Man jailed for criticizing court system
wxyz.com
wxyz.com
Maybe this idea is too ahead of its time, but:
I wonder if there could be an automatic test of judges' ability to maintain these traits. For example, every year a fake case comes before them in which a clearly innocent defendent is particularly rude and disrespectful of the system. If the judge shows an inability to separate their own ego from the ruling (e.g. penalizing the innocent indignant party) then the judge gets further review.
I think such "abuse tests" could be effective ways to vet many people in positions of power, particularly the executive branch (e.g. police).
Interesting idea, but I think everyone in the government is more interested in collecting a steady paycheck than in being effective.
There would be a lot of practical issues, though. And people in power have no motivation to pass these laws, so they’d exaggerate the problems even more. They might say that the court system is already stressed, innocent people are waiting in jail for trial, we can’t afford such a distraction.
But honestly I think you’ve struck at the core of a major problem in modern society. It’s too easy for the government to take rights away, and too hard for a citizen to take them back. Automation is a great solution to that asymmetry; I think suggestions like yours are on the right track.
I wish more people were aware of their rights, it's sad people who are supposed to protect and serve, and sworn an oath to uphold the constitution yet they willingly and knowingly take advantage of uninformed people.
I am starting to wonder if police officers and even some judges who get sworn in have even ever read the constitution, or just raise their hand and repeat what they are told as part of the oath. Should quiz them on the constitution before they are given the oath, and if they fail the quiz they are disqualified from taking the oath and have to get held back until they improve and try again.
1. A few bad apples. After security breaches (Apple, Adobe, Equifax), it unfair to say that all software developers fill their products with atrocious security flaws.
2. A jaded outlook. When you spend most of your day with people who lie, manipulate, and assault you, it's easy to sop caring about their rights.
What is going on?
That was not the initial bail.
IME, it's a good idea to withhold judgment until we've fully heard from both sides.
> The investigative report also says at no time did he threaten harm or violence.
The burden of proof should be on the side trying to restrict the rights (the judge), not the person exercising their rights. It seems like it was a judgement call over free speech.
Depriving someone of their rights while waiting for due process is not due process.
That statement seems to beg the question, in this case.
I took GP to be arguing that a judge should not be able to preemptively strip someone of their rights before a jury of their peers has determined they're guilty of a crime.
There's an argument that could be made that bail should only be used for dangerous offenders or for flight risks. The father doesn't fall into either of those categories; even the investigative report admits he never made any actual threats.
So even if it's just on an emotional level, there is something kind of disturbing about the idea that someone can be locked up for 10 days over what seems to be pretty obviously protected speech. It's a blurry line, but at some point that turns into preemptive punishment.
None of that seems like obviously circular reasoning to me. I take GP to be arguing that in a just system, if a judge wants to see the father locked up or told to stop posting, the judge should first be required to have a trial with a jury.
We've come to have absolutely zero faith that when fully resolved, the sheriff or judge will have been brought to justice, nor that the victim will be properly compensated for the time falsely imprisoned (by the government, which can then subrogate). This rot goes so deep that cops shamelessly boast of the corruption as in "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride".
If we want to regain faith in our public institutions, they need to be held accountable.
Specifically:
> His dad felt otherwise and repeatedly posted criticism of the judge and friend of the court on his Facebook Page.
> Judge Rachel Rancilio saw the posts, many of which are publicly targeted at her.
> Then he made more posts, such as one that reads, “Dada back to digging and you best believe I’m gonna dig up all the skeletons in this court’s closet.”
“Judge Rachel Rancilio saw the posts, many of which are publicly targeted at her. She apparently felt uncomfortable and possibly threatened.”