Should Judges "hug" people convicted of serious crimes?

[Epic Beard Man]

As was discussed in another thread regarding the trial and conviction of former Dallas Police Officer Amber Geiger, there was very much an outrage from the Dallas community and on social on how it improper it appeared that not only the judge (Tammy Kemp) hugged a convicted killer, but a Sheriff officer could be seen stroking the hair of Geiger as well. Although the judge's intent in hugging Geiger was done for the purpose of spirituality by giving her a Bible, it was done in addition to solidify the words of solace and forgiveness prompted by Botham Jean's brother. According to an article by NBCDFW channel 5 article an organization "Freedom From Religion Foundation" filed a complaint against judge Kemp citing that "Judge Kemp's actions were inappropriate and unconstitutional" (Source).

I think what begs the question is whether or not during or after arbitration is a judge supposed to hug someone convicted of a serious crime such as murder. If we look at OJ Simpson he was not hugged nor did the judge share the Biblical word with him after being found not guilty, nor did the judge in Muhammad Nur's case. I think this issue definitely questions the judge's ability of impartiality in serious criminal cases. I mean would it be acceptable if a judge hugged someone convicted of child rape because they wanted to share the gospel of Jesus with the convicted?

What are your thoughts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No hugging, no Bibles.

 

[MikeDwight]

Only ever done to further the judge's pitiful little grasp on reality and control, obviously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not oppose the victim's brother's actions. He was wronged, of course not as severely as his brother, but if he wishes to forgive her that is his business. It is not the business of the judge.

 

[Salvador]

As was discussed in another thread regarding the trial and conviction of former Dallas Police Officer Amber Geiger, there was very much an outrage from the Dallas community and on social on how it improper it appeared that not only the judge (Tammy Kemp) hugged a convicted killer, but a Sheriff officer could be seen stroking the hair of Geiger as well. Although the judge's intent in hugging Geiger was done for the purpose of spirituality by giving her a Bible, it was done in addition to solidify the words of solace and forgiveness prompted by Botham Jean's brother. According to an article by NBCDFW channel 5 article an organization "Freedom From Religion Foundation" filed a complaint against judge Kemp citing that "Judge Kemp's actions were inappropriate and unconstitutional" (Source).

I think what begs the question is whether or not during or after arbitration is a judge supposed to hug someone convicted of a serious crime such as murder. If we look at OJ Simpson he was not hugged nor did the judge share the Biblical word with him after being found not guilty, nor did the judge in Muhammad Nur's case. I think this issue definitely questions the judge's ability of impartiality in serious criminal cases. I mean would it be acceptable if a judge hugged someone convicted of child rape because they wanted to share the gospel of Jesus with the convicted?

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts and concerns are with the victim's family who might have objected to the Judge giving a hug and Bible to somebody who took away the life of somebody they loved.

 

[Cooky]

As was discussed in another thread regarding the trial and conviction of former Dallas Police Officer Amber Geiger, there was very much an outrage from the Dallas community and on social on how it improper it appeared that not only the judge (Tammy Kemp) hugged a convicted killer, but a Sheriff officer could be seen stroking the hair of Geiger as well. Although the judge's intent in hugging Geiger was done for the purpose of spirituality by giving her a Bible, it was done in addition to solidify the words of solace and forgiveness prompted by Botham Jean's brother. According to an article by NBCDFW channel 5 article an organization "Freedom From Religion Foundation" filed a complaint against judge Kemp citing that "Judge Kemp's actions were inappropriate and unconstitutional" (Source).

I think what begs the question is whether or not during or after arbitration is a judge supposed to hug someone convicted of a serious crime such as murder. If we look at OJ Simpson he was not hugged nor did the judge share the Biblical word with him after being found not guilty, nor did the judge in Muhammad Nur's case. I think this issue definitely questions the judge's ability of impartiality in serious criminal cases. I mean would it be acceptable if a judge hugged someone convicted of child rape because they wanted to share the gospel of Jesus with the convicted?

What are your thoughts?

AMBER GUYGER: "I felt like a piece of crap. And I asked God for forgiveness. And I hate myself every single day. I wish he was the one with the gun and he killed me. I never wanted to take an innocent person's life."

Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger Expresses Deep Remorse In Murder Trial

...I would have hugged her too. It was a total accident. And her remorse was deep.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Its simply not the judges place to do it as a judge in open court. To me, it screams obvious bias and partiality at some level.

 

[Cooky]

Its simply not the judges place to do it as a judge in open court. To me, it screams obvious bias and partiality at some level.

It's not mentally healthy to suppress one's feelings. Judges and police officers who reject feelings of mercy in a daily basis, for years upon years, become very cold hearted individuals with psychological disorders.

...Nobody should be expected to live like that, not even judges.

 

[Cooky]

I do not oppose the victim's brother's actions. He was wronged, of course not as severely as his brother, but if he wishes to forgive her that is his business. It is not the business of the judge.

Aside from not being the judges business, what harm can expressing feelings of mercy actually do?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's not mentally healthy to suppress one's feelings. Judges and police officers who reject feelings mercy in a daily bases, for years upon years become very cold hearted individuals with psychological disorders.

...Nobody should be expected to live like that, not even judges.

If you notice, I did share things like "in open court" and "as a judge." They are human still, but they do a job to do.

 

[Cooky]

If you notice, I did share things like "in open court" and "as a judge." They are human still, but they do a job to do.

As long as her rulings are just, I don't see any harm in expressing her feelings as a judge in a courtroom. Jobs don't need to be so cut and dried, IMO...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Jobs don't need to be so cut and dry, IMO...

Most of them don't, but a judge is someone we should expect the utmost of professional conduct from.

 

[Cooky]

Most of them don't, but a judge is someone we should expect the utmost of professional conduct from.

Not to come off as argumentative, but I personally would rather redefine "professional" to be something more human, and a lot less idealistic.

...Now I understand that some less intelligent people act out in unruly ways if they see a superior not acting stern enough. These lower end people might view it as a sign of weakness and attempt to take advantage.

But for those who aren't that way, I have no problem granting them some humanity - because they're the ones who actually deserve it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aside from not being the judges business, what harm can expressing feelings of mercy actually do?

As a judge they have a higher duty.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

...Now I understand that some less intelligent people act out in unruly ways if they see a superior not acting stern enough.

Wanna compare numbers?
Judges have a position that mandates them be a disinterested party. While in court, they should behave like it.

 

[Cooky]

Wanna compare numbers?
Judges have a position that mandates them be a disinterested party. While in court, they should behave like it.

Many judges are intelligent enough to remain disinterested in their rulings, and still offer human compassion in cases like this. To say it's impossible is to underestimate the complexity of the human being.

Honestly, what actual harm do you see possibly coming from offering compassion after a just ruling?

 

[Cooky]

As a judge they have a higher duty.

Right, that's the old tradition. But why..?

Why can't they show their humanity? What harm will result?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right, that's the old tradition. But why..?

Why can't they show their humanity? What harm will result?

It could harm their ability to give a fair judgement.

 

[Cooky]

It could harm their ability to give a fair judgement.

So too can the traditional "stern" way... Just in the opposite direction.

...But I would think that a healthy balance would be for a judge to multi-task, and be able to do both - make just rulings and show their humanity.

These are supposed to be the professionals afterall, and true professionals can multi-task.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

..I would have hugged her too. It was a total accident. And her remorse was deep.

She said on the stand she intended to kill whoever was in the room. She didn't use CPR which is standard practice for all officers. She even said after shooting him that she was going to lose her job. She had no regard for her life (or Botham's life). She is a murderer.