4 ms·

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

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.

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.