Genuinely, why does it matter? Why should the judge waste any attention on things like that, things that have zero significance to the matter at hand?
Insisting that people respect the court is a large part of why this works. Even if maybe in some particular instance you could get away with not insisting on that, that's a dangerous experiment to run.
The legal system is just a buttress for social norms and conventions; and if the latter break down, there's not much hope for the former.
Of course, there are many legal issues that genuinely need lawyers and courts - for example, where there is real disagreement as to the meaning of a legal text such as a contract. But on the whole, the role of courts and lawyers is to tidy-up around the edges; if society only worked because of courts and lawyers, then it wouldn't really be working at all.
The same thing generally applies to the courtroom - it's showing a lack of respect for, and understanding of, the situation one is in. Were a judge to think they may want to give an individual a lenient sentence, they may change their mind were they to find out that that individual is basically saying, "Fuck you and fuck all of this, I don't care."
> The same thing generally applies to the courtroom - it's showing a lack of respect for, and understanding of, the situation one is in.
Others have said this, but I want to underscore it with different phrasing: you seem to not understand the difference between "fear" and "respect".
> Were a judge to think they may want to give an individual a lenient sentence, they may change their mind were they to find out that that individual is basically saying, "Fuck you and fuck all of this, I don't care."
Justice should not depend on how good you make a judge feel about themselves or how fearful you show yourself to be of the system; justice should look only at the facts of the case and be blind to these unrelated details, no matter how much they make the judge personally feel bad.
I appreciate it isn't like that: justice is not blind, and is in fact horribly unfair. And this means we tend to leave laws on the books that disproportionately affect certain groups of people because we let law enforcement and judgement proceedings favor use "discretion" to "discriminate" (note the relationship between these words).
But that someone knows this to be true and thereby chooses a strategy to play that maximizes their benefit, has nothing to do with "respect": it is out of "fear" of what the system will do to you if you don't put on the outward appearance of "respect", even if--entirely internally--you are feeling nothing but "contempt" (a feeling that I personally couldn't blame anyone for having).
A nice start would be to recognize having "buttfucker 3000" in your name might simply be an acknowledgement of the unjust law and probably circumstances (found in traffic stop, likely questionable 4A grounds) (although the article states that he stated it was unintentional.) So the easiest thing would have been just to let it slide and continue on like it doesn't exist.
Judge could also instruct jurors on "jury nullification" or make the prosecutor's life hell in other ways if they bring about these cases.
Yes I think there is a moral duty to ignore an unjust law, even if it is illegal to do so.
Court isn't an MMO; you don't get to choose a pithy username. You use your legal name, and the judge is right to enforce that.
That kind of obvious, blatant disrespect would not be tolerated in a traditional court proceeding. And it shouldn't be tolerated in an online proceeding, either.
I'm not big on formality in general but I think that there are times when it makes sense to expect people to present themselves with a basic level of respect.
So far as I've seen hats aren't allowed either. I'd be willing to claim it as a religious necessity.
This would be akin to accidentally showing up to a courtroom in a suit and forgetting that there's a decorative penis pin on your jacket because the last time you wore it you were at some sort of party. You clearly didn't care enough about your situation to dot your i's and cross your t's, and it suggests to the judge that you think this is a farce, mistake or not.
HN is an echo chamber of tech-savvy people (myself included), but for anyone who's job isn't to work on a computer for 8 hours a day, this type of mistake can happen completely without intent.
In regards to the "decorative penis pin" scenario. Benefit-of-the-doubt is a basic principle of the judicial system. It is completely feasible to do something like this unintentionally. A good judge should ask the pin be removed, and move on. If the defendant refuses to remove it, handle that situation appropriately.
In this same video, the judge asked someone to remove their hat. The hat was removed, and everyone moved on. This is how professionals do their jobs.
But I must ask again; would you show up to any kind of disciplinary hearing for yourself with "Buttfucker 3000" showing on your name badge?
People don't go to court because they "respect" the judicial process or the judge - they go because they are compelled by force or threats of force/imprisonment.
That said... it seems foolish to disrespect the judge, not because he/she deserves respect, but because they can abuse their power and punish you over slights to their ego. It's the same reason you don't run your mouth at a cop during a traffic stop - they would likely wield their small authority over you in a way that you found unpleasant.
Even if the defendant literally did spit in the face of the judge, a good judge should not react in a way that would give anyone reason to think they let that affect their ruling.
The trial before them is not their only concern.
Respect is earned, regardless of statute.
The judge could have simply asked the defendant to fix his screen name and moved on, and he would have had my respect for the professionalism. Instead, respect has been lost.
The charge is for a syringe found by some cop rifling around this guy's person/vehicle during a traffic stop. They are not only perceived as fools but they are fools, for facilitating the trying of this individual for such an unjust law for which there is no victim. The only lesson this man could possible learn from this judge sentencing him is to toss the syringe in a playground or something before driving off in his vehicle, since apparently having it in your car instead of wherever you used it is a big problem.
These tyrants deserve no respect, and I hope the entire system of trying people for the crime of owning an inanimate syringe collapses. The sooner we lose respect for all judges sentencing people for these crimes the better.
There is no way to know that the defendant's Zoom screen-name was set intentionally, or even with his knowledge. Prior to showing up on the screen the judge was already leaking bias - "Then we'll bring this...fool in".
While I am inclined to "assume" that it was done intentionally, assumptions is not what the judicial system is about.
"Your name isn't Buttfucker 3000, you yol-hole" along with the initial remark are both incredibly unprofessional (and worrying) things to hear from a person who's literal job is to pass unbiased judgement. Name calling from a judge, really?
Yes, the dude was probably being an ass, but it doesn't matter. The judge judged the guy without concrete evidence and displayed a ton of personal distaste and bias against the defendant over the following minutes. He should asked the defendant to fix his screen name and moved on. This is not the kind of behavior you want to see in a judge who presides over cases of any real meaning.
uhh, depends on the case?