Ohmigod! I just realized that I have not posted anything for four months except these gripes against the local news. Just one more, and I'll go on to something else.
A while back, they had a story on how "criminals" (actually, the criminally accused, I think) were allowed one free substitution of a judge, which had lightened the caseload of one judge who was notorious for, variously, either being harsh, or giving mean lectures from the bench. There were some efforts at balance, but it was mainly an expose on this allgedly bad law.
I think this was another disservice. I don't know the original reasons for the rule, but one logical benefit I can see was never mentioned, and seems pretty important. If there are multiple judges hearing the same kind of case, and differences among them in terms of severity of their sentencing or use of discretion so that some are more pro-prosecution and others more pro-defense, then giving out a peremptory strike against a judge (for either side) will tend to promote uniformity. This is vital because the consequences of a crime should depend on the facts of the case and the considerations sanctione by law and not on the dumb luck of what judge you draw in the lottery.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment