Innocence is not enough to get you out of prison.

[LaCroix]

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.

but i never said "the electorate would never elect a judge who convicted innocent people."

i did say "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."

by "sanctioned," i meant sanctioned through internal disciplinary proceedings.

[crazy canuck]

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?

The academic research disagrees with your anecdotal observation.

[crazy canuck]

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.

but i never said "the electorate would never elect a judge who convicted innocent people."

i did say "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."

by "sanctioned," i meant sanctioned through internal disciplinary proceedings.

How is convicting innocent people a "surefire" way of eventually getting sanctioned if nobody will ever find out that an innocent person was convicted?

[jimmy olsen]

Which case?

Never mind.  Turn out the original source of Timrage was a dissent, not a ruling. 

What's going on now?

[LaCroix]

The academic research disagrees with your anecdotal observation.

read your article. pg. 1109 is where it gets good. the article cites studies that suggest all judges dole out harsher sentences closer to elections. i concede that added stress of looming elections might lead a judge to act harsher in sentencing. i can see that. but, this doesn't mean "tough on crime" slogans actually do anything. furthermore, harsher sentences may be handed out subconsciously. IMO, this makes more sense than a conscious effort of tacking on extra years for defendants because the judge wants to win that election.

[LaCroix]

How is convicting innocent people a "surefire" way of eventually getting sanctioned if nobody will ever find out that an innocent person was convicted?

my earlier comment that i quoted, and re-quote now, "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," doesn't have to do with innocent people per say. emphasis added.

[crazy canuck]

That fact that all elected judges dole out more severe penalties closer to an election makes my point.  Elected judges' judgment panders to an electorate which is perceived to favour judges who will be tough on crime.  If a the judgment of a judge is influenced in this matter then what makes you think that other judgments they make regarding numerous procedural rulings during the course of a trial is not also influenced.  And if those decisions are influenced how can one argue that innocent people might not be convicted?

[crazy canuck]

How is convicting innocent people a "surefire" way of eventually getting sanctioned if nobody will ever find out that an innocent person was convicted?

my earlier comment that i quoted, and re-quote now, "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," doesn't have to do with innocent people per say. emphasis added.

Agreed.  You are avoiding the issue.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were trying to defend your original position that it is harder now for innocent people to be convicted.

[LaCroix]

That fact that all elected judges dole out more severe penalties closer to an election makes my point.  Elected judges' judgment panders to an electorate which is perceived to favour judges who will be tough on crime.  If a the judgment of a judge is influenced in this matter then what makes you think that other judgments they make regarding numerous procedural rulings during the course of a trial is not also influenced.  And if those decisions are influenced how can one argue that innocent people might not be convicted?

you're combining the results of the studies with your own views that judges dish out harsher sentences to pander to the electorate. the results of those studies never said that. as far as i can tell from my own research, your point has never been proven. like i said, assuming the studies are correct, i think it's more likely that the election process as a whole subconsciously affects a judge's sentencing closer to elections. we could argue the pros and cons of an election process vs. appointment system, but a cursory glance at westlaw reveals there's enough law review articles that support both sides. i doubt either of us have the time to cherry pick info and fling it back at each other.

[LaCroix]

Agreed.  You are avoiding the issue.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were trying to defend your original position that it is harder now for innocent people to be convicted.

well, i was. you listed several reasons why you think it's not hard to convict innocent people. one reason you listed was your belief that judges try to get people convicted so they can get re-elected. my argument attacked that assertion. judges who do their best to base their rulings not on the law but because they want the guilty/innocent alike to get convicted are gonna eventually face sanctions.

[Eddie Teach]

Your faith in the judicial system is touching. No, wait, I mean it's touched.

[crazy canuck]

Agreed.  You are avoiding the issue.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were trying to defend your original position that it is harder now for innocent people to be convicted.

well, i was. you listed several reasons why you think it's not hard to convict innocent people. one reason you listed was your belief that judges try to get people convicted so they can get re-elected. my argument attacked that assertion. judges who do their best to base their rulings not on the law but because they want the guilty/innocent alike to get convicted are gonna eventually face sanctions.

And yet you concede that judges are influenced by the fact that an election is upcoming.  I am not sure how you square that circle.

[dps]

That fact that all elected judges dole out more severe penalties closer to an election makes my point. 

Sounds like an argument for judges to be elected to shorter terms to me.

[crazy canuck]

That fact that all elected judges dole out more severe penalties closer to an election makes my point. 

Sounds like an argument for judges to be elected to shorter terms to me.

Yeah, if you don't care about the odd innocent person being convicted and unjust sentences for the guilty its a good strategy.

[Berkut]

That fact that all elected judges dole out more severe penalties closer to an election makes my point. 

Sounds like an argument for judges to be elected to shorter terms to me.

Yeah, if you don't care about the odd innocent person being convicted

You keep doing this bit where you claim that elected judges contribute to innocent people being convicted, but there is zero evidence that that is the case. Zero. You have not even tried to make that argument except by assertion.