Should Judges "hug" people convicted of serious crimes?

[Epic Beard Man]

Aside from not being the judges business, what harm can expressing feelings of mercy actually do?

It's a court room. So should convicted sex offenders get hugs as well?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not mentally healthy to suppress one's feelings. Judges and police officers who reject feelings of mercy in a daily basis, for years upon years, become very cold hearted individuals with psychological disorders.

...Nobody should be expected to live like that, not even judges.

Judges should be expected not to pursue their side hustles in the courtroom, whether that side hustle is pushing Amway or pushing Christianity.

And if she wants to express sympathy to someone, she could have always chosen to hug members of the victim's family.

What are your thoughts?

I saw a tweet about this that said something like "a white person going into someone else's home, deciding that they live there, and then killing the original occupant in 'self-defense' is a better metaphor for white history that anything I could have come up with."

 

[Revoltingest]

I saw a tweet about this that said something like "a white person going into someone else's home, deciding that they live there, and then killing the original occupant in 'self-defense' is a better metaphor for white history that anything I could have come up with."

And then the racist judge gives a light sentence, hugs the perp, & gives'r a Bible.
Oh, wait....the judge is black....& female.

This could be....
- Christian privilege
- Female privilege
- Justice system / law enforcement privilege

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I saw a tweet about this that said something like "a white person going into someone else's home, deciding that they live there, and then killing the original occupant in 'self-defense' is a better metaphor for white history that anything I could have come up with."

Agreed

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Judges should be expected not to pursue their side hustles in the courtroom,

LOL

 

[shmogie]

As was discussed in another thread regarding the trial and conviction of former Dallas Police Officer Amber Geiger, there was very much an outrage from the Dallas community and on social on how it improper it appeared that not only the judge (Tammy Kemp) hugged a convicted killer, but a Sheriff officer could be seen stroking the hair of Geiger as well. Although the judge's intent in hugging Geiger was done for the purpose of spirituality by giving her a Bible, it was done in addition to solidify the words of solace and forgiveness prompted by Botham Jean's brother. According to an article by NBCDFW channel 5 article an organization "Freedom From Religion Foundation" filed a complaint against judge Kemp citing that "Judge Kemp's actions were inappropriate and unconstitutional" (Source).

I think what begs the question is whether or not during or after arbitration is a judge supposed to hug someone convicted of a serious crime such as murder. If we look at OJ Simpson he was not hugged nor did the judge share the Biblical word with him after being found not guilty, nor did the judge in Muhammad Nur's case. I think this issue definitely questions the judge's ability of impartiality in serious criminal cases. I mean would it be acceptable if a judge hugged someone convicted of child rape because they wanted to share the gospel of Jesus with the convicted?

What are your thoughts?

The trial was over. The woman was convicted. Are you implying that the judge cannot do her job because she is a Christian ?

It seems to me that the judge has every right, after her job was finished in the particular case, to express whatever she chooses to a convicted criminal.

If, after a trial, a judge chooses not to say or do anything with a subject of the trial, so what ? It is based on personal feelings of a person after their job is completed.

If a judge wanted to give a Bible and speak to a child rapist after conviction, so what ?

What if a judge volunteered to go into prisons and conduct Bible classes in her spare time, is that too a bad thing ?

A tempest in a teapot, designed once again to impugn people of faith, any faith.

 

[Revoltingest]

The trial was over. The woman was convicted. Are you implying that the judge cannot do her job because she is a Christian ?

It seems to me that the judge has every right, after her job was finished in the particular case, to express whatever she chooses to a convicted criminal.

If, after a trial, a judge chooses not to say or do anything with a subject of the trial, so what ? It is based on personal feelings of a person after their job is completed.

If a judge wanted to give a Bible and speak to a child rapist after conviction, so what ?

What if a judge volunteered to go into prisons and conduct Bible classes in her spare time, is that too a bad thing ?

A tempest in a teapot, designed once again to impugn people of faith, any faith.

Impartiality & the appearance thereof are important in court.
Sometimes religion plays a role in a case, eg, the request
for a secular oath. But a Bible thumper in the black robe?
I wouldn't trust that judge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Impartiality & the appearance thereof are important in court.
Sometimes religion plays a role in a case, eg, the request
for a secular oath. But a Bible thumper in the black robe?
I wouldn't trust that judge.

Yep, proselytizing never has a place in the courtroom. Especially by a judge of all people.

 

[shmogie]

My thoughts and concerns are with the victim's family who might have objected to the Judge giving a hug and Bible to somebody who took away the life of somebody they loved.

Amazing ! The family of the victim received all the law could provide them. In most cases it is not enough. Having had contact with many, many victims of crimes, including families of murder victims, I support capital punishment.

I suggest that most here who are whining about a 30 second hug, words, and giving a Bible, abhor capital punishment as inhuman.

Yet, a tiny bit of kindness after a trial is considered as a massive breach and all kinds of empty speculations as to the professionalism of the judge are rolled out.

What biased baloney parading as reasoned thought this is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep, proselytizing never has a place in the courtroom. Especially by a judge of all people.

I notice that proselytizing in government is defended by those sharing the religion.
Do they ever defend having some other religion displayed in government?

 

[shmogie]

Impartiality & the appearance thereof are important in court.
Sometimes religion plays a role in a case, eg, the request
for a secular oath. But a Bible thumper in the black robe?
I wouldn't trust that judge.

Why not ? After a trial is completed, what does the gift of a book have to do with the judges impartiality ?

So, apparently in your view judges should not have any right to personal feelings or be involved in religion.

You wouldn´t trust the judge. If you are a criminal defendant, your counsel will have detailed profiles of all potential judges in your case. You will know which are ¨ Bible thumpers", so you will object to all of them.

Why ?

 

[Callisto]

Aside from not being the judges business, what harm can expressing feelings of mercy actually do?

Typically, the mercy of the court is provided during sentencing. Mercy, or lack thereof, is expressed by the degree of leniency or severity of the punishment the judge hands down. Getting 10 years for murder with the possibility of parole after serving five is pretty merciful.

 

[Callisto]

Why not ? After a trial is completed, what does the gift of a book have to do with the judges impartiality

Because impartiality is essential to protecting the rights of everyone. It's not for a court official to demonstrate favor towards any religion much less presume to hand out religious literature in court.

 

[shmogie]

I notice that proselytizing in government is defended by those sharing the religion.
Do they ever defend having some other religion displayed in government?

First, the judge was not attempting to do anything but tell the murderer to make something of herself. She gave the woman a Bible. A book of fairy tales you tell me. So, what if she had given her a Harry Potter book ? They are the same, right ?

It would have made no difference to me if in a 30 second interaction she gave the convicted some encouragement and a copy of the Hindu holy writings. A book, is a book, is a book.

I find it amusing that many in this thread have complained about the facelessness of the state, and itś resultant coldness and insensitivity to people, yet here is an example of sensitivity that is deemed horrendous.

Why ? Because the judge represented what they hate, compassion within the framework of a person of faith.

 

[shmogie]

Typically, the mercy of the court is provided during sentencing. Mercy, or lack thereof, is expressed by the degree of leniency or severity of the punishment the judge hands down. Getting 10 years for murder with the possibility of parole after serving five is pretty merciful.

¨The court¨ usually refers to the judge. Sentencing was essentially done by the jury in this case, not the judge.

The judge had little to do with the sentencing, she followed the recommendation of the jury.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why not ? After a trial is completed, what does the gift of a book have to do with the judges impartiality ?

Gift giving is bad enuf, but to do so with a very specific religious
preference suggest prejudice for it. And though the trial is over,
the judge is still in court on the taxpayer's dime.

So, apparently in your view judges should not have any right to personal feelings or be involved in religion.

Wrongo pongo!

But they must be circumspect regarding those feelings.

You wouldn´t trust the judge. If you are a criminal defendant, your counsel will have detailed profiles of all potential judges in your case. You will know which are ¨ Bible thumpers", so you will object to all of them.

Why ?

The accused cannot just refuse to be subject to a judge.
And in my case, I require a secular oath, thereby putting
the judge on notice that I'm not of her faith.

More than one Christian has told me that I'm dishonest
for denying their God...the God their Bible says that I know.
What're the odds that my veracity will be prejudged?
I wouldn't want an overtly Muslim judge either.
Could I demand a Bokononist or capitalist atheist one?

 

[Salvador]

Amazing ! The family of the victim received all the law could provide them. In most cases it is not enough. Having had contact with many, many victims of crimes, including families of murder victims, I support capital punishment.

I suggest that most here who are whining about a 30 second hug, words, and giving a Bible, abhor capital punishment as inhuman.

Yet, a tiny bit of kindness after a trial is considered as a massive breach and all kinds of empty speculations as to the professionalism of the judge are rolled out.

What biased baloney parading as reasoned thought this is.

I'm also for capital punishment for psychopathic serial killers, but these cases are very rare.

 

[shmogie]

I'm also for capital punishment for psychopathic serial killers, but these cases are very rare.

All fist degree murderers should be executed, IMHO.

 

[Salvador]

It's a court room. So should convicted sex offenders get hugs as well?

Neither in a court room nor just merely hugs by a judge. Imo, sex offenders deserve getting raped by big Bubba. Repeat sex offenders deserve to be chemically castrated.

 

[Salvador]

All fist degree murderers should be executed, IMHO.

The problem I'd have with that is the risk of somebody being wrongfully executed.