Crime and Forgivance

[Willamena]

Michel recently posed an issue of a Judge who had committed a sex crime being allowed to continue in his job after having served his punishment. Regardless that the punishment suggesed was mutilation, let's pretend that it was a humane sentence, that he had appropriate councelling, that he was deemed reformed when he was released.

Should this person be eligible to continue in the career that he trained for? Is there no way he can return to that job?

I pose this issue because a few of the replies to that post indicated that having commited a crime was an unforgivable offense, and that it, in fact, marked him as a type of man who cannot be a Judge. What do you think?

 

[Ðanisty]

I pose this issue because a few of the replies to that post indicated that having commited a crime was an unforgivable offense, and that it, in fact, marked him as a type of man who cannot be a Judge. What do you think?

I agree with those people. Being a judge is not like other jobs. Judges are expected to be able to make decisions about the legality of certain actions. If a judge can't keep themselves from making a terrible (and illegal) choice, why should he be allowed judge others? There's no possible way for someone to be completely objective, but you don't give the job to someone you know can't do it. And sure, everyone makes mistakes...certain jobs though don't allow for certain mistakes and that's perfectly reasonable. Would you let a fightfighter continue his job after committing arson? Is it okay for a police officer to assist in an armed robbery? Would you let a teacher go back to work after molesting a child? I think it's pretty obvious why these people cannot continue working in their field regardless of their training and regardless of their "rehabilitation." In the case of judges, there's no law they can break and still remain respectable and objective. People have a choice to either be law-abiding citizens or criminals. If he valued his job as a judge, he wouldn't have committed a crime. It's his own fault. If something that you do leaves you unemployable in your field of work, then you're just going to have to start over and find another career. That's just life.

 

[Willamena]

If a judge can't keep themselves from making a terrible (and illegal) choice, why should he be allowed judge others?

The question posed doesn't indicate that he made a terrible choice. We don't know the circumstances under which the crime was committed, nor the circumstances under which he was convicted; and, in fact, the question posed openly states that he was deemed reformed. All that we are given to know is that he was "a criminal." And even then, you agree the he is unfit to do his job?

 

[michel]

After I posted that question, I became aware that some of the people who had responded may well have been victims of abuse - and felt very guilty at the thought of having stirred up emotions that would have been better left alone...............

I still contend that (in theory) to deny the world of a talent or training in a trade onced justice has been seen to be done is a waste of 'potential' - at the same time, I acknowledge the point that various members made about the fact that someone seen as 'tainted' would be unsuitable to administer the law.

The only comment I can make is to highlight how the emotional element (which is what I guess makes us human) ruins the practical theory.

 

[Pah]

Michel recently posed an issue of a Judge who had committed a sex crime being allowed to continue in his job after having served his punishment. Regardless that the punishment suggesed was mutilation, let's pretend that it was a humane sentence, that he had appropriate councelling, that he was deemed reformed when he was released.

Should this person be eligible to continue in the career that he trained for? Is there no way he can return to that job?

I pose this issue because a few of the replies to that post indicated that having commited a crime was an unforgivable offense, and that it, in fact, marked him as a type of man who cannot be a Judge. What do you think?

Law. like science and medicine, has an established ethic. The crime is forgiven by serving the sentance but the ethic is still in force.

 

[michel]

Law. like science and medicine, has an established ethic. The crime is forgiven by serving the sentance but the ethic is still in force.

Which is totally counter - productive (logically).

 

[PureX]

Michel recently posed an issue of a Judge who had committed a sex crime being allowed to continue in his job after having served his punishment. Regardless that the punishment suggested was mutilation, let's pretend that it was a humane sentence, that he had appropriate counseling, that he was deemed reformed when he was released.

Should this person be eligible to continue in the career that he trained for? Is there no way he can return to that job?

I pose this issue because a few of the replies to that post indicated that having committed a crime was an unforgivable offense, and that it, in fact, marked him as a type of man who cannot be a Judge. What do you think?

I try not to view our criminal justice system as having anything at all to do with punishment. I think that our doing so only serves to confuse things and make them less just, in many cases.

Instead, I prefer to view the criminal justice system is pragmatic terms. We write laws to protect ourselves from each other, and to maintain the health, safety, and peace of our society as a whole, and NOT because some behavior is "good" or "bad". Therefor, when someone breaks a law, it's not a question of what "punishment" to give them, because we aren't concerned with their having done something "bad". Instead, the focus of our response is in what we must do to stop this person from breaking any more laws.

In most cases this is achieved by removing them from the general population for some time. And I think the length of that time should be based on the offender's likelihood of re-offending. I realize this is impossible to know, for certain, but I think with some common sense and an effective rehabilitation system we could make reasonable assessments of the danger. And in the case of sexual offenders, the evidence suggests that it is similar to an addiction, and that sexual offenders are rarely fully "recovered" from their desire to offend, again. In such cases, I think it's both sensible and prudent to take reasonable steps in these cases toward minimizing further harm. I see nothing wrong with denying child sexual offenders access to children, for example, for the rest of their lives.

And although I don't know the specifics of the case you mentioned, I think there are circumstances when it's reasonable to deny someone the position of judge due to their past behavior. Being forgiving doesn't mean we have to be foolish, too.

 

[michel]

I try not to view our criminal justice system as having anything at all to do with punishment. I think that our doing so only serves to confuse things and make them less just, in many cases.

Instead, I prefer to view the criminal justice system is pragmatic terms. We write laws to protect ourselves from each other, and to maintain the health, safety, and peace of our society as a whole, and NOT because some behavior is "good" or "bad". Therefor, when someone breaks a law, it's not a question of what "punishment" to give them, because we aren't concerned with their having done something "bad". Instead, the focus of our response is in what we must do to stop this person from breaking any more laws.

In most cases this is achieved by removing them from the general population for some time. And I think the length of that time should be based on the offender's likelihood of re-offending. I realize this is impossible to know, for certain, but I think with some common sense and an effective rehabilitation system we could make reasonable assessments of the danger. And in the case of sexual offenders, the evidence suggests that it is similar to an addiction, and that sexual offenders are rarely fully "recovered" from their desire to offend, again. In such cases, I think it's both sensible and prudent to take reasonable steps in these cases toward minimizing further harm. I see nothing wrong with denying child sexual offenders access to children, for example, for the rest of their lives.

And although I don't know the specifics of the case you mentioned, I think there are circumstances when it's reasonable to deny someone the position of judge due to their past behavior. Being forgiving doesn't mean we have to be foolish, too.

This exercise was theoretical.....

Surely the purpose of dealing with someone who has offended ought to be to re-habilitate, to make that person 'get over' whatever crisis was responsible his/her for having offended.................society 'getting its own back' is hardly "moral"............maybe keeping the offender away from those he could harm is a valid point - but surely the resposability of society ought to be rehabilitation, and helping that person to never have the urge to re-offend.............

 

[Willamena]

I still contend that (in theory) to deny the world of a talent or training in a trade onced justice has been seen to be done is a waste of 'potential' - at the same time, I acknowledge the point that various members made about the fact that someone seen as 'tainted' would be unsuitable to administer the law.

The only comment I can make is to highlight how the emotional element (which is what I guess makes us human) ruins the practical theory.

But how do we remove that taint? Can it be removed? Is it not unforgiving to not allow it to be removed?

 

[jamaesi]

Sex crimes range from urinating in public to raping a child. Saying "sex crime" alone doesn't really give much information.

 

[Ðanisty]

The question posed doesn't indicate that he made a terrible choice. We don't know the circumstances under which the crime was committed, nor the circumstances under which he was convicted; and, in fact, the question posed openly states that he was deemed reformed. All that we are given to know is that he was "a criminal." And even then, you agree the he is unfit to do his job?

Committing a crime is a terrible choice. Whether he is deemed reformed or not has nothing to do with whether he's fit to be a judge. It only means that the system believes that he will not repeat his offense...it doesn't erase his offense. So yes, I agree he is unfit to do his job.

But how do we remove that taint? Can it be removed? Is it not unforgiving to not allow it to be removed?

The only person who can removed any taint is the person in question. Even so, there's no guarantee that person would necessarily be able to overcome the stigma even if they spent the rest of their life trying. I frankly don't care if it's unforgiving or not. I don't even believe in forgiveness. If I did, I still don't think that what your describing is unforgiving. My brother got arrested for drunk driving in my mom's car. She's forgiven him, but she doesn't let him drive her car anymore.

Sex crimes range from urinating in public to raping a child. Saying "sex crime" alone doesn't really give much information.

I get what your saying here because there is a huge discrepency, but I don't feel that's any excuse. A judge of all people knows what the laws are and has a responsibility not to break them. No crime is acceptable for someone in that position.

 

[Mathematician]

I pose this issue because a few of the replies to that post indicated that having commited a crime was an unforgivable offense, and that it, in fact, marked him as a type of man who cannot be a Judge. What do you think?

I assume we're talking about felonies. Speeding is a violation of the law, after all.

 

[Willamena]

Sex crimes range from urinating in public to raping a child. Saying "sex crime" alone doesn't really give much information.

Is the nature of the crime relevant?

 

[Willamena]

The only person who can removed any taint is the person in question. Even so, there's no guarantee that person would necessarily be able to overcome the stigma even if they spent the rest of their life trying.

How is that so? Stigma is not something he lays upon himself; how can he be "the only one" to remove it? And how can it be removed if he isn't even allowed to return to his career?

Stigma isn't how we feel about ourselves, it is about how others feel about us.

I frankly don't care if it's unforgiving or not. I don't even believe in forgiveness. If I did, I still don't think that what your describing is unforgiving. My brother got arrested for drunk driving in my mom's car. She's forgiven him, but she doesn't let him drive her car anymore.

I get what your saying here because there is a huge discrepency, but I don't feel that's any excuse. A judge of all people knows what the laws are and has a responsibility not to break them. No crime is acceptable for someone in that position.

Alright; thanks for your reply.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, because the nature of the crime can reflect the nature of the person.

Is that true of any action?

 

[Willamena]

Yes and yes.

I kind of repeated the same question, so one had to go.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

I agree with those people. Being a judge is not like other jobs. Judges are expected to be able to make decisions about the legality of certain actions. If a judge can't keep themselves from making a terrible (and illegal) choice, why should he be allowed judge others? There's no possible way for someone to be completely objective, but you don't give the job to someone you know can't do it. And sure, everyone makes mistakes...certain jobs though don't allow for certain mistakes and that's perfectly reasonable. Would you let a fightfighter continue his job after committing arson? Is it okay for a police officer to assist in an armed robbery? Would you let a teacher go back to work after molesting a child? I think it's pretty obvious why these people cannot continue working in their field regardless of their training and regardless of their "rehabilitation." In the case of judges, there's no law they can break and still remain respectable and objective. People have a choice to either be law-abiding citizens or criminals. If he valued his job as a judge, he wouldn't have committed a crime. It's his own fault. If something that you do leaves you unemployable in your field of work, then you're just going to have to start over and find another career. That's just life.

Even as an exfelon, I would have to agree with this statement. My only problem is that there are plenty of judges out there that commit crimes of all kinds that still continue in their posiiton. When considereing the human factor of judges, it would be naive of us to assume that judges never commit any crimes of any kind. My question is this, at what point dowe say that judges can no longer practice their position? If they get a speeding ticket, etc.. Is there a hidden unspoken rule here or established written one. I could go all kinds of places with this one, but I will leave it alone for now.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria