This question would have been unintelligible before the rise of the modern state, when moral character and expertise were deemed as inextricably linked.[2] Personal virtue was back then the mark of a good jurist and the judicial toga signified moral exemplarity. With the advent of the modern state, professional excellence came to be viewed as detached from personal virtue, professional legal authority become isolated moral authority, and the view that moral character is irrelevant for judicial excellence took root in both legal culture and the culture at large.There were, indeed, important aspirations driving the modern de-moralization of the professions and, particularly, the judicial office. Democratic aspirations repudiated the idea that moral exemplarity should be the province of a few. A firm opposition to the arbitrariness in the administration of justice of the Ancient Regime led to a replacement of the rule of men by the rule of law. Judges were conceived, as Montesquieu famously put it, as ‘the mouth of the law’: their job was to decide cases by applying the law. In this view, which still prevails today, the judge’s character and value commitments are irrelevant to excellence in the judicial practice. Judges need to know the law and master the legal techniques, but one can be a good judge regardless of one’s subjective qualities of character.But is that so?
pull down to refresh
related posts
145 sats \ 12 replies \ @siggy47 8 Jul
I don't have a pat answer. I can say this, though. I practiced criminal defense in federal courts in the days when Federal Sentencing Guidelines gave judges very little discretion in imposing a sentence. Lawyers basically did a mathematical analysis of various factors to predict what your client's sentence would be. The motivation in implementing the guidelines was to prevent inconsistent sentences based on an individual judge's sentencing habits. The result was a draconian system where non violent defendants were sentenced to decades long sentences, usually in drug cases.
reply
67 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 8 Jul
That was totally unfair for non-violent crimes, don't you think? I guess things are different now, but I bet some judges still do it.
reply
45 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 8 Jul
It was very unfair. What got most of the publicity was that rock form cocaine was treated much more harshly than powder. It was considered as targeting African Americans. It was really ridiculously unjust. There are other examples that I can't recall now.
reply
54 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul
What if Keith Hernandez consumed crack?
No need to answer
reply
13 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 8 Jul
If he was smoking at Shea Stadium he would have wound up at Queens Supreme Court and had been released without missing a game. NY state courts never adopted guidelines, and simple drug possession was treated leniently.
reply
54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul
Especially in September and October
Mitigating circumstances your honour 👨⚖️!
reply
54 sats \ 6 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul
This helps. Punishment doesn’t fit the crime. A judge with discretion could have imposed a sentence commensurate with the non violent crime but he would also have to ignore federal sentencing guidelines.
reply
13 sats \ 5 replies \ @siggy47 8 Jul
Yes, and I want to emphasize that a judge could not ignore federal sentencing guidelines UNLESS a defendant cooperated, and the prosecution agreed that the defendant had provided valuable assistance to the government. A judge had to set forth how the guidelines were calculated. The government could object to a more lenient sentence than was mandated. I should mention that today these guidelines have been loosened.
reply
54 sats \ 4 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul
Understood
Judges call balls and strikes. The problem is that my strike zone changes on Monday and Friday. And other judges have a different strike zone.
reply
13 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 8 Jul
I think the real lesson was that no two cases and defendants are alike. The guidelines were instituted to remove discretion and prevent unfairness. In practice, the average sentence was lengthened substantially, and just about all defendants wound up doing some jail time. It took Congress years to correct it.
reply
54 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul
1994 crime reform bill sponsored by Joe Biden ?
reply
13 sats \ 1 reply \ @siggy47 8 Jul
I think so!
reply
54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul
I almost wrote Bidet
reply on another page
79 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul
A bad person can be a good judge if he understands the law and how to interpret it.
All judges are biased. A good judge will ignore his personal feelings and decide a case on the legal merits and evidence. Personal feelings must be set aside which is easier said than done.
A good person can be a terrible judge if he judges based on his subjective notion of morality and not the law: case law and statutory law
reply
13 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner OP 8 Jul
Exactly. I'm definitely not cut out to be a judge.
reply
54 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 8 Jul
@siggy47
Can a bad person be a good judge?
Can a good person be a bad judge?
reply
13 sats \ 1 reply \ @Msd0457890 15 Jul
It's a very good question, but I do believe it is possible.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 15 Jul
You want a judge who is cold and rational
reply