Judges here make all their decisions based on the law and evidence. If they didn't, it is overturned in the appeals court and they face disbarment and no more job. Just because they are elected not appointed doesn't make them suspend law or evidence. You said it yourself that people, where you are, disagree with the judges. The citizens(love'em or hate'em) should have the power to appoint the judges to one of the most powerful branch of local government.

I considered that.

Are appellate judges elected, too?

Judges may or may not make their decisions based on the law and evidence, whether they are elected or not. I'm not sure how you would know if they did or didn't in "all" cases. A judge can easily rule for or against a motion limiting or allowing evidence, and judges rule on various other trial procedures, which all impact trial outcome. Judges have a great deal of control over cases, and I don't see how the threat of an angry electorate improves their ability to make impartial decisions.

I also said that they were nutcases.

The judicial branch is meant to be impartial, with no angry electorate influencing decisions.

Besides, the public does have the power to appoint judges through their representatives.

If they don't like the judges, they should elect different representatives who will appoint judges to their liking.

lol 'angry' electorate

...because you have to be 'angry' to want to be able to elect the judicial branch of government.

power to the people

Yes, angry. Or call it dislike. Same thing, really. What other reason is their not to re-elect a judge?

I guess I don't mind the idea of electing a judge one time, but I don't like the idea of re-electing judges, which may influence the judge's decision-making to ensure re-election.

Is it true that in Texas elected judges can spend campaign money on whatever they want? From what I've read in the Jack Reacher novel Echo Burning it's a highly coveted position because of the wealth that comes with it.

So, it is interesting that you say this judge is retiring.

There is probably no way she would get re-elected with that decision.

She probably was bribed.

So the he kid stole the beer from Walmart huh.

They should sue Walmart for 1 billion dollars. Walmart shouldn't make it so easy to steal beer imo. Walmart has tons of lawyers though. They will fight a lawsuit to the death. Of course, that case would go forward in a Texas court, so the judge wouldn't want to piss off the electorate so he or she will rule in favor of plaintiffs' motions and guide the trial to a verdict for the plaintiff and the jury will extract 1 billion dollars from Walmart. Ok, maybe just a few million.

Who do you think mostly funds the election of judges? Rich people and corporations. So why would you be surprised if judges rule in favor of rich people and corporations?

Yeah, I take that back about being ok with even a one-time election of judges. There is already too much campaign cash leading to poor outcomes in elections. Appoint judges, elect representatives.

Oo*cough cough*oO

We have a nice mix of both. Don't knock it till you try it.

Local judges should always be elected.

Watching some news just now...this kid was 14, allegedly killed two people and got the electric chair.



New evidence could clear 14-year-old executed by South Carolina

And a 16 year-old kills 4 and goes free.

What's the difference here? Of course, that was 67 years ago, in South Carolina, probably with elected judges.

jfc, Pats are on. This place is a time sucker. Later. I wish we could elect football coaches. Belichick is on my last nerve.

Yes, I did miss that.

Why do you think appellate judges are appointed and lower level judges are not?

Why don't they trust the "power of the people" to elect appellate judges?

Not 'lower level', they are local judges. It is better to leave the matter to local districts.
checks and balances

Vivant et republica

I'm not advocating for all election judges.

Nice job posting a 67yr old case of misjustice and then posting 'probably with elected judges'
lol

ya, lol, I just saw it on the news.

And I checked, but it looks like SC is one of only 2 states where judges are elected by the state legislature. So, I fail there trying to smear elected judges by popular vote. lol

But I still think it's a bad idea. Judges will hand out harsh sentences to keep their jobs. Probably why Texas executes more people than California and why so many people are locked up for long periods for victimless crimes.

Anyhoo, good chat, but I'm out.

EDIT: oops, looks like Cali judges are elected. Out, out, out. For real this time.

The problem is that you're looking at your main concern in the issue as the only possible outcome. You shouldn't be arguing 'Judges will hand out harsh sentences to keep their jobs' but 'Judges will hand out the sentences they're expected to to keep their jobs'. And then California electing their judges can be fairly easily reconciled with what you're saying.

And then it comes down to whether or not you think it's a good thing.

I can't get over thinking how the judge could understand how the wealth of the family contributed to the behaviors of the young man, and then he himself, the judge, allows those same affluent arguments into his decision process.

The ten years probation may seem like a strong deterrent in the future, unless you are someone he hurts again.

The really corrupted part of the judges decision is the 445k/year treatment center in Newport Beach, CA. Did the judge also rule there be no involvement by the family in regards to treatment? If the affluenza is some type of mental state, then why didn't the judge also rule there be conditions met for the release?

When Texas football goes to hell, the rest of the state follows.

Damn, I wish I were rich.

Mo money, less problems IMO.

I read that he is to have no contact with his family. That seems kind of odd though, since even in prison you have contact through visitation. Plus, at 450K per year with good payers, I would think that the facility would be high on meeting their customers demands i.e be super lax on the punitive aspects. The whole thing seems ill conceived. If I were one of the family members of the victims I would put some kind of effort into monitoring the whole execution of this sentence. And would sue, seeking enough damages to cure the whole family of their affluenza.

Does anyone know if the state can appeal the sentence that the judge gave?

If so, are they doing it?

Both of these are so much absurdly worse than 10 years of probation. You can criticize the process as being biased towards the affluent all you want but if you seriously think a 16 year old kid going to prison for that long.... well, you need to seriously evaluate what you think prison is for.

On this board the ideal prison system is based on the idea of rehabilitation, not revenge, and putting a kid in jail for 15+ years is pure revenge and a stupid ****ing policy.

Links are broken so you can't get the full details of this story. Neither of those outcomes are correct and I'd guess some stronger mandatory minimums were run into as well as simple bias.

Yeah, I said I missed that before, probably because it is wrong.

Texas elects their state Supreme Court justices.

I'm reading elsewhere that 22 states hold at least some competitive elections for Supreme Court and appellate judges, but I'm looking for a map or listing of all states and how judges are seated.

Even conservative justices such as Sandra Day O'Connor and even a Texas Supreme Court justice claim that judicial elections are a bad idea because they impede judicial independence and impartiality.

Even this Texas Supreme Court justice opines that it is a bad idea. Watch this video, it is ridiculous and about as far as you can get from impartiality and independence.




And that's the judge that says judicial elections are a bad idea.

An Elected Judge Speaks Out Against Judicial Elections


And another good article from the same The Atlantic author:

Would You Trust These State Justices to Review Your Case?


I guess we may be hijacking this thread tho. Perhaps start another, because I'm curious about this judicial election bs. I'm reading that it grew rapidly out of Jacksonian Democracy in the decades before the Civil War, but traces back to the Federalist Papers and Hamilton, who argued for independence and judicial appointment. So it def has history, pros and cons, and is currently a hot topic. Not in my state tho. We do the right thing: appoint judges.

I'm curious what the rest of the country does and what people think. Like I said, there are a bunch of nutters around here always whining for judicial elections, but they are the usual bloodthirsty malcontents who want to string people up all the time.

Yeah, I knew something was faulty with that argument and the conclusion I tentatively reached, but I had to give it up to watch the Pats lose to the Flippers.

I'm not even sure Texas judges would be responsible for handing out death sentences, because I think juries probably do that. But the Texas appellate and Supreme Court review those sentences and apparently they are all elected, which doesn't bode well for poor defendants who cannot afford a good defense.

Me:
Yes, local district courts are lower-level, inferior courts compared to appellate and supreme courts.

You made no attempt to answer that question, but apparently higher courts are elected in many states; in Texas anyway, probably not in your state.

Oh God, here's another of Willet's vids:



And excerpted from the 2nd article I linked:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...r-case/262480/

That's a Supreme Court judge asking for your vote.

Crazy and scary stuff iyam.