14 ms·

> Judge Les Hayes once sentenced a single mother to 496 days behind bars for failing to pay traffic tickets. The sentence was so stiff it exceeded the jail time

• meddlepal 6y ago
  This is the kind of stupidity you get with elected judges.
  • linuxftw 6y ago
    Just Democracy in action here. This is what the people voted for. Unless you believe that the government's power should be limited in some way.
    • stx 6y ago
      I don't think people literally voted for the judge to lock up a single mother of 3 girls for 500 days because of unpaid traffic tickets. They voted for a judge because they thought he would be "tough on crime", or some other slogan. I am really speculating here. The reason though is a lack of information on the voters part. I am not sure how we solve that problem though. Judges like this should be put disbarred so that they cant practice law or serve time themselves.
      • linuxftw 6y ago
        > Judges like this should be put disbarred so that they cant practice law or serve time themselves. That's just your opinion, and you're in the minority. Probably most people in that jurisdiction are happy with the overall behavior of the judge. Democracy doesn't care about the needs of the individual, only the wants of the group. The group wants exclusive use of a particular area, thus limits parking. Public streets with reserved parking, the antithesis of a functioning society.
  • seemslegit 6y ago
    Just because someone was elected to a position doesn't mean they should be indismissable for misconduct, in general being able to elect judges is good and democratic it's just that the system has adapted to compensate for that.
  • jessaustin 6y ago
    This position, like most city judges, is not elected. TFA makes this clear: A few months after Judge Hayes’ suspension ended, his term as a municipal judge was set to expire. So, the Montgomery City Council took up the question of the judge’s future on March 6, 2018. On the agenda of its meeting: whether to reappoint Hayes to another four-year term. Everyone on that city council knew, for years, what a terrible judge they had hired. This seems to undercut the idea that appointing judges is some sort of solution to the problem of injustice in USA.
    • mcv 6y ago
      Both political appointments and elections are a bad idea. Both make the appointment of judges a political decision.
      • jessaustin 6y ago
        Yes I agree that judges should be selected randomly from the general population of people younger than 35 or older than 65. If that's not what you're thinking, please correct my misunderstanding...
      • justaguyhere 6y ago
        Is there a third option though?
        • mjw1007 6y ago
          This is what's used in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commissi...
          • twic 6y ago
            It had never occurred to me that any developed country would do anything other than this. Are there any that do? A bit of a survey from the Venice Commission, some sort of gang of euro-judicial boffins: https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CDL-AD2007_028.pdf https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CDL-AD2007_02...
  • pmoriarty 6y ago
    The problem isn't that judges are elected, but that it's nearly impossible for voters to make an informed decision. In the last election, I tried to find out about the local judges on my ballot and could find virtually nothing. The media has been neutered in to an infotainment machine, so there's very little investigative journalism left even on issues of national or international importance, much less on small issues like who your local judges are and how they rule.
    • justaguyhere 6y ago
      The problem isn't that judges are elected This is definitely one of the problems. There was a study that showed judges were handing stricter sentences for the same crime during election years than non election years ("tough on crime"). Elections are a popularity contest in a way, even well informed voters do not always make rational decisions. If one doesn't have elections to worry about, he/she can do their job to the best of their ability without thinking about pleasing anyone or pandering to any one group, just good old honest work. The moment they have to think about elections, things change. What kind of judge would you like to have - someone who is totally honest and fair without giving a crap about what others think, or someone who is trying to be popular?
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • salawat 6y ago
        Yes, because unaccountable lifelong appointed judges works so well in other spheres, yes? Jefferson, Madison, at al feared the Judiciary for a reason. Particularly the Federal tier. Elected judges have a built in check in that they are subject to periodic reaffirmation of confidence from the populace. An appointed judge just needs the right connections once, and to not do anything on such a regular basis that they become the subject of an ethics investigation.
        • justaguyhere 6y ago
          I never said appointed judges are a great idea, especially lifelong ones. I simply said electing judges is a bad idea. I don't know which one is worse. Maybe both are equally bad.
  • mcv 6y ago
    Is it true that all US judges are either elected or politically appointed? Both seem like a terrible idea. I admit I don't know how judges in other countries are appointed, but I think it usually involves a pretty thorough screening process involving several different requirements and organisations.
  • FpUser 6y ago
    No. This is the kind of stupidity one gets when the judges are not controlled and allowed to do as they please. This fscking degenerate judge who put poor woman in jail for so long should be sitting there himself instead of being retired and getting pension.
• ipython 6y ago
  Don’t forget the 2008 kids for cash scandal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal. At least those judges were eventually tried and are serving time.
  • kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    Convicted in 2011, disbarred in 2019. The guild will go to great lengths to protect their most guilty.
    • rayiner 6y ago
      It takes years for a conviction to become finalized. He was temporarily suspended in April 2012, while he appealed his conviction. The Third Circuit denied his habeas petition on March 2019. He was disbarred in October 2019. http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out/26DB2012-Ciavarella,%20Jr..pdf http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out....
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • gruez 6y ago
        Is there a reason why they can't be disbarred upon conviction, and then reinstated if the appeal goes through? After all, it's not like you can avoid prison time while your conviction goes through the appeal process.
        • rayiner 6y ago
          The temporary suspension accomplishes the same purpose. Either way you can't practice law while you're appealing, which is the only punishment the bar can mete out.
        • dragonwriter 6y ago
          > After all, it's not like you can avoid prison time while your conviction goes through the appeal process You can, though it's not very common, and, in the US, it's not available in all jurisdictions. See, e.g., https://www.justia.com/criminal/bail-bonds/bail-while-pursuing-an-appeal/ https://www.justia.com/criminal/bail-bonds/bail-while-pursui...
• Reedx 6y ago
  Seriously, even if she failed to pay 10,000 traffic tickets, how does it do any good to put her behind bars at all? They really couldn't think of a better way to deal with non-violent offense??
  • logicchop 6y ago
    I agree with you that failure to pay traffic tickets is hardly grounds for that sentence, and that it would in fact be stupid if those were the grounds. And that is exactly why it is a pretty uncharitable initial interpretation of what happened. There are always publicly cited "endorsable" reasons that must conform to the law, and then there are the underlying messy reasons that actually motivate the decision. It fits in a similar murky category as "prosecutorial discretion"
    • CyberDildonics 6y ago
      I don't understand what you are saying. Are there more details that know about this specific case that explain the sentence?
      • JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Perhaps contempt. Perhaps a disregard for public safety. Who knows? It of course was outrageous, but there was certainly something going on that pushed the judge's buttons. Because, every traffic violator didn't get that sentence, right?
        • thex10 6y ago
          > but there was certainly something going on that pushed the judge's buttons Yeah, but who's to say whether that something was remotely reasonable versus something completely frivolous (she rolled her eyes at him, she didn't cry convincingly enough, some other bullshit). Anyway I'd argue that our justice system should have zero room for such capricious, emotional judging.
          • deleted 6y ago
• logicchop 6y ago
  Not to defend the judge in that case in any way, but there is a question about whether/when it is OK or even desirable for judges to intervene "indirectly" with their power. For example (just an example, not suggesting this is how it was), suppose in the case you mention that the mother was suspected of being abusive or negligent, but that a prosecutable case couldn't be made for that, and that the traffic tickets were used merely as a guise for the sentencing. If that were the case, I don't think judges actions would seem quite so harsh, and might even seem appropriate (it doesn't require a massive stretch of the imagination to think of a case where this is true). And no matter the reasoning (or lack of it), the fallout of this (where the kids are harmed/molested in foster care) is hard to attribute to the judge. If the mother had been a serious threat to the children and the judge had sentenced her based on truly unquestionable reasons, they still might have met the same fate in foster care. As part of the legal system, the judge basically has to have complete confidence in the integrity of the foster care system (and it isn't his job to ensure that integrity).
  • Fjolsvith 6y ago
    > but that a prosecutable case couldn't be made for that So we suddenly have proven guilty without proof, but rather just because there's some suspicion. Doesn't seem American.
    • logicchop 6y ago
      That's wildly naive and I think with a little bit of imagination you too can envision a scenario where it makes sense. It needn't be "wild guessing" on the judges behalf; there could be even absolutely convictable evidence that would cause any reasonable person to immediately and unquestionably believe in the guilt of the mother, yet might be barred because of a rule governing the admissibility of evidence (that's its own ugly topic). In such a case I find it hard to believe that a judge taking it on himself to "do the right thing" would be seen as "un-American"
      • lmkg 6y ago
        We have the Rule of Law for a reason. If there's an issue with the system where guilty people are going free, then fix the system. Letting people take justice into their own hands is a cure worse than the problem, especially when those people are abusing the authority that was given to them to enact the justice that was created by a democratic process. A judge enacting a sentence based on inadmissible evidence is a violation of the rights of the accused, the Constitution, and the specific oaths and duties of their profession.
• zajio1am 6y ago
  > Johnson’s three children were cast into foster care while she was incarcerated. One daughter was molested, state records show. Another was physically abused. This looks more like indictment of US foster care.
• chadlavi 6y ago
  the carceral mindset in our society is the root of a lot of really stupid, kafkaesque evil done in the name of the public but benefiting no one (except for-profit prisons!).
• Shivetya 6y ago
  What is truly criminal is many judges retire with seventy five percent to up to one hundred percent of their salary plus benefits. I really wish people here would understand the real fleecing of America isn't by the CEOs of the country, they cannot make you pay their retirement but public servants can and those at the upper levels easily pull down one hundred thousand or more per year when retired!
  • cool_dude85 6y ago
    Pensions aren't truly criminal.
    • Gibbon1 6y ago
      My dad has a decent government pension. He also paid 12.5% of his salary towards it for 30 years. And the pay rate was about 10-20% less than private industry. In short Government paid my dad to do a job and it came with higher deductibles, lower salary but decent benefits and a pension. Big fucking whoop.