Should judges be removed from bench / pressured to resign for unpopular decision

[Martinus]

How exactly are California judges able to get away with giving convicted felons sentences that are less than the legal minimums?  Is there any judicial recourse for the state?  If not, what's the point of having minimum sentences on the books?

Not following the law in regards to sentencing sounds more like malfeasance or incompetence than simply making an unpopular decision.

That's true - although normally it should be dealt with in appeal.

[LaCroix]

lots of judges don't always follow the law. I'm not sure how easy it is for an attorney to raise a stink about a shitty judge (not saying this judge was a shitty judge), but it doesn't seem to be exercised often (in part over fear of reprisal). and this is with truly incompetent judges not doing their work

nation/world-wide petition over a state judicial issue is pretty silly

finally, once again people upset about relaxed criminal sentencing one day, yet complaints about overly harsh laws and an overburdened prison system the next day

[The Minsky Moment]

How exactly are California judges able to get away with giving convicted felons sentences that are less than the legal minimums?  Is there any judicial recourse for the state? 

Appeal the sentence.

[Oexmelin]

Appeal the sentence.

Does that happen often, in cases of rape?

[Berkut]

And who would appeal it? The prosecutor, presumably, right? But isn't it usually the case that the prosecutor is making a sentencing recommendation? In this case, what was that recommendation? Where they part of the "deal"?

[Berkut]

Looks like the prosecutor asked for a 6 year sentence. I suspect the will be appealing.

To the original question, I think is is asking the wrong question, actually.

The question is not "Should it be possible to recall judges" it should be "Should judges be elected in the first place". The answer to that question is, IMO, obviously FUCK NO.

But once you accept that we are going to elect judges, then the process by which they are elected should have a electoral process to remove them, ie a recall. If it is going to be based on the will of the people, then so be it.

So no, judges should not be elected, but yes, if you are going to elect them then they should be subject to recall.

[Martinus]

And who would appeal it? The prosecutor, presumably, right? But isn't it usually the case that the prosecutor is making a sentencing recommendation? In this case, what was that recommendation? Where they part of the "deal"?

Can the victim appeal if the prosecutor does not?

[Berkut]

And who would appeal it? The prosecutor, presumably, right? But isn't it usually the case that the prosecutor is making a sentencing recommendation? In this case, what was that recommendation? Where they part of the "deal"?

Can the victim appeal if the prosecutor does not?

Nope, the victim is not the legal entity taking action. It is the state.

[derspiess]

The question is not "Should it be possible to recall judges" it should be "Should judges be elected in the first place". The answer to that question is, IMO, obviously FUCK NO.

Then how are the people going to select judges that are TOUGH ON CRIME???

[Martinus]

So no, judges should not be elected, but yes, if you are going to elect them then they should be subject to recall.

I also think electing judges is a bad idea but I do not necessarily agree with your logic here - there are many positions and offices which can be elected but are not subject to recall (or such recall is only available in extraordinary circumstances).

[Martinus]

And who would appeal it? The prosecutor, presumably, right? But isn't it usually the case that the prosecutor is making a sentencing recommendation? In this case, what was that recommendation? Where they part of the "deal"?

Can the victim appeal if the prosecutor does not?

Nope, the victim is not the legal entity taking action. It is the state.

What about private prosecution?

In Polish legal system the victim has a subsidiary prosecutorial role in that they can bring a private prosecution/private appeal if the public prosecutor refuses to act. The victim has to jump through some hoops (essentially, they need to first petition the prosecutor to act, need to get a formal refusal and then they need to persuade the court to accept the case for review) but it is technically possible. This is to prevent miscarriage of justice because of a prosecutorial incompetence or fraud.

For the record, this is a different concept from the one where certain crimes can only be prosecuted if the victim motions for prosecution (but we have it too - for example, in case of theft against a close relative).

[Berkut]

So no, judges should not be elected, but yes, if you are going to elect them then they should be subject to recall.

I also think electing judges is a bad idea but I do not necessarily agree with your logic here - there are many positions and offices which can be elected but are not subject to recall (or such recall is only available in extraordinary circumstances).

True enough - I think you might be right here, but only if the position in question has some kind of relatively finite duration such that they will be up for re-election soon enough anyway, making a means to remove them less critical.

But I actually think THAT is a terrible idea for judges as well. They should NOT be subject to constant re-evaluation, and with the awareness that they need to accommodate the masses.

So I think judges should feel free to make unpopular decisions, however that manifests itself. That doesn't (or shouldn't) shield them from being held to account for making BAD decisions though.

[Martinus]

Just for information, in Poland judges are appointed in a rather complex way.

We have a so-called national judical council, which is a mixed body composed of the heads of supreme courts (we have two, one for review of administrative decisions and one as the highest appeal from lower courts on all civil and criminal cases; like Germany and unlike the US, constitutional tribunal is entirely removed from the court system and rules only in abstracto on matters of constitutionality of laws passed by the Parliament), the minister of justice, one representative of the President, six representatives of the Parliament and 15 representatives elected by the self-governing body of judges. The elected members are elected for 4 years. The council recommends judical appointments for the President to approve (the President only has a veto - and it is very rarely used).

Once appointed, a judge is essentially "for life" (meaning until retirement age) and cannot be removed except on the basis of a ruling of the aforementioned self-governing body's disciplinary court. A judge also enjoys a full prosecutorial immunity that can only be lifted by the same disciplinary court.

Judges are forbidden from belonging to political parties, making political statements and generally being involved in politics.

The set up is historically meant to protect the judges from being harassed by the executive branch and to make sure they are independent. Obviously, the downside is that there is sometimes a perception that bad judges are very hard to remove because other judges protect their own.

[The Brain]

In our lower courts 3 out of 5 judges (the 3 lay judges) are appointed by the political parties. This would seem to be an insane idea, and it is.

[Martinus]

Ok it sounds like one. 

For the record, what I described above applies only to professional judges. Poland doesn't have a concept of a jury per se, but cases in our lower courts are decided by one or three judges (depending on importance) and those matters reviewed by three judges are reviewed by one professional judge and two lay judges, which are usually just people who sign up for the job (they are normally retirees and some such).