Innocence is not enough to get you out of prison.

[grumbler]

... the average elected judge does not base his decisions on securing convictions so that he can remain elected because that's a surefire way to get eventually sanctioned.

And be unemployed when sanctioned, because who is going to vote for a judge that sends innocent voters to prison?

[Razgovory]

... the average elected judge does not base his decisions on securing convictions so that he can remain elected because that's a surefire way to get eventually sanctioned.

And be unemployed when sanctioned, because who is going to vote for a judge that sends innocent voters to prison?

Well, if the innocents happen to be black, then the answer is Republicans.

[crazy canuck]

There is a lot of research regarding the bias of judges who run for election on tough on crime platforms.  I am not sure what is so controversial with the observation the judges who need to be elected to their positions need to appeal to the voters and it seems a tough on crime stance is appealing to voters.

[LaCroix]

There is a lot of research regarding the bias of judges who run for election on tough on crime platforms.  I am not sure what is so controversial with the observation the judges who need to be elected to their positions need to appeal to the voters and it seems a tough on crime stance is appealing to voters.

judges can campaign on whatever platform they want, but they must still act in accordance to state law and the rules of judicial conduct. moreover, voters generally don't care about how judges perform unless there's media coverage about something the judge did. for example, the judge in the other thread re: cheating has received negative publicity. this might affect his chances for reelection.

i suspect actual (rather than declared) hard on crime stances depends more on personality rather than anything related to elections. some judges are gonna be a stannis in the courtroom no matter the process that put them on the bench.

[crazy canuck]

So now you are arguing that elected judges are fine because they are elected by a largely ignorant electorate?  I am not sure that improves things.

[Valmy]

Yeah unless the judge was personally known by somebody I knew I had no clue when I was picking the judges beyond their campaign slogan.

'A voice for Texans'

Well that sounds good. Guess I will vote for Judge Hangemall.

[grumbler]

I remember reading a study by some university a year or two ago (I don't recall whether the study itself was done right then, but it's not very material) showing that judges, in states that elected trial judges and had the death penalty (maybe it was just Alabama, but I think it included other states), imposed the death penalty significantly more often in election years than non-election years.  So, I think that there is evidence that judges pander to voters.  I can't say that it is conclusive evidence, but it is an issue worth researching and discussing.

[LaCroix]

So now you are arguing that elected judges are fine because they are elected by a largely ignorant electorate?  I am not sure that improves things.

i've never argued that voters actually care about judicial elections. i mean, honestly, why would they? it's a name on the ballot, and people generally have zero interest in the law except when a journalist misconstrues it or they become personally involved. it's hard for joe schmuck attorney to become a judge (via election or appointment) because he has no connections. people make connections either by blowing smoke up everyone's ass or through pure competence. however they get to the bench, i don't see all that much of a difference in how they later judge. i doubt a judge sentences an extra few years imprisonment just to fulfill some "hard on crime" promise. judges are human, not machines. and every trial judge knows that every single decision he makes could possibly be reviewed before a higher court.

[LaCroix]

I remember reading a study by some university a year or two ago (I don't recall whether the study itself was done right then, but it's not very material) showing that judges, in states that elected trial judges and had the death penalty (maybe it was just Alabama, but I think it included other states), imposed the death penalty significantly more often in election years than non-election years.  So, I think that there is evidence that judges pander to voters.  I can't say that it is conclusive evidence, but it is an issue worth researching and discussing.

it's also possible state attorneys sought the death penalty more in election years. or any other factor. who knows with statistics. i'd like to read the study if you ever come across it again.

[grumbler]

it's also possible state attorneys sought the death penalty more in election years. or any other factor. who knows with statistics. i'd like to read the study if you ever come across it again.

Agree that there are other possible factors, and I don't recall how the study accounted for them.  I'll see if I can remember more and find the study.  It's a problem, because the bullshit studies drown out the good ones.

[Berkut]

So now you are arguing that elected judges are fine because they are elected by a largely ignorant electorate?  I am not sure that improves things.

He is arguing that your particular claim that elected judges are likely to help convict inoccent people is not supprted by evidence or even your arguments.

Noting that there are overall conceptual problems with electing judges doesn't support your claim, which was much more specific. It just makes you look like someone willing to engage in rhetorical sleight of hand to protect your point when it gets demolished.

[crazy canuck]

I remember reading a study by some university a year or two ago (I don't recall whether the study itself was done right then, but it's not very material) showing that judges, in states that elected trial judges and had the death penalty (maybe it was just Alabama, but I think it included other states), imposed the death penalty significantly more often in election years than non-election years.  So, I think that there is evidence that judges pander to voters.  I can't say that it is conclusive evidence, but it is an issue worth researching and discussing.

Yeah, that is one of the main concerns - the judges who run tough on crime election campaigns tend to give more severe sentences.

It would be very difficult to study whether such judges also make rulings during the course of a trial which make conviction more likely - those sorts of judgments are not very amenable to objective study.  But that is the other concern.  If being a "tough on crime" judge affects sentencing outcome then it likely does affect other decisions a judge must make during the course of a trial.

[crazy canuck]

So now you are arguing that elected judges are fine because they are elected by a largely ignorant electorate?  I am not sure that improves things.

He is arguing that your particular claim that elected judges are likely to help convict inoccent people is not supprted by evidence or even your arguments.

Noting that there are overall conceptual problems with electing judges doesn't support your claim, which was much more specific. It just makes you look like someone willing to engage in rhetorical sleight of hand to protect your point when it gets demolished.

My claim that elected judges who run on being tough on crime are biased is well documented.  I just found it amusing that he retreated from a position that the electorate would never elect a judge who convicted innocent people to a position that the electorate has no idea whether they are electing someone who is competent.  Which is probably why the tough on crime judges get elected.

[crazy canuck]

Grumbler,

You might find this paper interesting.


http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-81-3-Weiss.pdf

[LaCroix]

Yeah, that is one of the main concerns - the judges who run tough on crime election campaigns tend to give more severe sentences.

It would be very difficult to study whether such judges also make rulings during the course of a trial which make conviction more likely - those sorts of judgments are not very amenable to objective study.  But that is the other concern.  If being a "tough on crime" judge affects sentencing outcome then it likely does affect other decisions a judge must make during the course of a trial.

i don't think "tough on crime" campaign slogans are any more likely to affect sentencing than "a voice for texans" slogan affects a judge's voice for texans. it's a vague, meaningless stance. as your post indicates, how would one even gauge whether that judge was, in fact, tough on crime?

i also don't think judges could realistically make decisions during the course of a trial that would strategically make the conviction more likely. let's ignore how sociopathic that is. employing such a strategy would require considerable planning that your average judge, already overworked in many cases, just doesn't care to do. a bribed judge could layout a strategy for a single trial, but you're suggesting a "tough on crime" judge might do this for every trial!