Innocence is not enough to get you out of prison.

[grumbler]

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.

I'm taking it that you didn't read the article that CC pointed out to me above?  Read that, and then you won't argue that there is "zero evidence."  It might not be conclusive evidence (or even, to you, persuasive evidence), but it is evidence.  "Zero evidence' is an extreme position and not, I think, sustainable.

[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.

I'm taking it that you didn't read the article that CC pointed out to me above?  Read that, and then you won't argue that there is "zero evidence."  It might not be conclusive evidence (or even, to you, persuasive evidence), but it is evidence.  "Zero evidence' is an extreme position and not, I think, sustainable.

Fair enough - zero evidence was certainly too strong. But the paper in question is mostly looking at sentencing, not conviction, especially when it comes to actual hard evidence - data.

[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

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.

I will assume you didn't actually read what I posted.  Here is a handy summary for you.



1) The literature clearly shows that the judgment of elected judges in relation to sentencing decisions is affected by the election cycle.
2) If a judge's judgment is affected in relation to a manner which can be objectively measured there is at least reason to suspect that their judgment in relation to other rulings they must make in relation to a case may also be affected.
3) As I already explained at length, it would be difficult to measure this sort of thing objectively because it would be difficult to measure objectively the many decisions a judge makes during the course of a trial from dealing with procedural points to admission of evidence to they way the interact with counsel.
4) I am not suggesting the judges intentionally convict innocent people.  But given the fact the research indicates the many judges run on tough on crime platforms their need to be viewed by the electorate as being tough on crime likely at least influences they way the exercise their judgment

[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.

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

Favoring fairly severe sentences for the guilty doesn't equate to being in favor of the innocent being convicted, except apparently in your section of Canuckistan.

[Eddie Teach]

It does tend to coincide with a lower threshold for burden of proof, however.

[grumbler]

Favoring fairly severe sentences for the guilty doesn't equate to being in favor of the innocent being convicted...

Duh!  Strawman:  BEATEN!

[Berkut]

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.

I will assume you didn't actually read what I posted.  Here is a handy summary for you.



1) The literature clearly shows that the judgment of elected judges in relation to sentencing decisions is affected by the election cycle.

Agreed.

2) If a judge's judgment is affected in relation to a manner which can be objectively measured there is at least reason to suspect that their judgment in relation to other rulings they must make in relation to a case may also be affected.

Do not agree. Sentencing is a largely subjective process that a judge has incredible discretion around, and is extremly visible to the electorate. Making judgements about other trial proceedings is not nearly as transparent to the electorate, nor is it nearly as safe from scrutiny by defense counsel and appeals courts. Hence their is less incentive for a judge to allow his work to be biased, and less ability to do so without getting themselves in a lot of trouble.

You know what is visible to the electorate though? Having a judge whose convictions get overturned because of shoddy work.

3) As I already explained at length, it would be difficult to measure this sort of thing objectively because it would be difficult to measure objectively the many decisions a judge makes during the course of a trial from dealing with procedural points to admission of evidence to they way the interact with counsel.

Not at all true - there is already a mechanism in place to review those decisions - it is the appeals process, and judges who convict innocent people routinely because they think erring on the side of putting innocent people in jail would presumably run up against adverse outcomes in appeal much more often than judges who are doing their job in good faith.

4) I am not suggesting the judges intentionally convict innocent people.  But given the fact the research indicates the many judges run on tough on crime platforms their need to be viewed by the electorate as being tough on crime likely at least influences they way the exercise their judgment

Being tough on crime does not suggest that they would make decisions that would result in an outcome (convicting innocent people) that the entire system is designed to prevent to a relatively extreme extent.

This is by far a much too broad brush - you are basically saying that any judge that could be described as "tough on crime" is by extension engaged in subverting the judicial process (intentionally or unintentionally) to an extent that is going to result in more innocent people being convicted - not just guilty people getting tougher sentences. I don't think that is at all a fair accusation, I think you can be "tough on crime" while still respecting the judicial process.

[crazy canuck]

Do not agree. Sentencing is a largely subjective process that a judge has incredible discretion around, and is extremly visible to the electorate. Making judgements about other trial proceedings is not nearly as transparent to the electorate, nor is it nearly as safe from scrutiny by defense counsel and appeals courts. Hence their is less incentive for a judge to allow his work to be biased, and less ability to do so without getting themselves in a lot of trouble.

You know what is visible to the electorate though? Having a judge whose convictions get overturned because of shoddy work.

You have missed the argument.

If a judges judgment is so plainly influenced in a way that can be measured, it is naïve to think that other judgments they make are not also influenced.  It is important for you to understand that it is very difficult to win appeals based on admission of evidence or procedural rulings.  The law gives judges a wide degree of discretion (particularly in relation to procedural rulings) and so long as they stay within the boundaries set in the law they judgments will stand.  The issue is whether their discretion is exercised in a manner which strains to ensure an innocent man is not convicted or whether they strain to appease the electorate and obtain convictions of who are charged.

What evidence do you have that a judge is only effected by an election cycle in only the very narrow area of discretion that researchers have so far managed to objectively measure?

Not at all true - there is already a mechanism in place to review those decisions - it is the appeals process, and judges who convict innocent people routinely because they think erring on the side of putting innocent people in jail would presumably run up against adverse outcomes in appeal much more often than judges who are doing their job in good faith

Appeals are costly and as stated are difficult in areas where judges enjoy wide discretion.  If your argument is really based on a notion judges "who convict innocent people routinely" will eventually be caught out then you should re-evaluate the implications of your position.  If on the other hand you were just trying to create a strawman buy suggesting my position is that there are judges who routinely convict innocent people then you should be ashamed of yourself.  You have made much better men of straw in the past.

Being tough on crime does not suggest that they would make decisions that would result in an outcome (convicting innocent people) that the entire system is designed to prevent to a relatively extreme extent.

You are asserting a contention that is the source of the dispute.  The system in the US is not well designed to prevent innocent people from being convicted.  There are much better systems.  Your system has elected prosecutors and elected judges.

[Berkut]

Do not agree. Sentencing is a largely subjective process that a judge has incredible discretion around, and is extremly visible to the electorate. Making judgements about other trial proceedings is not nearly as transparent to the electorate, nor is it nearly as safe from scrutiny by defense counsel and appeals courts. Hence their is less incentive for a judge to allow his work to be biased, and less ability to do so without getting themselves in a lot of trouble.

You know what is visible to the electorate though? Having a judge whose convictions get overturned because of shoddy work.

You have missed the argument.

If a judges judgment is so plainly influenced in a way that can be measured, it is naïve to think that other judgments they make are not also influenced.  It is important for you to understand that it is very difficult to win appeals based on admission of evidence or procedural rulings.  The law gives judges a wide degree of discretion (particularly in relation to procedural rulings) and so long as they stay within the boundaries set in the law they judgments will stand.  The issue is whether their discretion is exercised in a manner which strains to ensure an innocent man is not convicted or whether they strain to appease the electorate and obtain convictions of who are charged.

What evidence do you have that a judge is only effected by an election cycle in only the very narrow area of discretion that researchers have so far managed to objectively measure?

What evidence do you have that judges do so in a manner other than what is measured? Speculation is not evidence.

The onus to prove is not on me. Showing that judges can be biased in one manner is not evidence that they are biased in other manners, and for the reasons I've already stated.

Do these judges who they've seen have higher overturn on appeals rates? Higher incidences of innocents later being shown to be innocent, and convicted on the basis of ruling they made?

Not at all true - there is already a mechanism in place to review those decisions - it is the appeals process, and judges who convict innocent people routinely because they think erring on the side of putting innocent people in jail would presumably run up against adverse outcomes in appeal much more often than judges who are doing their job in good faith

Appeals are costly and as stated are difficult in areas where judges enjoy wide discretion.
[/quote]

Judges have wide discretion around sentencing, and we accept that we can measure the results. Discretion does not make it harder to measure effects, it makes it easier.

If your argument is really based on a notion judges "who convict innocent people routinely" will eventually be caught out then you should re-evaluate the implications of your position.  If on the other hand you were just trying to create a strawman buy suggesting my position is that there are judges who routinely convict innocent people then you should be ashamed of yourself.  You have made much better men of straw in the past.

My argument is that you have failed to make any case that in the US there is any significant amount of innocent people being wrongly convicted at all, much less that to the extent that it does happen that a significant contributing factor is elected judges.

Being tough on crime does not suggest that they would make decisions that would result in an outcome (convicting innocent people) that the entire system is designed to prevent to a relatively extreme extent.

You are asserting a contention that is the source of the dispute.  The system in the US is not well designed to prevent innocent people from being convicted.  There are much better systems.  Your system has elected prosecutors and elected judges.

Your argument is entirely circular.

The system in the US is not well designed to prevent innocent people from being convicted.

This is a conclusion based on no evidence, other than

Your system has elected prosecutors and elected judges.

Which is also your claim for WHY there are more innocent people being convicted.

It can't be both the cause and the result.

You have zero evidence that more people are wrongly convicted in the US than elsewhere. You have only conjecture that the reason this occurs to the extent that it does (and I am only agreeing that it does happen, not that it happens here any more than anywhere else) is due to elected judges.

And no fair mixing in "judges and prosecutors" at this point. That is very much adding in another much more problematic (in my opinion) variable.

[crazy canuck]

What evidence do you have that judges do so in a manner other than what is measured?

I am beginning to think you are trying not to understand the argument I am making.  One final attempt.  The argument is that since judges are influenced in at least one way by an election cycle it is naïve to think they are not also influenced in ways that are not easily measured.  If you want to suggest why I should assume that judges are only influenced in a manner that researchers can objectively prove then I would like to hear your argument.  It would seem a remarkable coincidence.  But I suppose anything is possible - although not probable.

[grumbler]

I must admit that I am not seeing how a judge's election chances are enhanced by his presiding over a trial in which the jury convicts.  Sentencing is the judge's call.  Convicting isn't.  The fact that judges may give a stiffer sentence once the jury convicts doesn't provide evidence that they would make decisions that would help ensure conviction, but the fact that judges seem to consider their election chances when administering one function of justice doesn't give much confidence that they won't when administering another function of justice.  I think the potential for corruption of justice alone is reason to question the wisdom of electing judges. So, not evidence, but indicative.

I remember that one of my earliest appreciations of the power of mottoes was when I asked my dad why the Washtenaw county courthouse had the motto "justice, though the heavens fall" above the doors.  He explained the meaning of the phrase, and I was duly impressed.  I still think it should be the operative phrase of any legal system.  Electing judges strikes me as contrary to that concept.

[crazy canuck]

I must admit that I am not seeing how a judge's election chances are enhanced by his presiding over a trial in which the jury convicts.  Sentencing is the judge's call.  Convicting isn't.  The fact that judges may give a stiffer sentence once the jury convicts doesn't provide evidence that they would make decisions that would help ensure conviction, but the fact that judges seem to consider their election chances when administering one function of justice doesn't give much confidence that they won't when administering another function of justice.  I think the potential for corruption of justice alone is reason to question the wisdom of electing judges. So, not evidence, but indicative.

I remember that one of my earliest appreciations of the power of mottoes was when I asked my dad why the Washtenaw county courthouse had the motto "justice, though the heavens fall" above the doors.  He explained the meaning of the phrase, and I was duly impressed.  I still think it should be the operative phrase of any legal system.  Electing judges strikes me as contrary to that concept.

Consider the following situation.  A trial is held close to an election. The judge needs to make an important decision on the admission of a piece of evidence that will greatly assist the prosecution.  The media are not present but there is a chance that a decision to disallow the evidence might be reported.  The judge plans to run on a tough on crime platform and has done in the past.  Within the bounds of the rules of evidence the judge could decide either way - ie there would be no reviewable error one way or the other.

I have picked the admissibility of the evidence as an example but there are numerous rulings a judge must make during the course of a trial that are largely discretionary.

The contention by Lacroix and now Berkut is that the US system of criminal justice is set up to ensure innocent people are not convicted.  My contention is that there a number of weaknesses in the system that call that assumption into question.  Two of those weaknesses are the election of judges and prosecutors.

[grumbler]

I must admit that I am not seeing how a judge's election chances are enhanced by his presiding over a trial in which the jury convicts.  Sentencing is the judge's call.  Convicting isn't.  The fact that judges may give a stiffer sentence once the jury convicts doesn't provide evidence that they would make decisions that would help ensure conviction, but the fact that judges seem to consider their election chances when administering one function of justice doesn't give much confidence that they won't when administering another function of justice.  I think the potential for corruption of justice alone is reason to question the wisdom of electing judges. So, not evidence, but indicative.

I remember that one of my earliest appreciations of the power of mottoes was when I asked my dad why the Washtenaw county courthouse had the motto "justice, though the heavens fall" above the doors.  He explained the meaning of the phrase, and I was duly impressed.  I still think it should be the operative phrase of any legal system.  Electing judges strikes me as contrary to that concept.

Consider the following situation.  A trial is held close to an election. The judge needs to make an important decision on the admission of a piece of evidence that will greatly assist the prosecution.  The media are not present but there is a chance that a decision to disallow the evidence might be reported.  The judge plans to run on a tough on crime platform and has done in the past.  Within the bounds of the rules of evidence the judge could decide either way - ie there would be no reviewable error one way or the other.

I have picked the admissibility of the evidence as an example but there are numerous rulings a judge must make during the course of a trial that are largely discretionary.

I am not sure what your hypothetical has to do with the point I made, other than to reinforce it.  I don't think that there is any actual evidence (even indirect) that judges make rulings based on their election impact, but the perception alone (such as the ability to create reasonable hypotheticals, as you have) is enough to make me oppose judicial elections.  Those elections have no discernible way of improving justice, but they sure have a discernible way of impairing justice.

[crazy canuck]

I must admit that I am not seeing how a judge's election chances are enhanced by his presiding over a trial in which the jury convicts.  Sentencing is the judge's call.  Convicting isn't.  The fact that judges may give a stiffer sentence once the jury convicts doesn't provide evidence that they would make decisions that would help ensure conviction, but the fact that judges seem to consider their election chances when administering one function of justice doesn't give much confidence that they won't when administering another function of justice.  I think the potential for corruption of justice alone is reason to question the wisdom of electing judges. So, not evidence, but indicative.

I remember that one of my earliest appreciations of the power of mottoes was when I asked my dad why the Washtenaw county courthouse had the motto "justice, though the heavens fall" above the doors.  He explained the meaning of the phrase, and I was duly impressed.  I still think it should be the operative phrase of any legal system.  Electing judges strikes me as contrary to that concept.

Consider the following situation.  A trial is held close to an election. The judge needs to make an important decision on the admission of a piece of evidence that will greatly assist the prosecution.  The media are not present but there is a chance that a decision to disallow the evidence might be reported.  The judge plans to run on a tough on crime platform and has done in the past.  Within the bounds of the rules of evidence the judge could decide either way - ie there would be no reviewable error one way or the other.

I have picked the admissibility of the evidence as an example but there are numerous rulings a judge must make during the course of a trial that are largely discretionary.

I am not sure what your hypothetical has to do with the point I made, other than to reinforce it.  I don't think that there is any actual evidence (even indirect) that judges make rulings based on their election impact, but the perception alone (such as the ability to create reasonable hypotheticals, as you have) is enough to make me oppose judicial elections.  Those elections have no discernible way of improving justice, but they sure have a discernible way of impairing justice.

I am a bit confused.  A number of pages ago that I think it is impossible to study the numerous discretionary rulings a judge makes during the course of a trial in the same way as sentencing decisions.  There are too many variables.  But if one accepts that a judges sentencing is influenced by an election cycle (something which is reason enough to oppose having elected judges) then the burden should be on those who say elections do not influence any other decisions to demonstrate that as a fact.


The alternative is blind faith that a judge who is influenced in one decision is not in all the others. 

[grumbler]

I am a bit confused.  A number of pages ago that I think it is impossible to study the numerous discretionary rulings a judge makes during the course of a trial in the same way as sentencing decisions.  There are too many variables.  But if one accepts that a judges sentencing is influenced by an election cycle (something which is reason enough to oppose having elected judges) then the burden should be on those who say elections do not influence any other decisions to demonstrate that as a fact.


The alternative is blind faith that a judge who is influenced in one decision is not in all the others.

What's probably confusing you is that we are agreeing about something!