounds like the kind of charge one could use to lock up most of the media overnight, if one wished to interpret it that way. A clever politician could simply declare that he/she is "uncomfortable" and let the chips fall where they may. And it would be perfectly legal, thanks to the precedent set by Judge Rachel Rancilio.

Judaical overreach. I am not sure if it is due to society or how often the Judaical branch has become involved in Executive and Legislative politics thus gained more power.

 

[HonestJoe]

The grandmother was quoted in the article:

With respect to her, she is also a grieving relative and so her opinion of the situation is inevitably coloured by emotion.

Of course, they couldn't include every detail or piece of evidence in this particular article, but where there's smoke, there's fire.

No, there are also smoke machines. By your argument, the mother would be automatically convicted and sentenced for murder. The reality is that the system is “innocent until proven guilty” and the article suggests they’re nowhere close to that.

He did nothing which deserves being put in jail.

That wasn’t the question, I asked if we could agree what he did was wrong. You instinct in challenging the extent of the potential punishment is to completely defend his actions. You need to make a more nuanced argument if you accept what he did was wrong but doesn’t justify legal action.

Also, the judge is a public official and considered fair game in public discourse.

No more (or less) that anyone else. People in the public domain will obviously be discussed more often but there isn’t any fundamental principle that they should be treated differently. This wasn’t simply “discourse” anyway.

News organizations and other public interest groups can and often do "dig up dirt" on public officials, celebrities, athletes, etc., oftentimes when their actions are questionable. Such is considered normal and appropriate in the US political system.

There are different contexts here. “Digging up dirt” on some specific wrongdoing to highlight that wrongdoing is perfectly legitimate. Threatening to “dig up dirt” to just attack someone you disagree with or to try to influence their behaviour isn’t. Some in the media do that latter as well but they’re in the wrong (and sometimes acting illegally, even if they get away with it).

You think they're not already? That's a very naive view you have.

OK, so you want it to get even worse then? You’re still making the argument that everything should be dragged down to the lowest common denominator rather than trying to lift things up.

The judiciary is part of government, and government is politics. Read the excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi in post #8.

There are still major distinctions between how politics should work and how the legal process should work. If you want to erase those distinctions, you might as well get rid of the legal system entirely and have everything decided by partisan elected politicians. Or maybe a King or a Pope.

It was a rhetorical question indicating that they probably misused the statute, which normally has to do with telephone harassment, not making a public criticism on social media.

Rhetoric isn’t something to be proud of. It was only rhetorical because you didn’t bother to look it up to see if there was any actual evidence of it being misused. This is actually a complex and open question, as is the law relating to the internet in general. I don’t think your emotive and rhetorical approach to this specific case is helping progress that debate in any constructive manner though.

 

[Stevicus]

With respect to her, she is also a grieving relative and so her opinion of the situation is inevitably coloured by emotion.

That doesn't prove she's lying.

No, there are also smoke machines. By your argument, the mother would be automatically convicted and sentenced for murder. The reality is that the system is “innocent until proven guilty” and the article suggests they’re nowhere close to that.

That's really beside the point, at least in the context of the situation we're discussing now. They warned the judge that something bad would happen to the child if custody was awarded to the mother, and sure enough, something bad did happen to the child. Now, they're merely saying "I told you so," but apparently, they're not even allowed to do that.

Also, note that the father is not accusing his ex-wife of murder, not directly anyway. He's only saying that the judge made a bad call, which appears to be true enough on its face. The child is dead.

If nothing else, perhaps a bit of harsh criticism might actually remind judges that they shouldn't take a light and casual approach to their jobs. Perhaps they should learn to listen to people and investigate the cases they're presiding over before making reckless and cavalier rulings which lead to innocent deaths. But you seem to think they should be shielded from criticism and that people should not have the right to question or challenge their rulings. It's that kind of attitude which enables authoritarianism.

That wasn’t the question, I asked if we could agree what he did was wrong. You instinct in challenging the extent of the potential punishment is to completely defend his actions. You need to make a more nuanced argument if you accept what he did was wrong but doesn’t justify legal action.

I don't know for certain that what he did was wrong. I suppose it's remotely possible that he could be sued for libel or slander, but those are not jailable offenses. But that would require a more extensive investigation into the case, the divorce proceedings, the judge's actions, and the medical records/autopsy report of the child.

Why would the judge still give custody to the mother, even after dire warnings that harm could come to the child if she did so? That's the question that needs to be answered here.

It's counterproductive and reeks of a cover-up to lock up a bereaved father who's lashing out at the judge only because he feels morally justified in doing so. He's the one who lost a child here. The judge hasn't lost anything nor has been injured in the slightest - except maybe a bruised ego. Let's try to put this in perspective, shall we?

No more (or less) that anyone else. People in the public domain will obviously be discussed more often but there isn’t any fundamental principle that they should be treated differently. This wasn’t simply “discourse” anyway.

What you say on this subject may not be entirely true: Defamation—Public Official vs. Private Person - Minc Law

There are different contexts here. “Digging up dirt” on some specific wrongdoing to highlight that wrongdoing is perfectly legitimate. Threatening to “dig up dirt” to just attack someone you disagree with or to try to influence their behaviour isn’t. Some in the media do that latter as well but they’re in the wrong (and sometimes acting illegally, even if they get away with it).

But you're missing the very obvious point that this "digging up dirt" is for the purpose of investigating alleged wrongdoing and possible judicial incompetence. This isn't some contrived "hatchet job," which is sometimes the case where there's malice or some other kind of malignant purpose behind it. This is a case of a bereaved father who is justifiably angry over the death of his child. He has reason to believe that the judge's decision was misguided and quite possibly led to the child's death.

Perhaps he could have gone about this a bit better. He could have sought legal help, or perhaps hired a professional investigator to look into it further. But he may not have had the money for that. But to lock this guy up is pretty sad. It makes him more of a martyr, and it makes the judge look worse than she already did.

OK, so you want it to get even worse then? You’re still making the argument that everything should be dragged down to the lowest common denominator rather than trying to lift things up.

Not at all. We have a system of checks and balances in this country, involving three branches of government which are intricately connected to each other. The Judicial Branch can't simply "opt out" of this arrangement and say "we don't need no stinking checks and balances!"

What you're talking about here is merely an "image" - a perception that the judiciary is somehow divorced from politics. That's something that the public is inclined to believe because this image is constantly reinforced in the popular media and the political culture in which we live. That perception, in and of itself, is a political perception.

The ironic thing about it is that, in an effort to reinforce this idea that the judiciary is divorced from politics, the court system uses its own set of trappings and rituals to make it the closest thing America has to a national church. The judges in black robes make them seem more like clerics than lawyers.

This is what they say at the beginning of each session of the Supreme Court:

The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court.

Unfortunately, I don't think God is saving anything, not the United States anyway. And as far as the court being "honorable," talk is cheap.

All I would want is to tear down this imagery, symbolism, and illusion. At best, they should be seen more like referees at a football game. But when they make a bad call, they get skewered in the media like anyone else. The fans shouting from the stands "kill the ref," and there's nothing he can do about it. (Of course, they're not really going to kill the ref; it's just something that people say.)

There are still major distinctions between how politics should work and how the legal process should work. If you want to erase those distinctions, you might as well get rid of the legal system entirely and have everything decided by partisan elected politicians. Or maybe a King or a Pope.

Ultimately, we have to have a system that's responsible and accountable to the people it was set up to serve. But the people also need to be more vigilant and aware of the kinds of trickery and illusion that exists in politics.

This is especially when politicians try to tell us "how politics should work" and "how the legal process should work," while making people believe that there are distinctions.

It's not just with the judiciary. It's also with other agencies of government, such as the military, law enforcement, the intelligence community - they all bend over backwards to try to convince people that they're not politicians and that they have nothing to do with politics. It's all about "the law" or "national security," which are also supposedly above politics, but it very often doesn't work that way in practice.

Rhetoric isn’t something to be proud of. It was only rhetorical because you didn’t bother to look it up to see if there was any actual evidence of it being misused. This is actually a complex and open question, as is the law relating to the internet in general. I don’t think your emotive and rhetorical approach to this specific case is helping progress that debate in any constructive manner though.

This uncalled for attempt at scolding and rebuke on your part isn't exactly constructive either. But nevermind, it's RF and I've grown used to people throwing a bit of buckshot in their posts.

I think it's more relevant and more constructive in a free society to live by the principle of "Question Authority." You can question me if you like, but I'm not "Authority," nor have I ever claimed to be. I'm just another voice in the peanut gallery, another among the Great Unwashed.

 

[HonestJoe]

That doesn't prove she's lying.

I never accused her (or the father) of lying, only that their opinion will be understandably coloured by grief.

Also, note that the father is not accusing his ex-wife of murder, not directly anyway. He's only saying that the judge made a bad call, which appears to be true enough on its face. The child is dead.

It is definitively not true on the face of it. The report clearly states that the investigation in to the child’s death concluded that he had an underlying medical condition and that there was no evidence that the mother had anything to do with it. There is clearly a lot more detail not being reported there but on the face of it, the child would had died if he was in the fathers custody too.

If nothing else, perhaps a bit of harsh criticism might actually remind judges that they shouldn't take a light and casual approach to their jobs.

There is no evidence the judge took a “light and casual approach” to her job. There is no evidence to support the accusation that the judge was wrong in her ruling and certainly no evidence to hold her responsible for the child’s death.

I don't know for certain that what he did was wrong. I suppose it's remotely possible that he could be sued for libel or slander, but those are not jailable offenses.

You’ve jumped from “wrong” to “illegal” again. I’m asking you to make an honest moral judgement, separating it from your opinion on the legal case against him. Do you think it would be perfectly acceptable for the judge to do the same thing in response?

Why would the judge still give custody to the mother, even after dire warnings that harm could come to the child if she did so? That's the question that needs to be answered here.

Well we’re only hearing one side of that case but the fact remains that there is zero evidence that the custody case was actually relevant to the tragic death.

It's counterproductive and reeks of a cover-up…

So now you’re implying that a whole group of public officials are guilty of a cover-up? You’re building up a lot of accusations with absolutely zero basis. If there was an investigation in to this and it concluded in favour of the ruling, presumably you’d declare that part of the cover-up too? Could you ever be satisfied that you’re mistaken?

What you say on this subject may not be entirely true: Defamation—Public Official vs. Private Person - Minc Law

I wasn’t talking about law, I was talking about morality. How that should be treated. Human beings are human beings regardless of what their job is. The law is what it is because some many people ignore such moral principles.

But you're missing the very obvious point that this "digging up dirt" is for the purpose of investigating alleged wrongdoing and possible judicial incompetence. This isn't some contrived "hatchet job," which is sometimes the case where there's malice or some other kind of malignant purpose behind it.

You don’t think the father hold malice for the judge he believes led to his sons death? You’re wilfully blinkering yourself to reality now!

Perhaps he could have gone about this a bit better. He could have sought legal help, or perhaps hired a professional investigator to look into it further. But he may not have had the money for that. But to lock this guy up is pretty sad. It makes him more of a martyr, and it makes the judge look worse than she already did.

The closest you’ve come to admitting that he was in the wrong. I never said it wasn’t sad but it doesn’t reflect on the judge he targeted since she didn’t make the decision to change him. You’re basically attacking the victim here.

Not at all. We have a system of checks and balances in this country, involving three branches of government which are intricately connected to each other. The Judicial Branch can't simply "opt out" of this arrangement and say "we don't need no stinking checks and balances!"

This is the application of checks and balances – preventing the judiciary from being intimidated by people who don’t like their judgements. There was an investigation in to the child’s death, which will have inevitably included considering the custody situation, and that reached its conclusions. The father didn’t like the conclusion, just as the mother wouldn’t have if it had gone the other way. In either situation, there is zero justification for publicly calling out the officials involved in any of the rulings.

What you're talking about here is merely an "image" - a perception that the judiciary is somehow divorced from politics. That's something that the public is inclined to believe because this image is constantly reinforced in the popular media and the political culture in which we live. That perception, in and of itself, is a political perception.

The judiciary is part of government, that doesn’t make it part of politics. All government is tainted by politics, the judiciary less so that other parts and I think it would be to all of our benefits to keep that taint to a minimum.

You were actively encouraging to treat judges exactly how we treat politicians and I’m saying that would be a bad thing. That would encourage judges to act more like politicians and create more situations like this one.

All I would want is to tear down this imagery, symbolism, and illusion. At best, they should be seen more like referees at a football game. But when they make a bad call, they get skewered in the media like anyone else. The fans shouting from the stands "kill the ref," and there's nothing he can do about it. (Of course, they're not really going to kill the ref; it's just something that people say.)

The judicial system is more important that sport and calls to “kill the judge” have been followed through with in some cases. Encouraging people to verbally attack and hate towards judges who they believe (or claim) made a bad decision would lead to more serious outcomes. That would also unavoidably extend to juries, witnesses and victims.

It's not just with the judiciary. It's also with other agencies of government, such as the military, law enforcement, the intelligence community - they all bend over backwards to try to convince people that they're not politicians and that they have nothing to do with politics. It's all about "the law" or "national security," which are also supposedly above politics, but it very often doesn't work that way in practice.

That is all true. So why are you arguing to drag them closer to politics?!?

I think it's more relevant and more constructive in a free society to live by the principle of "Question Authority."

I’ve no issue with questioning authority. The people in this case aren’t questioning the judge though. They have their answers fixed in their minds and are just continuously attacking her. You are defending that and I find it indefensible, regardless of who the target was.

 

[Stevicus]

I never accused her (or the father) of lying, only that their opinion will be understandably coloured by grief.

Sure, just as the judge's opinions on the matter will be colored by wanting to cover her own backside. (There's also a widespread perception that courts will automatically award custody to the mother, without even bothering to check if that's in the child's best interests, so there's a possibility that the judge was using questionable judgment right off the bat.)

It is definitively not true on the face of it. The report clearly states that the investigation in to the child’s death concluded that he had an underlying medical condition and that there was no evidence that the mother had anything to do with it. There is clearly a lot more detail not being reported there but on the face of it, the child would had died if he was in the fathers custody too.

We don't know that. Was the medical condition terminal and the boy was expected to die? The article didn't say. Was there some prescribed treatment or medication the mother was responsible for carrying out and following up with the doctor? It could be a situation where she missed an appointment or missed a medication - or a combination of several factors.

Remember, the grandmother and father both warned that it was a mistake to award custody to the mother. Why didn't the judge listen? Why are you so quick to give the judge benefit of the doubt and not this grieving family?

There is no evidence the judge took a “light and casual approach” to her job. There is no evidence to support the accusation that the judge was wrong in her ruling and certainly no evidence to hold her responsible for the child’s death.

There's enough evidence to warrant an investigation at least. There needs to be a thorough investigation into this case, particularly the decision-making process of the judge. The judge has to be questioned rigorously about what she was thinking and why she made the choice she did.

You’ve jumped from “wrong” to “illegal” again. I’m asking you to make an honest moral judgement, separating it from your opinion on the legal case against him. Do you think it would be perfectly acceptable for the judge to do the same thing in response?

It's no more "wrong" than any other harsh opinion expressed on the internet or over the media. A lot of people say nasty things about Trump. Is that morally wrong, in your view?

I don't see that there's anything stopping the judge from responding to this guy's statements. She's perfectly free to explain herself and defend her actions to the entire internet.

Well we’re only hearing one side of that case but the fact remains that there is zero evidence that the custody case was actually relevant to the tragic death.

Well, again, we're not getting all the information on this case. An investigation is warranted.

So now you’re implying that a whole group of public officials are guilty of a cover-up? You’re building up a lot of accusations with absolutely zero basis. If there was an investigation in to this and it concluded in favour of the ruling, presumably you’d declare that part of the cover-up too? Could you ever be satisfied that you’re mistaken?

What do you mean "zero basis"? There's certainly enough of a "basis" for a major media outlet to do a story on it and tell people about it. If someone asks tough questions and then gets locked up for it, then that's pretty damning, just by itself.

Please note that I'm not definitively claiming that there is a cover up. I'm only saying it smells like one. And that's solely on the judge and other officials involved.

I wasn’t talking about law, I was talking about morality. How that should be treated. Human beings are human beings regardless of what their job is. The law is what it is because some many people ignore such moral principles.

Weren't you arguing that judges should be treated differently from politicians?

Those in positions of power are always going to be treated differently from the average citizen. Most of the time, they'll be treated with great respect and deference to their power and position. They are very often in a position of great privilege. However, the other side of the coin is that when they fall into disfavor to some degree, the outcry against them will be loud and passionate.

Case in point: If the average person gets caught with a prostitute, nobody cares. It's not even worth two lines in a local paper. But if Jimmy Swaggart gets caught with a prostitute, it's national news. Are you saying it's morally wrong that the two situations are treated differently in the media?

You don’t think the father hold malice for the judge he believes led to his sons death? You’re wilfully blinkering yourself to reality now!

Again, I can't say for sure what the father is feeling at this point. He obviously wants justice, but that doesn't automatically prove that he has malice.

The closest you’ve come to admitting that he was in the wrong. I never said it wasn’t sad but it doesn’t reflect on the judge he targeted since she didn’t make the decision to change him. You’re basically attacking the victim here.

I believe it was the judge who filed the complaint that got him arrested.

Whether or not it reflects on the judge is something for the general public to decide. You see it one way, I see it another.

How is the judge the victim here? What has this man done that has somehow "victimized" the judge?

This is the application of checks and balances – preventing the judiciary from being intimidated by people who don’t like their judgements. There was an investigation in to the child’s death, which will have inevitably included considering the custody situation, and that reached its conclusions. The father didn’t like the conclusion, just as the mother wouldn’t have if it had gone the other way. In either situation, there is zero justification for publicly calling out the officials involved in any of the rulings.

Even if the father is wrong (and we don't know that he is), the whole point is that he shouldn't have been locked up for criticizing the judge. Even if he was some totally deranged crank who started posting that the judge was possessed by Satan, even that shouldn't be actionable. It's no different than people who claim that the CIA killed JFK.

You don't see people getting arrested for that, do you? Of course not. Such talk is dismissed as crazy conspiracy theory. It may irritate some people, but it's not worth locking anyone up over. Besides, it's a waste of jail space and taxpayer resources, so there's that to consider as well.

The judiciary is part of government, that doesn’t make it part of politics. All government is tainted by politics, the judiciary less so that other parts and I think it would be to all of our benefits to keep that taint to a minimum.

You were actively encouraging to treat judges exactly how we treat politicians and I’m saying that would be a bad thing. That would encourage judges to act more like politicians and create more situations like this one.

Up above you were saying that judges should be treated the same as other human beings. Politicians are human beings, too. Why should they be treated different from judges? What makes a judge more honorable than a politician? Is it the black robes they wear? Does the robe itself imbue some kind of special magic? We're talking about humans with comparable levels of fallibility and frailty.

Why do you think it's okay to treat politicians the way they're treated by the general public and the media? Is it because politicians hold positions of power in this society and therefore should be rigorously scrutinized and closely examined for the public benefit? Likewise, judges also hold positions of power, and it's for this reason they should be examined in a similar light.

Someone who does not hold power is in a different category.

The judicial system is more important that sport and calls to “kill the judge” have been followed through with in some cases. Encouraging people to verbally attack and hate towards judges who they believe (or claim) made a bad decision would lead to more serious outcomes. That would also unavoidably extend to juries, witnesses and victims.

Yes, it happens occasionally, just as with politicians and other public figures (including sports figures).

That is all true. So why are you arguing to drag them closer to politics?!?

Because they already are. I just think it's about time that people simply admit it and recognize it for what it is.

I’ve no issue with questioning authority. The people in this case aren’t questioning the judge though. They have their answers fixed in their minds and are just continuously attacking her. You are defending that and I find it indefensible, regardless of who the target was.

I don't have a problem with people attacking the government or other powerful agencies/individuals in this society. As noted in the OP, there were no threats of violence and no direct harassment of the judge herself. He wasn't sending cranky e-mails or posting on her Facebook page.

 

[HonestJoe]

@Stevicus

I think we’re going around in circles here, just repeating the same points in different words and generating longer and longer posts, so I’d like to boil down the key points I’m trying to make.

Regarding the individual case;

We have very limited independent information about both the initial custody case and the investigation in to the child’s death. Regarding the custody case, all we know is that the father claims there were red flags but on the balance of all the evidence (none of which we know), the judge granted custody to the mother. Regarding the investigation in to the death, we know the report referred to an underlying medical condition being relevant and that there was no evidence for the mother being responsible.

On the basis of that very limited information alone, we’re in no position to declare that custody ruling was right or wrong because there is no evidence linking the child’s death to his custody status. If the father isn’t offering anything more than this as a basis for his condemnation of the judge, I don’t see how his moral position can be defended.


Regarding the case against the father;

I’ve not declared that it was right or wrong for him to be imprisoned. Again, not enough information has been reported for us to make a reasonable judgement on that case. I think it is unquestionable that someone involved in a custody case shouldn’t be publically calling out a judge (or any other official), essentially accusing them of being complicit in the death of a child, especially if they’re not offering any definitive evidence of wrongdoing. Whether it should be a criminal offence worthy of imprisonment, I’m honestly not sure. I can conceive of extreme statements which might justify legal action and I can conceive of statements which very much wouldn’t. It very much depends on the specific details of what he wrote, which again we don’t have and so can’t judge.


Regarding the status of judges more generally;

My underlying principle is that all people should be treated with respect in general terms. I didn’t say judges and politicians should be treated exactly the same because the roles are significantly different. I did say the treatment of politicians is terrible and should be improved, lifting it closer to that expected for judges while retaining the practical differences due to their roles. I was primarily challenging the idea that because politicians are treated like scum, it is OK to treat judges like scum too.

Public condemnation of judges is different to that of politicians because judges typically can’t defend themselves. They’re legally limited (and rightly so) in what they can say in public about the cases they rule on, especially those involving children. The systems of checks and balances for judges are more formal because of that. Politicians are almost the opposite in this aspect because their actions are generally meant to be in the public domain and so their checks and balances are very much public too, with debates, campaigns and elections.

 

[Stevicus]

@Stevicus

I think we’re going around in circles here, just repeating the same points in different words and generating longer and longer posts, so I’d like to boil down the key points I’m trying to make.

Regarding the individual case;

We have very limited independent information about both the initial custody case and the investigation in to the child’s death. Regarding the custody case, all we know is that the father claims there were red flags but on the balance of all the evidence (none of which we know), the judge granted custody to the mother. Regarding the investigation in to the death, we know the report referred to an underlying medical condition being relevant and that there was no evidence for the mother being responsible.

On the basis of that very limited information alone, we’re in no position to declare that custody ruling was right or wrong because there is no evidence linking the child’s death to his custody status. If the father isn’t offering anything more than this as a basis for his condemnation of the judge, I don’t see how his moral position can be defended.

I agree that the information presented is limited, but the father seems quite passionate in his belief that he's correct and that he has a case. My only real beef is that he was locked up for expressing his views on the case. Such things should not happen in a free society.

Regarding the case against the father;

I’ve not declared that it was right or wrong for him to be imprisoned. Again, not enough information has been reported for us to make a reasonable judgement on that case. I think it is unquestionable that someone involved in a custody case shouldn’t be publically calling out a judge (or any other official), essentially accusing them of being complicit in the death of a child, especially if they’re not offering any definitive evidence of wrongdoing. Whether it should be a criminal offence worthy of imprisonment, I’m honestly not sure. I can conceive of extreme statements which might justify legal action and I can conceive of statements which very much wouldn’t. It very much depends on the specific details of what he wrote, which again we don’t have and so can’t judge.

The general standard used in the US is the "clear and present danger" rule. Since the report indicated that he did not threaten harm or violence, that would indicate there was no clear and present danger, and therefore no basis for locking him up. We don't really need to know more than that.

I don't see why it's a problem to publicly call out a judge or any other official. What makes them so special?

Some people think they can yell at the bus boy or the janitor if they make a tiny mistake (and often without offering definitive evidence of wrongdoing), yet they can't yell at a judge or a lawyer if they make an even bigger mistake?

That just doesn't seem right to me. I'm sorry, but the notion that you can't call out public officials is just plain wrong and incongruous in a free society.

Regarding the status of judges more generally;

My underlying principle is that all people should be treated with respect in general terms. I didn’t say judges and politicians should be treated exactly the same because the roles are significantly different. I did say the treatment of politicians is terrible and should be improved, lifting it closer to that expected for judges while retaining the practical differences due to their roles. I was primarily challenging the idea that because politicians are treated like scum, it is OK to treat judges like scum too.

Their roles may be different, but the effect their decisions have on society, along with the level of relative power they hold, is comparable.

But yes, maybe we should treat everyone with more respect. That would be a good thing.

We don't really have to treat politicians like scum, but they should still be questioned, scrutinized, and called out when necessary. We, the people, should demand that they explain themselves and prove that what they're saying is true. Remember, they work for us. We are their bosses. It's the same for the judges. We can still respect them, but that doesn't mean we should have to pull any punches when it comes to righteous criticism against them.

Public condemnation of judges is different to that of politicians because judges typically can’t defend themselves. They’re legally limited (and rightly so) in what they can say in public about the cases they rule on, especially those involving children. The systems of checks and balances for judges are more formal because of that. Politicians are almost the opposite in this aspect because their actions are generally meant to be in the public domain and so their checks and balances are very much public too, with debates, campaigns and elections.

Politicians don't typically defend themselves either, at least not against individual citizens whose opinions carry little to no weight among the general public. I've encountered various people here and there who might have a very specific grudge against a certain politician for whatever reason. They generally tend to go on ranting along their merry way, while few people even care. They don't get locked up for it because there really isn't any point.

It's the same for conspiracy theorists. Some of them say some pretty damning things about the US government, which could lead one to conclude that the entire government is a complete fraud.

 

[HonestJoe]

I agree that the information presented is limited, but the father seems quite passionate in his belief that he's correct and that he has a case.

Passion is not evidence. It more commonly suggests a lack of evidence.

The general standard used in the US is the "clear and present danger" rule. Since the report indicated that he did not threaten harm or violence, that would indicate there was no clear and present danger, and therefore no basis for locking him up. We don't really need to know more than that.

The specifics of what he wrote are still the key and the impact (and potential impact) on the judge is unclear. Even if he didn’t directly threaten anything, he could have created a legitimate fear for her safety. I could also see this potentially harming her career or negatively influencing how she rules in future cases. There could also be a wider risk of other judges avoiding valid but controversial rulings for fear of being publically condemned.

As I said, I’m not sure whether the criminal punishment was appropriate either, I just don’t think his actions should be completely dismissed as harmless and certainly not as perfectly acceptable.

That just doesn't seem right to me. I'm sorry, but the notion that you can't call out public officials is just plain wrong and incongruous in a free society.

I didn’t say can’t, I said shouldn’t. Suggesting a judge was complicit in the death of a child because they made a ruling in a custody case despite there being zero evidence that the custody case had anything to do with the death is indefensible.

Their roles may be different, but the effect their decisions have on society, along with the level of relative power they hold, is comparable.

Yes, the roles are different and therefore, though the principles of how they are treated are the same, the practicalities are different. You’ve literally agreed with me there.

 

[Stevicus]

Passion is not evidence. It more commonly suggests a lack of evidence.

Perhaps, although it's hard to fathom why he would be fervently pressing this issue if he didn't at least have some reason to believe he was right. It may not mean that he has absolute, incontrovertible evidence, but it also doesn't mean that he's lashing out at random for no reason either.

The specifics of what he wrote are still the key and the impact (and potential impact) on the judge is unclear. Even if he didn’t directly threaten anything, he could have created a legitimate fear for her safety. I could also see this potentially harming her career or negatively influencing how she rules in future cases. There could also be a wider risk of other judges avoiding valid but controversial rulings for fear of being publically condemned.

As I said, I’m not sure whether the criminal punishment was appropriate either, I just don’t think his actions should be completely dismissed as harmless and certainly not as perfectly acceptable.

Well, as far as the impact is concerned, all the things they were trying to avoid by locking him up are still existent, perhaps even more so since locking him up gave greater attention to this case. If they had simply ignored him, everyone else probably would have too.

I didn’t say can’t, I said shouldn’t. Suggesting a judge was complicit in the death of a child because they made a ruling in a custody case despite there being zero evidence that the custody case had anything to do with the death is indefensible.

You keep saying "zero evidence," but you're ignoring what the father and the grandmother are saying about this. I don't think they would say this if they didn't have reason to believe it's true.

Yes, the roles are different and therefore, though the principles of how they are treated are the same, the practicalities are different. You’ve literally agreed with me there.

Not really. My view on this issue is that there are people in society who hold power and influence, and there are people who do not hold power and influence.

Judges and politicians are similar in that they hold power and influence over others, and therefore they should be treated and viewed the same in the eyes of the public. This is because their words carry more weight and their actions have a greater impact upon the society at large.

The father in this case is an ordinary citizen whose words carry little weight and whose actions have minimal impact. (The fact that he was locked up had greater impact than anything he actually wrote.)

 

[HonestJoe]

Perhaps, although it's hard to fathom why he would be fervently pressing this issue if he didn't at least have some reason to believe he was right.

I've already explained that people in grief don't always think or act rationally and often have a need to find something or someone to blame, regardless of how legitimate that actually is.

You keep saying "zero evidence," but you're ignoring what the father and the grandmother are saying about this. I don't think they would say this if they didn't have reason to believe it's true.

If they have good reason to believe it, they could present that reason. Nothing in the article comes close to that and some of the evidence presented directly contradicts what they're alleging.

Judges and politicians are similar in that they hold power and influence over others, and therefore they should be treated and viewed the same in the eyes of the public.

They both have power and influence but it is applied in extremely different ways and circumstances. Yet again, the principles of how they are treated are the same but the practicalities are inevitably different.

I'm not going to bother repeating myself any more, I'm only addressing new arguments at this point.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm not going to bother repeating myself any more, I'm only addressing new arguments at this point.

That's all well and good, but I think that we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement here, about the nature and scope of political/legal authority -and how deferent to that authority citizens are required to be in a free society.