4 ms·

> Judges definitely do have the individual power to dismiss charges against someone; I have personally seen it done. I did not say they didn't. They may do s

> Judges definitely do have the individual power to dismiss charges against someone; I have personally seen it done. I did not say they didn't. They may do so - may meaning they are allowed to - if it is obvious that there was no crime or there is insufficient evidence or there was a procedural error etc. (rules for this can vary greatly). In this case that does not apply at all though. Don't you think if the judge could just dismiss the charge they would have done so? Do you honestly believe you've got a better handle on the legalities of this than the person whose job this is?

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> Do you honestly believe you've got a better handle on the legalities of this than the person whose job this is? The legalities are pretty clear; the judge is able to dismiss the case. I don't believe I know that more than the judge does; he also knew that he was legally able to dismiss the case. Whether he exercises that power is a political question, not a legal question. But to this point: > They may do so - may meaning they are allowed to - if it is obvious that there was no crime or there is insufficient evidence or there was a procedural error etc. (rules for this can vary greatly). None of those is necessary. In the case I witnessed, the reasoning was quite obviously "the defendant is too young for this to make any sense", and the official statement was "the case is dismissed in the interest of justice".
- chmod775 5y ago
  > "the case is dismissed in the interest of justice" In the US that is possible in only about 12-15 jurisdictions, depending on who's counting. Some explicitly spell out in which cases a judge may do so, others leave that power broadly undefined. I wonder why, having seen that done once, you seem so insistent to extrapolate that judges everywhere and always must have that power.
michaelmrose 5y ago
Your proof that the judge had no discretion in the stated case is the fact that they didn't. This seems like a poor argument. Until relatively recently some places have allowed judges to be elected or appointed idiots who weren't even required to have a high school diploma let alone an education in law.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  Compare the Tennessee judge who ordered that a child's name, Messiah, be changed, on the stated grounds that "Messiah is a title and it's a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ." http://volokh.com/2013/10/27/disciplinary-charges-filed-messiah-judge/ http://volokh.com/2013/10/27/disciplinary-charges-filed-mess...

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> Do you honestly believe you've got a better handle on the legalities of this than the person whose job this is? The legalities are pretty clear; the judge is able to dismiss the case. I don't believe I know that more than the judge does; he also knew that he was legally able to dismiss the case. Whether he exercises that power is a political question, not a legal question. But to this point: > They may do so - may meaning they are allowed to - if it is obvious that there was no crime or there is insufficient evidence or there was a procedural error etc. (rules for this can vary greatly). None of those is necessary. In the case I witnessed, the reasoning was quite obviously "the defendant is too young for this to make any sense", and the official statement was "the case is dismissed in the interest of justice".

chmod775 5y ago
> "the case is dismissed in the interest of justice" In the US that is possible in only about 12-15 jurisdictions, depending on who's counting. Some explicitly spell out in which cases a judge may do so, others leave that power broadly undefined. I wonder why, having seen that done once, you seem so insistent to extrapolate that judges everywhere and always must have that power.

michaelmrose 5y ago

Your proof that the judge had no discretion in the stated case is the fact that they didn't. This seems like a poor argument. Until relatively recently some places have allowed judges to be elected or appointed idiots who weren't even required to have a high school diploma let alone an education in law.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
Compare the Tennessee judge who ordered that a child's name, Messiah, be changed, on the stated grounds that "Messiah is a title and it's a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ." http://volokh.com/2013/10/27/disciplinary-charges-filed-messiah-judge/ http://volokh.com/2013/10/27/disciplinary-charges-filed-mess...