Should Judges "hug" people convicted of serious crimes?

[shmogie]

Her job is to serve as an arbitrator. Her religious duty is irrelevant to the judicial system as arbitration must be without prejudice or religious. Ironic considering Christians whine about Sharia law yet see no issue with a Christian judge sharing personal religious doctrine in a court of law. So I guess as long it's not Sharia and Christian it's okay to violate state law?



No, a judge does not have that right:

(C) Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.

Federal Court Finder

Just because a judge renders a sentence, her appearance while in court must be professional, and never implicating any religious, political, racial, or gender bias while in court.



She was still in court. This isn't like a judge is at the bar. She was in court where the media was filming and pictures were taken. Regardless whether the sentence was rendered, she was still in uniform and therefore she is still while in court, an officer of the law. that is like a cop buying a pint of whiskey and taking a swig in public. the judge was still on duty while in court and while wearing a uniform.



What part of "she was still in court" do you not get? Judges aren't allowed to display any sort of bias while in court especially to someone who is convicted.



This is different because they're not in a courthouse.

What difference does being in court and wearing a robe make ?

What bias did she show ? THE TRIAL WAS OVER. So, once again, what was the bias manifested ?

She is a Christian, and gave the convicted a Bible. You are inferring bias , in a situation where any bias would have exactly 0 effect. Bias must have an effect, or it can´t be bias.

You can accuse me of having a bias toward left handed red haired people, but if I am a judge, and within the scope of administering the law, no bias can be found, am I biased ?

What if after a trial where a left handed red haired person is convicted, and no judicial bias can be found in the trial, and I say to the convicted, ¨ cling to the creed of the left red head club, it will help you get through¨ is that a manifestation of bias ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think that Trevor Noah's speech on this matter was very proper.

Judges and other authorities are not IMO really out of line simply for being human beings having emotional reactions.

But we should be wise to what those reactions, as well as their absences, indicate.

I would hate to see what a lawyer could turn a hug from a judge into.

 

[shmogie]

If the judge is ethical and sets aside their personal beliefs, sure.

But a judge who hands out Bibles to defendants is not ethical and has not set aside their personal beliefs.

Not a defendant, a convicted killer. The trial was over and there is 0 indication her personal beliefs had any bearing in her administration of the law. She will have no further involvement with the killer.

There is nothing unethical about what she did.

 

[shmogie]

I don't often "like" @shmogie posts.
This one I did.
When Shmogie and I agree on something, take notes.
Tom

Gads !! I should leave for Vegas right away, the lightning bolt has hit !

 

[shmogie]

Does "being a Christian" mean she's obligated to hand out Bibles?


Her job wasn't finished. She was still in her role as a judge.


It's illegal and unethical. That's what.



Quite possibly yes.


Not people of faith; only those who choose to impose their faith on others.

... and especially those in positions of authority who choose to impose their faith on others.

It is not illegal, perhaps in Canada, but not the US.

I see, she imposed her faith on someone else. By a hug and giving her a book, which the convicted killer had no obligation to take. Bulls**t. Atheist claptrap.

 

[shmogie]

She's still on the clock, present in the court room in her capacity as a judge. It was inappropriate. If she felt a personal need, visit the convicted on her own time during visiting hours.

Makes sense. Yet judges make personal comments about litigants all the time. Ever heard a judge after conviction berate a person and call them things like sick animals, menaces to society, liars etc., etc,etc. ?

It happens all the time. Is that bias too ?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I am quite serious about judge evaluations and censure by the bar association, which is composed of all attorneyś, do you think it doesn´t work ?

Coming full circle, what exactly did the judges short interaction with the convicted killer say ?

Judicial misconduct is rampant here.
(But I also recognize that Michiganistan suffers from
Black Robe Syndrome more than other states.)
Judges are lawyers, & those who'd censure them are
also lawyers. It's like cops monitoring other cops for
bad behavior.

 

[shmogie]

Judges should maintain neutrality regardless of religion or sympathy towards those involved.

Neutrality. That means between at least two possible positions.

After the trial is done, the person is convicted, and the judge will never have further professional contact with the woman, what are the two positions ?

When required she was totally neutral.

 

[Stanyon]

I see it as inappropriate and rather odd.
As far as this specific case goes I find it very difficult to have any pity on her, if it were a female with no le training etc. I could see some of it but they would still be guilty. The problem I have is that this woman was a trained professional and because of that I find it very difficult to believe this was entirely an accident, there was a lot of room for other decisions to be made.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not illegal, perhaps in Canada, but not the US.

It violates the First Amendment. The FFRF goes into the details here:

Amber Guyger judge's proselytization an abuse of power, FFRF charges - Freedom From Religion Foundation

I see, she imposed her faith on someone else. By a hug and giving her a book, which the convicted killer had no obligation to take. Bulls**t. Atheist claptrap.

Just handing her a Bible would be bad enough, but here's the whole exchange:

Kemp said:

You can have [my bible]. I have three or four more at home. This is the one I use everyday. This is your job for the next month. Right here. John: 3:16. And this is where you start, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

She continued, “He has a purpose for you. This will strengthen you. You just need a tiny mustard seed of faith. You start with this.”

Kemp then hugged Guyger and said to her, “It’s not because I’m good. It’s because I believe in Christ. I’m not so good. You haven’t done as much as you think you have, and you can be forgiven. You did something bad in one moment in time. What you do now matters.”

The judge was proselytizing.

As a government employee, she shouldn't be using her government position as a platform for proselytizing. As a person in a position of authority, she shouldn't use that position to proselytize.

The implication when someone in a position of authority proselytizes to someone under their authority is that if the person being targetted doesn't go along with what's being asked, they could suffer consequences. Coercion is unavoidable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Neutrality. That means between at least two possible positions.

After the trial is done, the person is convicted, and the judge will never have further professional contact with the woman, what are the two positions ?

When required she was totally neutral.

This judge has signalled her favourable view of Christianity to every person who will ever appear before her court. She's given good reason for any of her non-Christian defendants to question whether they're receiving a fair trial.

 

[shmogie]

It violates the First Amendment. The FFRF goes into the details here:

Amber Guyger judge's proselytization an abuse of power, FFRF charges - Freedom From Religion Foundation


Just handing her a Bible would be bad enough, but here's the whole exchange:


The judge was proselytizing.

As a government employee, she shouldn't be using her government position as a platform for proselytizing. As a person in a position of authority, she shouldn't use that position to proselytize.

The implication when someone in a position of authority proselytizes to someone under their authority is that if the person being targetted doesn't go along with what's being asked, they could suffer consequences. Coercion is unavoidable.

Not according to the First amendment. Unlike the atheists would have you believe, the first Amendment says nothing about a wall between Church and state. In the 240 years of the Republic, Only the last 40 years have some courts ruled this way.

The constitution needs to be looked at from the perspective of original intent. Did the Founders intend for the first amendment to prohibit this judge from trying to comfort the woman and give her a Bible, of course not.

It is obvious from itś words that the First amendment was written to protect religion, and prohibit the state from establishing one as the official religion of the state, with state support, with the others being excluded. As was before the revolution.


Because anti religionist dolts see something else, doesn´t void the original intent of the establishment clause. Giving someone a Bible and words of comfort is not prohibited by the Constitution.

Your extrapolation of consequences and coercion is laughable. All this happened in 30 seconds when the judge had no more jurisdiction over the criminal, get real.

 

[Callisto]

Makes sense. Yet judges make personal comments about litigants all the time. Ever heard a judge after conviction berate a person and call them things like sick animals, menaces to society, liars etc., etc,etc. ?

It happens all the time. Is that bias too ?

That's within the purview of their job as judge. Making personal physical contact and gift giving, of a religious nature or otherwise, are not.

 

[shmogie]

This judge has signalled her favourable view of Christianity to every person who will ever appear before her court. She's given good reason for any of her non-Christian defendants to question whether they're receiving a fair trial.

Nope. The religious or non religious bent of every judge is known by defense counsel before a trial begins.

What if a judge is an atheist, should I scream bias and question whether I will get a fair trial ?

To do so, I must establish bias manifested in a history of the judges trials, not in what they do after the trial is completed and they have no authority over convicted felons.

 

[shmogie]

This judge has signalled her favourable view of Christianity to every person who will ever appear before her court. She's given good reason for any of her non-Christian defendants to question whether they're receiving a fair trial.

Nope. The religious or non religious bent of every judge is known by defense counsel before a trial begins.

What if a judge is an atheist, should I scream bias and question whether I will get a fair trial ?

To do so, I must establish bias manifested in a history of the judges trials, not in what they do after the trial is completed and they have no authority over convicted felons.

 

[shmogie]

I

That's within the purview of their job as judge. Making personal physical contact and gift giving, of a religious nature or otherwise, are not.

s that found in a set of policies ? I don´t think so.

 

[Callisto]

I

s that found in a set of policies ? I don´t think so.

Really? Because judges do deliver statements during sentencing and per their discretion. can you point to any policy that forbids it? Don't think so.

Where's the policy for making physical contact and gift giving?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not according to the First amendment. Unlike the atheists would have you believe, the first Amendment says nothing about a wall between Church and state. In the 240 years of the Republic, Only the last 40 years have some courts ruled this way.

The First Amendment didn't apply to the states until the 14th Amendment, so that was part of it.

The constitution needs to be looked at from the perspective of original intent. Did the Founders intend for the first amendment to prohibit this judge from trying to comfort the woman and give her a Bible, of course not.

The Founders didn't have one single intent. What they agreed to was the text of the Constitution.

It is obvious from itś words that the First amendment was written to protect religion, and prohibit the state from establishing one as the official religion of the state, with state support, with the others being excluded. As was before the revolution.

That's right. And the way it set about protecting religion was by prohibiting a religion from having undue influence on the government, because they knew how harmful this could be to all the other religions.

The Founders were very familiar with the lessons of the English Civil War. They knew that if you let Protestantism permeate a government, the Catholics would suffer and that if you let Catholicism permeate a government, the Protestants would suffer.

In order to make sure that religious people of all stripes would not be made to suffer, they designed a system where no religion could have power over the government.

Because anti religionist dolts see something else, doesn´t void the original intent of the establishment clause. Giving someone a Bible and words of comfort is not prohibited by the Constitution.

Is that right?

I'm glad some random on the internet is here to correct us, and that you know better than the trained and licensed constitutional lawyers at FFRF.

Your extrapolation of consequences and coercion is laughable. All this happened in 30 seconds when the judge had no more jurisdiction over the criminal, get real.

Try disrupting her courtroom to the point of committing contempt of court even after the verdict is rendered and see for yourself if she has no more jurisdiction.

BTW: on your planet, do judges only ever see a particular defendant once?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. The religious or non religious bent of every judge is known by defense counsel before a trial begins.

What if a judge is an atheist, should I scream bias and question whether I will get a fair trial ?

If they bring their personal beliefs into the courtroom like this judge did, certainly.

 

[columbus]

I would hate to see what a lawyer could turn a hug from a judge into.

Like "I would hate to see what a lawyer biased against white people and cops could turn a hug from a judge into, if the judge hugged a white cop."?
That's what it sounds like you're saying.
Tom