Yeah, it's called impeachment.
If it was done on a party line vote, the Democrats would have the votes to remove the scumbag in New Jersey.
It is an elected post. The impeachment process can be used, however it is not permanent, and the impeached judge is free to run for the same office again in NJ. Even in a special election subsequent to removal by impeachment. It would be more expedient for the state legislature to write into law judicial retirement beyond a specific year, yet some might claim that is age discrimination. The county within which he was elected is predominantly Republican and/or Conservative, two different parties in NJ as in NY. Another alternative is gubernatorial removal. Not a true power for the governor, awkwardly accomplished through appointment to a superior post, the Peter Principle at work.
The best alternative is to use our system of quiet revolution, fielding a more powerful candidate when this judge is up for re-election. However, since he followed rules of law for Family Court, and the decision was celebrated in the county where he presides (think about that one :doh), it is not likely he will be defeated.
There is a back story here. Not that it is an excuse for rape. The victim has a history for promiscuity, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, minor arrests (no pun intended), and comes from a family with a similar history. Trial by public opinion is not supportive of her on home turf. Many locals are dismayed at the furor.
It is likely, once the media frenzy has dissipated, the new prosecuting attorney will allow a plea, admission for distribution of child pornography, dismissal of the rape charge, conditional discharge after probation for the perp. The video in question does not identify the victim, her age or condition at the time of the rape. The defense attorney will argue consent, and aggressive action on the part of the victim for explanation of the sexual act. It is likely there will be no trial. Allocution for child pornography distribution at trial, requirement to register as a sex offender. And the latter is doubtful and vulnerable to appeal. It is a weak case, the victim refused to testify in family court, she was subpoenaed and treated as a hostile witness, and she has stated she will not testify in any future law action. This information was released by the county's prosecuting attorney's office when the office was first defending its failure to move the case to the higher court for treatment of the perpetrator as an adult.
All in all, a sad, shameful representation of the flaws of our legal systems for handling non-physically violent rape. Not a question of a poor decision by the judge who followed rules of law, but an excoriation and indictment of our system of justice for allowing victim blaming. The judge is low hanging fruit, altering our laws a less convenient and more complex target, even tho warranted.
It should be considered, the current social definition of rape as an act of violence, not a sexual act, is evidenced by legal precedence, "it cannot be rape without violence or threat of violence." Common case law. Certainly fact of law and social attitudes should reflect "consent, or lack of" as a mitigating fact of law, irrelevant of violence or threat of violence. That has occurred in some states, again by case law and not legislation for the most part. But consent or lack of is a he said, she said problem as well. Corroboration is still a requirement of law, and will likely remain so.
Even in the infamous case portrayed by Jody Foster in film, The Accused, in real life required corroboration by a defendant and another witness, a non participating bartender under threat of prosecution for conspiracy and being an accessory for not curbing the victim's alcohol consumption.
