• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it acceptable for a judge to gloat when sentencing?

Is it acceptable for a judge to gloat when sentencing?

  • Total voters
    51
Went with other, I am far more interested in the sentence lining up to the crime (in this case plural... crimes) convicted of. Not convinced we really have an issue here, perhaps there are better examples of a judge gloating than this example.
 
Probably Apocryphal

"Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, in a few short weeks it will be spring. The snows of winter will flee away, the ice will vanish, and the air will become soft and balmy. In short, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, the annual miracle of the years will awaken and come to pass, but you won't be there.

"The rivulet will run its soaring course to the sea, the timid desert flowers will put forth their tender shoots, the glorious valleys of this imperial domain will blossom as the rose. Still, you won't be here to see.

"From every treetop some wild woods songster will carol his mating song; butterflies will sport in the sunshine, the busy bee will hum happy as it pursues its accustomed vacation; the gentle breeze will tease the tassels of the wild grasses, and all nature will be glad, but you. You won't be here to enjoy it because I command the sheriff or some other officers of the country to lead you out to some remote spot, swing you by the neck from a knotting bough of some sturdy oak, and let you hang until you are dead.

"And then, Jose Manuel Miguel Xavier Gonzales, I further command that such officer or officers retire quickly from your dangling corpse, so that vultures may descend from the heavens upon your filthy body until nothing shall remain but bare, bleached bones of a cold-blooded, bloodthirsty, throat-cutting, murdering son of a bitch."




Now that is a little out of bounds....
 
Glen Contrarian said:
It's not appropriate at all...because it opens up the possibility that the defense could have a case when they claim they didn't get a fair trial. That's one reason why judges are held to a higher standard - they're also expected to know when to keep their own opinions and emotions in check, no matter how much the piece of s**t deserves what he's getting.
Click to expand...

I was kinda against the judge's behavior, but couldn't gin up much caring about it, until I read that point you deftly pointed out above. That's a very good point.
 
You know, every time I've ever had to stand in front of a judge, they were a self-righteous and self-congratulatory jackass; every one of them acted like they were touching themselves under their robes while they were thinking about giving scum me like exactly what I deserved. I've never met a person who wears robes in public that didn't deserve to be set on fire and then vigorously extinguished by several pairs of workboots.

It's funny, though, that nobody has ever complained about this until it was a female judge gloating about sentencing a rich white man for hundreds of counts of sexually abusing hundreds of little girls.

Now, all of a sudden, it's unprofessional.
 
The OP.

The judge is society's chosen representitive and specialist in law and justice. As such if society, taking a sober and carm look at the case, feels that gloating at the evil failure of humanity before it is appropriate then, yes, do it.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
You know, every time I've ever had to stand in front of a judge, they were a self-righteous and self-congratulatory jackass; every one of them acted like they were touching themselves under their robes while they were thinking about giving scum me like exactly what I deserved. I've never met a person who wears robes in public that didn't deserve to be set on fire and then vigorously extinguished by several pairs of workboots.

It's funny, though, that nobody has ever complained about this until it was a female judge gloating about sentencing a rich white man for hundreds of counts of sexually abusing hundreds of little girls.

Now, all of a sudden, it's unprofessional.
Click to expand...

Now there's a head bending post.
 
radcen said:
I sense that my opinion on this will be unpopular. So be it.

For the purpose of this thread ignore the specific case and the your emotions behind it. This thread is not about Larry Nassar's case. Focus on the concept of the judge's actions, and know that other judges have done the same at times. Hence the question: Is it acceptable for a judge to gloat when sentencing?


As soon as I heard the judge start off with, "It is my privilege...", I cringed. Maybe it's just me, but judges, while human too, should be above emotional statements such as that. Again, maybe it's just me, but judges shouldn't revel in the harsh sentencing of anyone, even when it is justified. The crime and punishment should be a somber and regretful moment.

I get the prosecution being elated over the sentence. That's fine. I get the victims and their families being elated over the sentence. Makes total sense, and I would expect it. But I'm sorry, I think it is inappropriate and undignified for a judge to show such emotion like that.
Click to expand...

They do it a lot. This certainly is not unique. And, it always strikes me as odd. But, apparently a judge being a dick or **** after conviction is perfectly acceptable.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Now there's a head bending post.
Click to expand...

He's right though. I've watched enough true crime sentencing hearings to know that judges are often quite gleeful when doling out punishement to people they perceive as scum. I always just see it as proof that they actually listened to the evidence and paid attention to the case during trial.
 
It is within the ability of his station, but damn is it rather unbecoming of the judge to do so.
 
Sentenced to 235 years total...that probably translates to 80. Dude is old though. So, good riddance
 
radcen said:
I sense that my opinion on this will be unpopular. So be it.

For the purpose of this thread ignore the specific case and the your emotions behind it. This thread is not about Larry Nassar's case. Focus on the concept of the judge's actions, and know that other judges have done the same at times. Hence the question: Is it acceptable for a judge to gloat when sentencing?


As soon as I heard the judge start off with, "It is my privilege...", I cringed. Maybe it's just me, but judges, while human too, should be above emotional statements such as that. Again, maybe it's just me, but judges shouldn't revel in the harsh sentencing of anyone, even when it is justified. The crime and punishment should be a somber and regretful moment.

I get the prosecution being elated over the sentence. That's fine. I get the victims and their families being elated over the sentence. Makes total sense, and I would expect it. But I'm sorry, I think it is inappropriate and undignified for a judge to show such emotion like that.
Click to expand...

I agree, even if I don't want to. The guy deserves the everything he got, but no, the judge needs to be professional. It could bring up questions on anything the judge ruled for or against during the trial making this ripe for appeal.
 
calamity said:
They do it a lot. This certainly is not unique. And, it always strikes me as odd. But, apparently a judge being a dick or **** after conviction is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

It does happen a lot. I watch a lot of true crime documentaries and it happens surprisingly often. I've never approved if it*, and have toyed around with creating a thread about it several times, just now this example was one of the more egregious ones, and it's in the news, so it seemed like a good time to talk about it.

*- FTR: If the judge>defendant dynamic is M>M, M>F, F>M, or F>F doesn't matter, I do not approve of it. Most examples I have seen are M>M, and I still don't approve.
 
holbritter said:
I agree, even if I don't want to. The guy deserves the everything he got, but no, the judge needs to be professional. It could bring up questions on anything the judge ruled for or against during the trial making this ripe for appeal.
Click to expand...

Oh, totally. I am thoroughly glad and happy re his sentence.
 
Lursa said:
IMO it was not gloating, it was a pronouncement, a statement of fact on the consequence of her sentence.

Considering the letter he wrote, IMO the judge wanted him to realize that "this is reality," not your excuses and attempt at victimhood.
Click to expand...

No. When she said, "It is my privilege...", that is opinion and her own personal emotion.
 
radcen said:
It does happen a lot. I watch a lot of true crime documentaries and it happens surprisingly often. I've never approved if it*, and have toyed around with creating a thread about it several times, just now this example was one of the more egregious ones, and it's in the news, so it seemed like a good time to talk about it.

*- FTR: If the judge>defendant dynamic is M>M, M>F, F>M, or F>F doesn't matter, I do not approve of it. Most examples I have seen are M>M, and I still don't approve.
Click to expand...
I'm ok with it as long as it stays in the sentencing phase. You're innocent until proven guilty. But, once guilty, you no longer have that protection, and the judge no longer needs to be impartial.

My question though is if the sentence didn't cross the line. Therin lies the appeal. 175 years just sounds nuts for what he did. Not saying what he did was ok or anything. But murderers don't even get those years.
 
Lursa said:
I'm not a fan of 'requiring' public apologies period.

As you wrote, why would you believe it? It's expedience at best.
Click to expand...

Same here. They've become obligatory.

They never do any good anyway. If you're innocent, and reiterate that, they tell you you're lying and unrepentant and hence a despicable person. If you're guilty they dismiss it for a whole bunch of reasons, even if you're sincere, regardless what you say.
 
Last edited:
blackjack50 said:
Sure. Like I said...it isn’t right. But it is understandable.
Click to expand...

I get the understandable part. I don't expect a judge to not have feelings or emotion. But in the duties of the job I don't think it unreasonable that they not proclaim it, at least not on the bench. Maybe later in an interview, or in their memoirs, but not at the moment.

When we talk of what a good journalist is we talk about someone who you cannot tell whether they are left or right by their reporting, even though they have left/right opinions just like anyone else, and we think that reasonable (it is). Same here.
 
This issue is kind of a Jesus-like "you're either with me or against me" type issue. You either disapprove of it, or you don't. Some are saying, "...in this case...", as if exceptions can be carved out. No, exceptions cannot be carved out. If you believe particulars matter then you are saying that (dis)approval of this type of action is situational and conditional upon whatever you're thinking and feeling at the moment. Which means, everything is always open to the possibility. Which really means it's always acceptable.
 
calamity said:
I'm ok with it as long as it stays in the sentencing phase. You're innocent until proven guilty. But, once guilty, you no longer have that protection, and the judge no longer needs to be impartial.

My question though is if the sentence didn't cross the line. Therin lies the appeal. 175 years just sounds nuts for what he did. Not saying what he did was ok or anything. But murderers don't even get those years.
Click to expand...

I disagree. While the person may have been found guilty (speaking generically), by displaying personal feelings during sentencing signals that they have most likely allowed said personal feelings to influence said sentencing... which is supposed to be impartial, as well.
 
radcen said:
I disagree. While the person may have been found guilty (speaking generically), by displaying personal feelings during sentencing signals that they have most likely allowed said personal feelings to influence said sentencing... which is supposed to be impartial, as well.
Click to expand...

I certainly do not see impartiality in sentencing. Often, these guys and gals are really brutal in their lectures to the guilty. Most common refrain, "The law limits me in how much I can sentence you, but if I had my way..."
 
radcen said:
No. When she said, "It is my privilege...", that is opinion and her own personal emotion.
Click to expand...

Meh, in a legal context not necessarily. It's her job/privilege. SHe may consider her job as judge as a privilege.

Yes, it definitely implies she agrees with the sentence. I dont see anything wrong with that.

I see a difference between agreement and gloating.

To be honest, I can imagine someone just handing out the sentence, in years/days with no additional words, and being able to gloat just in the manner in which the sentence is delivered. I didnt get that emotion from her.

Just IMO.
 
So please clarify this for me.

The right wing position is that Arpaio corral people into his concentration camp for having brown skin with no trial, in flagrant violation of their constitutional rights, but no female judge can be too harsh to a serial child rapist during sentencing.

Do i understand this correctly? Because this makes me want to vomit in shame. Sometimes i can't believe that i'm the same species.
 
Absentglare said:
So please clarify this for me.

The right wing position is that Arpaio corral people into his concentration camp for having brown skin with no trial, in flagrant violation of their constitutional rights, but no female judge can be too harsh to a serial child rapist during sentencing.

Do i understand this correctly? Because this makes me want to vomit in shame. Sometimes i can't believe that i'm the same species.
Click to expand...

In a relative sense, that's worse. Far worse.
 
radcen said:
In a relative sense, that's worse. Far worse.
Click to expand...

I would hope so.

We need to decide whether we subject prisoners to harsh conditions as a "deterrent" or not. I can't accept that this judge's words are any worse than solitary confinement or capital punishment.
 
radcen said:
I sense that my opinion on this will be unpopular. So be it.

For the purpose of this thread ignore the specific case and the your emotions behind it. This thread is not about Larry Nassar's case. Focus on the concept of the judge's actions, and know that other judges have done the same at times. Hence the question: Is it acceptable for a judge to gloat when sentencing?


As soon as I heard the judge start off with, "It is my privilege...", I cringed. Maybe it's just me, but judges, while human too, should be above emotional statements such as that. Again, maybe it's just me, but judges shouldn't revel in the harsh sentencing of anyone, even when it is justified. The crime and punishment should be a somber and regretful moment.

I get the prosecution being elated over the sentence. That's fine. I get the victims and their families being elated over the sentence. Makes total sense, and I would expect it. But I'm sorry, I think it is inappropriate and undignified for a judge to show such emotion like that.
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure it's appropriate, but I don't think it's necessarily unacceptable.


So long as the trial and sentencing was just and according to the law, a bit of glee at the downfall of such a vile example of humanity seems...reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom