Should Judges "hug" people convicted of serious crimes?

[Revoltingest]

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 ?

Harry Potterism isn't a religion....yet.

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree about all books having
no significant difference regarding establishment.

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.

As most here know, I dislike sensitivity.
Especially when it portends unjust bias in the courts.

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

The problem is what else she represented & the questions raised.
Does she treat female defendants better than "potential rapists", ie, men?
Does she treat Christians better than other believers or even....those atheists?
Is she easily swayed by emotional manipulation?

 

[shmogie]

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.

Wrongo pongo!

But they must be circumspect regarding those feelings.

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?

Right, you cannot go judge shopping. However, it is the matter of trust you brought up that I was exploring.

Having been on the wrong end of a judge or two, and having known several, your oath would not put them on notice of anything, their concern is the law, not your personal feelings during trial.

Christians who tell you stuff like that are idiots, you aren´t dishonest, you are an adrenalin junkie and risking eternity gives you a huge buzz.

For you, a judge who practices Luddite Santeria may be the best choice.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

AMBER GUYGER: "I felt like a piece of crap. And I asked God for forgiveness. And I hate myself every single day. I wish he was the one with the gun and he killed me. I never wanted to take an innocent person's life."

Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyger Expresses Deep Remorse In Murder Trial

...I would have hugged her too. It was a total accident. And her remorse was deep.

Bs. She's a known racist with a problem with black people and did not do enough to try to save his life, even though she was a uniformed police officer (although off-duty at the time) who had first aid knowledge and supplies to stop traumatic bleeding. I do believe her displays of remorse are fake and that she is mostly just upset because she was convicted.

Evidence of her racism:
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/02/us/amber-guyger-trial-offensive-texts-trnd/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

This person had no business being a cop or having a gun in the first place.

Let's not forget that the main witness (also a black man) who lived in the apartment across from Jean's was mysteriously shot to death a few days ago. Very suspicious. To me, this has the makings of a conspiracy and I think some investigations need to happen with the Dallas PD, for starters.

To answer the OP: no. No hugging or Bibles, as was said before. It's extremely unprofessional and shows bias. The judge should be penalized for that. I expect judges not to interact with the prosecution or defense at all beyond what is needed for the trial.

 

[shmogie]

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

There is that risk. But the benefits of neutralizing killers is worth the risk.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, you cannot go judge shopping. However, it is the matter of trust you brought up that I was exploring.

Having been on the wrong end of a judge or two, and having known several, your oath would not put them on notice of anything, their concern is the law, not your personal feelings during trial.

Tis a myth that judges are concerned only with the law.
Personal bias, whim, emotion, & even ignorance of the
law are often on full display.

So I say it's important for judges to all & always strive
for competence, impartiality, & the appearance of both.

Christians who tell you stuff like that are idiots, you aren´t dishonest, you are an adrenalin junkie and risking eternity gives you a huge buzz.

Nonetheless, such Christians exist.
And they could be judges.
After all, I've run across idiot judges before.

For you, a judge who practices Luddite Santeria may be the best choice.

Sounds like a fruity drink.
Being judged by alcohol might not be worse.

 

[shmogie]

Harry Potterism isn't a religion....yet.

We'll have to agree to disagree about all books having
no significant difference regarding establishment.

As most here know, I dislike sensitivity.
Especially when it portends unjust bias in the courts.

The problem is what else she represented & the questions raised.
Does she treat female defendants better than "potential rapists", ie, men?
Does she treat Christians better than other believers or even....those atheists?
Is she easily swayed by emotional manipulation?

Judges are reviewed constantly by the bar association, any of these will be discovered and brought to the attention of the proper authorities.

I still don´t understand the bias thing. The idea seems to me that folk who hold a faith will be easier on their own kind and harder on another ?

Well, could atheist judges be practicioners of the same nonsense ?

Couldn´t one look at a professed Christian litigant and determine he is weak minded and dishonest and needs to be put away ?

So, they are all out to get somebody ?

 

[shmogie]

Bs. She's a known racist with a problem with black people and did not do enough to try to save his life, even though she was a uniformed police officer (although off-duty at the time) who had first aid knowledge and supplies to stop traumatic bleeding. I do believe her displays of remorse are fake and that she is mostly just upset because she was convicted.

Evidence of her racism:
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/02/us/amber-guyger-trial-offensive-texts-trnd/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

This person had no business being a cop or having a gun in the first place.

Let's not forget that the main witness (also a black man) who lived in the apartment across from Jean's was mysteriously shot to death a few days ago. Very suspicious. To me, this has the makings of a conspiracy and I think some investigations need to happen with the Dallas PD, for starters.

To answer the OP: no. No hugging or Bibles, as was said before. It's extremely unprofessional and shows bias. The judge should be penalized for that. I expect judges not to interact with the prosecution or defense at all beyond what is needed for the trial.

If she followed her training, his chances of survival were extremely thin. Not saying she shouldn´t have tried, just saying that neutralizing a threat is pretty overwhelming.

The trial was over, the woman was convicted, there was no longer a prosecution or defense, the judge has the right to spend 30 seconds however she chooses with the convicted killer.

 

[Revoltingest]

Judges are reviewed constantly by the bar association, any of these will be discovered and brought to the attention of the proper authorities.

I....oh....wait, you're serious.

I still don´t understand the bias thing. The idea seems to me that folk who hold a faith will be easier on their own kind and harder on another ?

There is that possibility, or certainly the appearance of it.

Well, could atheist judges be practicioners of the same nonsense ?

They could.
And they too should keep their attitudes about religion out of the courtroom.

Note: I don't think that atheists are better than believers.
Just look at this forum. Many of us are insufferable jerks,
& capable of ignorance, incompetence, bigotry, hatred, &
the delusion that socialism can work well.

Couldn´t one look at a professed Christian litigant and determine he is weak minded and dishonest and needs to be put away ?

So, they are all out to get somebody ?

A judge shouldn't be out to get anyone,
nor have even a hint of appearing so.

 

[shmogie]

I....oh....wait, you're serious.

There is that possibility, or certainly the appearance of it.

They could.
And they too should keep their attitudes about religion out of the courtroom.

Note: I don't think that atheists are better than believers.
Just look at this forum. Many of us are insufferable jerks,
& capable of ignorance, incompetence, bigotry, hatred, &
the delusion that socialism can work well.

A judge shouldn't be out to get anyone,
nor have even a hint of appearing so.

Yes, I am quite serious about judge evaluations and censure by the bar association, which is composed of all attorneyś, do you think it doesn´t work ?

Coming full circle, what exactly did the judges short interaction with the convicted killer say ?

 

[Shad]

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?

Judges should maintain neutrality regardless of religion or sympathy towards those involved.

 

[Callisto]

¨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.

¨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.

in this case, you're correct. Texas a state where there is jury sentencing.

 

[Callisto]

If she followed her training, his chances of survival were extremely thin. Not saying she shouldn´t have tried, just saying that neutralizing a threat is pretty overwhelming.

The trial was over, the woman was convicted, there was no longer a prosecution or defense, the judge has the right to spend 30 seconds however she chooses with the convicted killer.

She's still on the clock, present in the court room in her capacity as a judge. It was inappropriate. If she felt a personal need, visit the convicted on her own time during visiting hours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Does "being a Christian" mean she's obligated to hand out Bibles?

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.

Her job wasn't finished. She was still in her role as a judge.

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 ?

It's illegal and unethical. That's what.

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

Quite possibly yes.

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

Not people of faith; only those who choose to impose their faith on others.

... and especially those in positions of authority who choose to impose their faith on others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

¨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.

Even still, it's inappropriate for a judge to express remorse or regret with a verdict that was the product of her court. It's an expression of contempt for the process that she was supposed to ensure was carried out properly.

 

[columbus]

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.

I don't often "like" @shmogie posts.
This one I did.
When Shmogie and I agree on something, take notes.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Having been on the wrong end of a judge or two, and having known several, your oath would not put them on notice of anything, their concern is the law, not your personal feelings during trial.

If the judge is ethical and sets aside their personal beliefs, sure.

But a judge who hands out Bibles to defendants is not ethical and has not set aside their personal beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Honestly, what actual harm do you see possibly coming from offering compassion after a just ruling?

Hugging the convicted defendant can be taken as an expression of regret at the ruling, which would suggest that the judge doesn't consider the outcome to be just.

BTW: did she offer any compassion to the victim's family?

 

[Cooky]

Hugging the convicted defendant can be taken as an expression of regret at the ruling, which would suggest that the judge doesn't consider the outcome to be just.

BTW: did she offer any compassion to the victim's family?

I just don't see rejecting compassion as ever being a worthy cause. I see it as archaic, traditionalist type thinking.

Of course, people will whine and complain when police officers offer no compassion and treat people like numbers. That's why just about everyone on this thread is a hypocrite...

Yup... You're all a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just don't see rejecting compassion as ever being a worthy cause. I see it as archaic, traditionalist type thinking.

The issue is more with selective compassion. A judge that goes out of her way to single one person out for a special level of compassion or sympathy is sendi g a signal.

Of course, people will whine and complain when police officers offer no compassion and treat people like numbers. That's why just about everyone on this thread is a hypocrite...

Yup... You're all hypocrits.

Or you haven't thought this through.

 

[Cooky]

The issue is more with selective compassion. A judge that goes out of her way to single one person out for a special level of compassion or sympathy is sendi g a signal.

Yeah, but when you criticize human compassion, regardless of where it is, you become part of the problem.