4 ms·

People like to blame judges but often judges are simply applying legislation in an impartial manner, as they are required to do, and if they don't do that, the

People like to blame judges but often judges are simply applying legislation in an impartial manner, as they are required to do, and if they don't do that, the system falls apart. The judgment followed the law, and it's clear from the specific wording of the judgment https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2019/41a18.pdf https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2019/41a18.pdf that the judge is fully aware of all the issues. The solution is for the legislatures to modify the law, if they want to. Did this person distribute child pornography, as defined by the law, to others? Yes. Were the others minors as well? Yes. > "[T]he language of CR § 11-207 in its plain meaning is all-encompassing. The General Assembly has not updated the statute’s language since the advent of sexting and thus we may not read into the statute an exception for minors." Those are the judge's words, they are correct, and they explain why he had to rule this way.

DoreenMichele 7y ago
We have judges and juries in part so that human judgement still comes into play. Courts were never intended to be administers of abstract algorithms and actual justice be damned.
- afthonos 7y ago
  Juries can nullify laws; not so judges. And even juries are often not told about this ability of theirs.
- droithomme 7y ago
  Judges are there to determine if someone has violated the law. When judges go off that, as some sometimes do, they are a law unto themselves. Such judges allow the rich and elite to corrupt the system by purchasing judgments, something not available to the non-elite. The judge made clear in the decision he was applying the law as written and there's a strong undertone that he doesn't agree at all with the judgment he had to give as it was not just. He also explains explicitly that it's the legislature that is responsible and enumerates precisely why and what a solution would be should anyone desire it. Juries, on the other hand, are not trained in the law and are perfectly capable of engaging in nullification in the interests of justice. Honorable and responsible judges should not and are not supposed to engage in nullification because the risks of corruption are too extreme.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    Two excerpts from the article: Hotten found the text to be unclear. And under the court’s own precedent, “[w]hen a statute can be interpreted in more than one way, the job of this Court is to resolve that ambiguity in light of the legislative intent.” Here, Hotten found ample evidence that Maryland “sought to protect children from exploitation and abuse as opposed to enacting laws that criminalized consensual sexual activity among minors.” Under this rule, ambiguous criminal statutes must be interpreted in the defendant’s favor. But there's all too often some bullshit justification as to why it's someone else's job to make sure justice gets served and these particular people in authority were "just doing their job." The emperor in Mulan and the sultan in Aladdin taking it upon themselves to actually exercise their authority to do the right thing are, sadly, not how real people typically operate.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

DoreenMichele 7y ago

We have judges and juries in part so that human judgement still comes into play. Courts were never intended to be administers of abstract algorithms and actual justice be damned.

afthonos 7y ago
Juries can nullify laws; not so judges. And even juries are often not told about this ability of theirs.
droithomme 7y ago
Judges are there to determine if someone has violated the law. When judges go off that, as some sometimes do, they are a law unto themselves. Such judges allow the rich and elite to corrupt the system by purchasing judgments, something not available to the non-elite. The judge made clear in the decision he was applying the law as written and there's a strong undertone that he doesn't agree at all with the judgment he had to give as it was not just. He also explains explicitly that it's the legislature that is responsible and enumerates precisely why and what a solution would be should anyone desire it. Juries, on the other hand, are not trained in the law and are perfectly capable of engaging in nullification in the interests of justice. Honorable and responsible judges should not and are not supposed to engage in nullification because the risks of corruption are too extreme.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  Two excerpts from the article: Hotten found the text to be unclear. And under the court’s own precedent, “[w]hen a statute can be interpreted in more than one way, the job of this Court is to resolve that ambiguity in light of the legislative intent.” Here, Hotten found ample evidence that Maryland “sought to protect children from exploitation and abuse as opposed to enacting laws that criminalized consensual sexual activity among minors.” Under this rule, ambiguous criminal statutes must be interpreted in the defendant’s favor. But there's all too often some bullshit justification as to why it's someone else's job to make sure justice gets served and these particular people in authority were "just doing their job." The emperor in Mulan and the sultan in Aladdin taking it upon themselves to actually exercise their authority to do the right thing are, sadly, not how real people typically operate.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]