Should Judges "hug" people convicted of serious crimes?

[Earthtank]

In my opinion, the people being outraged by the show of compassion by the judge given, how emotional this hearing was, are nothing more than a bunch heartless low lives. The sentence handed down was in no way compromised by her emotions, she remained as professional as possible and only showed emotion while not on her bench meaning, she was not a "judge" at the moment in time. People today have way too much time and way too heartless, in this day and age, compassion is what's needed in this world.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

No, your last post cited a code that stated a judge could not manifest bias in administering the law.

Yes.

"A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not knowingly permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so."

This judge did not do that.

I see that I'm wasting my time as I've pointed out that she did. Look, you're Christian, you're biased and obviously despite the obvious facts, you will not believe it so we are at an impasse at this point because I'm wasting my time.

If she spoke to the woman for 30 seconds and gave her a koran it would mean absolutely nothing to me. It was a moment of human compassion and I see it as such, nothing more.

Sure it would. You'd have an opinion because like all hypocritical Christians, you'd think she was in violation of being an arbitrator of the law.

I am amazed that you are so offended at this.

I'm more offended about the many other individuals she has sentenced that never got hugs and copies of the Bible from her. I'm offended that they treated a convicted murderer as a more of a victim than a criminal. I'm more offended that Muhammad Noor never received the same type if compassion that this poor white girl who cried on the stand despite her saying this:

“Although she may be racist,” the dog’s owner messaged Guyger.

“It’s okay.. I’m the same,” Guyger responded."

I'm even more offended that this is another example of white privilege. How many more other people never received hugs and copies of the Bible, people who really needed to hear the word but never got it.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

And there it is. Now it's clear why the thread was started

There what is? I said a lot.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

In my opinion, the people being outraged by the show of compassion by the judge given, how emotional this hearing was, are nothing more than a bunch heartless low lives.

So, again what about the other people convicted who were remorseful? Why is she so different than the others that were convicted? I'm still trying to get that answered.

The sentence handed down was in no way compromised by her emotions, she remained as professional as possible and only showed emotion while not on her bench meaning, she was not a "judge" at the moment in time. People today have way too much time and way too heartless, in this day and age, compassion is what's needed in this world.

If you actually read the thread I've posted the Texas code of judicial conduct several times. She was in violation of that by demonstrating bias in the courtroom. the courtroom doesn't have to be in proceedings to be in violation.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

But there was still a court, and the judge was still a government employee "on the clock."

It's really pointless at this point. Logic alludes him.

 

[shmogie]

Yes.

"A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not knowingly permit staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so."



I see that I'm wasting my time as I've pointed out that she did. Look, you're Christian, you're biased and obviously despite the obvious facts, you will not believe it so we are at an impasse at this point because I'm wasting my time.



Sure it would. You'd have an opinion because like all hypocritical Christians, you'd think she was in violation of being an arbitrator of the law.



I'm more offended about the many other individuals she has sentenced that never got hugs and copies of the Bible from her. I'm offended that they treated a convicted murderer as a more of a victim than a criminal. I'm more offended that Muhammad Noor never received the same type if compassion that this poor white girl who cried on the stand despite her saying this:

“Although she may be racist,” the dog’s owner messaged Guyger.

“It’s okay.. I’m the same,” Guyger responded."

I'm even more offended that this is another example of white privilege. How many more other people never received hugs and copies of the Bible, people who really needed to hear the word but never got it.

So, I am a hypocritical Christian. Really ? I think you say that because my ancestors are European, and I am white. Are you a racist ? I really wonder.

The jury gave this woman, in my view, a way too lenient sentence. How many blacks were on the jury ?

I know nothing of this judge, I have no idea what she has done in other trials. I don´t know if she only offers kind words to whites and ignores fellow blacks. Do you know her history ? Is she a double agent for white privilege ?

Read the first sentence of your policy re judicial prejudice. "in the performance of judicial duties¨. So, what judicial duty was she performing at the time you are so worried about ? NONE. The trial was over. Being in a courtroom, wearing a robe does not constitute a judicial duty. It is not a duty because she could just as easily have disappeared the moment the trial was over. She had no duty to do either, or anything else.

A courageous show of faith by the victims brother, and a bit of kindness by the judge is being dirtied by those who see their particular boogey man ( is that racist ? Has boogey man a new connotation I don´t know about ?) in everything it seems.

Now days it is white privilege, which apparently is viewed as something like a disease that every white person has.

The brothers actions, and the judges actions have absolutely nothing to do with this idea, in fact, they prove just the opposite. They displayed the Christian truth that we are all the same.

Would you be complaining so much if the convicted was black ? No, not at all. You may THINK you would, but you wouldn´t.

It is really not about the Judges actions, it is about your attitude because this murderer was white, and she murdered an innocent black man in a horrendous way. I understand. Some times when a black killer does something akin to this to whites, I have to use self discipline to not see it in racial terms. Some white folk would be very angry if the judge showed a moment of compassion for the black murderer. Tough, I say.

It is people like the victims brother and the judge who can bring healing to this festering wound of racial hatred in this country.

I am sorry I don´t see it your way. No good deed goes unpunished, and the judge did absolutely nothing wrong.

I asked someone else if they have ever heard a judge dump on a defendant when announcing a verdict, have you ? They have great latitude in expressing their opinions, and many do. Like, you are a menace to society, or, if I had the power to put you away for life I would, because you are evil, or your whole life reflects that you have no more human feelings than a dog. No one complains. Yet, this judge is reamed for 30 seconds of compassion because she is a Christian.

It is all bulls**t as far as I am concerned. A grain of sand blown into Mt. Everest out of ignorance, racism, and hatred of religion.












i

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet, this judge is reamed for 30 seconds of compassion because she is a Christian.

Not for compassion; for using her position to proselytize. For bringing her side hustle into her real job. For acting unethically. For creating a conflict of interest. For abuse of a public trust.

 

[shmogie]

Not for compassion; for using her position to proselytize. For bringing her side hustle into her real job. For acting unethically. For creating a conflict of interest. For abuse of a public trust.

Bulls**t. You are a Canadian, your opinion here has little credibility, so Canadians do it differently, wonderful.

NONE of your accusations are true, you don´t even know what her real job is. There is more of a difference between your country´s justice system than ours than our lawyers and judges don´t wear laughable wigs.

Your whining is noted, chuckled at, and rejected.

I have spent many hours in an American courtroom, you have spent none.

I have spent huge blocks of hours in university classes in American law, you have spent zero.

Bottom line, you don´t know what you are talking about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bulls**t. You are a Canadian, your opinion here has little credibility, so Canadians do it differently, wonderful.

NONE of your accusations are true, you don´t even know what her real job is. There is more of a difference between your country´s justice system than ours than our lawyers and judges don´t wear laughable wigs.

Your whining is noted, chuckled at, and rejected.

I have spent many hours in an American courtroom, you have spent none.

I have spent huge blocks of hours in university classes in American law, you have spent zero.

Bottom line, you don´t know what you are talking about.

So you think I'm wrong, but either can't or won't explain why you think so.

BTW: ethics isn't a matter of law. She did create a conflict of interest and she did use her position to proselytize. Argue if it's legal if you want - though it doesn't seem legal to me, but it certainly was unethical.

 

[shmogie]

So you think I'm wrong, but either can't or won't explain why you think so.

BTW: ethics isn't a matter of law. She did create a conflict of interest and she did use her position to proselytize. Argue if it's legal if you want - though it doesn't seem legal to me, but it certainly was unethical.

Not unethical. It would have been unethical if during the trial and sentencing phase she would have done or said something prejudicial, or to infer favoritism. She absolutely did not., as far as I can tell she did an admirable job in administering justice in this case.

Her caring attitude for the defendant after her job was finished, which lasted for about 30 seconds, was essentially on her own time. Her job was done, except for some paperwork to complete when she chose re the trial, till she is assigned another case.

How could she convert someone in 30 seconds ? That is ludicrous. She gave her own property, after trial, to the convicted during that 30 second interchange.

What you are upset about is an appearance that you have decided is unethical. I have decided the appearance is perfectly ethical.

My concern is that a judge, from the bench, is fair, non prejudiced and sees that her court is the same. I expect her to administer the law from the bench exactly as it is written, with no flights into personal judgement. Trials are reviewed, and upon appeal can be relitigated. A trial court can only err during a trial, not after the penalty phase is completed. Just like a hockey player can´t score a goal after a game is over, a judge can´t be prejudicial after a trial is over.

Everyone has personal thoughts, ideas, beliefs and prejudices. Judges are no different. They have the right to be human outside of trial. As long as she showed no prejudice or error during trial, every lawyer and judge in that district knew she was a Christian. If she were a Buddhist or atheist, they would know. It was no revelation of a vast right wing conspiracy.

What if the judge was an atheist, and under the same circumstances hugged her and said she hoped she could get her life together and get a second chance, and gave her a book on self help, would that bother you ? It wouldn´t me.

A tempest in a teapot, by hyper sensitive on one subject people. No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not unethical. It would have been unethical if during the trial and sentencing phase she would have done or said something prejudicial, or to infer favoritism. She absolutely did not., as far as I can tell she did an admirable job in administering justice in this case.

Her caring attitude for the defendant after her job was finished, which lasted for about 30 seconds, was essentially on her own time. Her job was done, except for some paperwork to complete when she chose re the trial, till she is assigned another case.

Tule of thumb: when someone's job is "finished," they aren't getting paid.

How could she convert someone in 30 seconds ? That is ludicrous. She gave her own property, after trial, to the convicted during that 30 second interchange.

I didn't say "convert;" I said "proselytize."

You don't need to close the deal during a meeting for a meeting to be part of the sales process.

What you are upset about is an appearance that you have decided is unethical. I have decided the appearance is perfectly ethical.

Since I have no confidence whatsoever in your ethics, I don't see your decision as very compelling.

Out of curiosity: what if she had slipped the defendant a brochure for her brother's roofing company?

Assume that the defendant really did need a new roof and the judge was motivated by a sincere desire to help. Would that be okay?

My concern is that a judge, from the bench, is fair, non prejudiced and sees that her court is the same. I expect her to administer the law from the bench exactly as it is written, with no flights into personal judgement.

And that's the issue. Not only should there be no impropriety or favouritism, but there should also be no appearance of them. By pushing her religion in her courtroom, this judge created at least the appearance of favouritism.

If, after a trial, a judge was overheard bragging that he knew a defendant was guilty before the trial even started, this would be an ethical breach even if nobody could find any technical errors with his rulings during the trial. The same principle applies.

Trials are reviewed, and upon appeal can be relitigated. A trial court can only err during a trial, not after the penalty phase is completed. Just like a hockey player can´t score a goal after a game is over, a judge can´t be prejudicial after a trial is over.

A hockey player can get penalties after the game. Try cross-checking someone after the buzzer; you'll still get penalized.

Heck... in many leagues - as in the judiciary - you can get penalized for behaviour completely away from the "game."

Everyone has personal thoughts, ideas, beliefs and prejudices. Judges are no different. They have the right to be human outside of trial. As long as she showed no prejudice or error during trial, every lawyer and judge in that district knew she was a Christian. If she were a Buddhist or atheist, they would know. It was no revelation of a vast right wing conspiracy.

"Christian" does not necessarily imply "proselytizer." Being a Christian in the workplace does not have to involve trying to recruit people for your religion in your workplace. This goes double for someone in a position of authority like a judge.

Oh, wait! I think I get it. You claim to have been a cop; did you do something like this? You seem to be taking all this very personally.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but here's my guess: you proselytized while in uniform. You came up with your own rationalization for why this was okay, and now I'm arguing against the ideas you based the rationalization of your actions on.

Am I right?

What if the judge was an atheist, and under the same circumstances hugged her and said she hoped she could get her life together and get a second chance, and gave her a book on self help, would that bother you ? It wouldn´t me.

What you just described is religiously neutral. It would be fine.

What wouldn't be okay is if a judge told a defendant that the defendant's religion was leading them down the wrong path and that they really ought to abandon the religion and belief in God. That's the non-theistic version of what the judge did.

 

[shmogie]

Tule of thumb: when someone's job is "finished," they aren't getting paid.


I didn't say "convert;" I said "proselytize."

You don't need to close the deal during a meeting for a meeting to be part of the sales process.


Since I have no confidence whatsoever in your ethics, I don't see your decision as very compelling.

Out of curiosity: what if she had slipped the defendant a brochure for her brother's roofing company?

Assume that the defendant really did need a new roof and the judge was motivated by a sincere desire to help. Would that be okay?


And that's the issue. Not only should there be no impropriety or favouritism, but there should also be no appearance of them. By pushing her religion in her courtroom, this judge created at least the appearance of favouritism.

If, after a trial, a judge was overheard bragging that he knew a defendant was guilty before the trial even started, this would be an ethical breach even if nobody could find any technical errors with his rulings during the trial. The same principle applies.


A hockey player can get penalties after the game. Try cross-checking someone after the buzzer; you'll still get penalized.

Heck... in many leagues - as in the judiciary - you can get penalized for behaviour completely away from the "game."


"Christian" does not necessarily imply "proselytizer." Being a Christian in the workplace does not have to involve trying to recruit people for your religion in your workplace. This goes double for someone in a position of authority like a judge.

Oh, wait! I think I get it. You claim to have been a cop; did you do something like this? You seem to be taking all this very personally.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but here's my guess: you proselytized while in uniform. You came up with your own rationalization for why this was okay, and now I'm arguing against the ideas you based the rationalization of your actions on.

Am I right?


What you just described is religiously neutral. It would be fine.

What wouldn't be okay is if a judge told a defendant that the defendant's religion was leading them down the wrong path and that they really ought to abandon the religion and belief in God. That's the non-theistic version of what the judge did.

During my working life, especially with victims, I offered to pray with them, if they chose, and gave them my card. Never a complaint, never an issue.

A judge is paid a salary, which encompasses the totality of their work. They are never on, or off the clock.

It makes absolutely no difference to me what any judge says to the convicted after adjudicating a trial, in a 30 second window. Unless it was a handcuff key, I couldn´t care less what was given to the convicted by the judge in that 30 second window. It is the judges time, to do as she chooses. If the convicted or her attorney didn´t like it, they could complain, the prosecution, could complain, the bar association could complain, the chief judge could complain, none did.

The only complaint came from a religion hating group of dimwit bozoś.

Like your complaint, a tissue of nonsense, a boogey man under your bed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

During my working life, especially with victims, I offered to pray with them, if they chose, and gave them my card. Never a complaint, never an issue.

And there it is. You did it too, so you don't want to criticize it when other people do similar things.

You didn't answer my question, though:

Out of curiosity: what if she had slipped the defendant a brochure for her brother's roofing company?

Assume that the defendant really did need a new roof and the judge was motivated by a sincere desire to help. Would that be okay?

A judge is paid a salary, which encompasses the totality of their work. They are never on, or off the clock.

If that's what you believe, why are you claiming she was off the clock?

It makes absolutely no difference to me what any judge says to the convicted after adjudicating a trial, in a 30 second window. Unless it was a handcuff key, I couldn´t care less what was given to the convicted by the judge in that 30 second window. It is the judges time, to do as she chooses. If the convicted or her attorney didn´t like it, they could complain, the prosecution, could complain, the bar association could complain, the chief judge could complain, none did.

The incident only happened last week. Give it a minute.

Edit: I don't think that you're in a position to say who has or hasn't filed - or is planning to file - a complaint.

The only complaint came from a religion hating group of dimwit bozoś.

Regardless of your personal feelings about the FFRF, they only issue letters of warning or file legal challenges when a law has been broken.

The FFRF doesn't throw up any obstacles to religion when it obeys the law.

 

[metis]

What are your thoughts?

Much like I was pleased to see the picture of Ellen DeGeneres sitting and laughing with G. H. W. Bush, I was also please to see the judge hug the convicted murder under the circumstances. To me, it's "hate the sin, not the sinner", and I hope the "sinner" changes her ways and basks in love, repentance, and forgiveness.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Much like I was pleased to see the picture of Ellen DeGeneres sitting and laughing with G. H. W. Bush, I was also please to see the judge hug the convicted murder under the circumstances. To me, it's "hate the sin, not the sinner", and I hope the "sinner" changes her ways and basks in love, repentance, and forgiveness.

ok honest answer