19 ms·

If you knew you were in trouble at work, would you show up to your disciplinary hearing/meeting/whathaveyou with "Buttfucker 3000" written over your name on you

If you knew you were in trouble at work, would you show up to your disciplinary hearing/meeting/whathaveyou with "Buttfucker 3000" written over your name on your badge in plain sight? The same thing generally applies to the courtroom - it's showing a lack of respect for, and understanding of, the situation one is in. Were a judge to think they may want to give an individual a lenient sentence, they may change their mind were they to find out that that individual is basically saying, "Fuck you and fuck all of this, I don't care."

quantumBerry 5y ago
The charge was for drug paraphernalia. There should be no respect at all of a tyrant enforcing such laws.
- jjulius 5y ago
  I don't disagree with you in regards to the need to greatly reform how we handle and prosecute (or don't prosecute) drug-related crimes, but having said that, what is the judge to do? Ignore a law and sentencing guidelines entirely?
  - Sargos 5y ago
    If they had any morals yes. The fact that they sentence people to be held in cages for victimless crimes means they don't deserve the respect they needlessly demand from others.
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      It's pretty clear HN isn't in support of even the notion that enforcement of victimless drug laws is tyrannical. This is a terrifying but accurate view of our current society.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - jjulius 5y ago
        Woosh.
        quantumBerry 5y ago
        aye.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    Due process requires judges to recuse themselves when there is a strong possibility they will be biased (such as believing it is a BS law that requires no punishment). If every single judge does this, eventually the state is going to run out of resources to try the case. A nice start would be to recognize having "buttfucker 3000" in your name might simply be an acknowledgement of the unjust law and probably circumstances (found in traffic stop, likely questionable 4A grounds) (although the article states that he stated it was unintentional.) So the easiest thing would have been just to let it slide and continue on like it doesn't exist. Judge could also instruct jurors on "jury nullification" or make the prosecutor's life hell in other ways if they bring about these cases. Yes I think there is a moral duty to ignore an unjust law, even if it is illegal to do so.
    - gsk22 5y ago
      What are the limits to your proposed recognition of his frustration? Is the name "fuckthelaw" ok? How about "judgefucker 3000"? What if they include the name of a witness or victim in their name ("fuck <witness>")? What if it contains a racial, ethnic or religious slur? Court isn't an MMO; you don't get to choose a pithy username. You use your legal name, and the judge is right to enforce that.
      - quantumBerry 5y ago
        Well when you're there for a victimless crime of some cop searched your car during a traffic stop and found a syringe, I'd say "fuck the state, the judge, and the cop witness" probably wouldn't be going to far. You're the one wanting to judge people's speech, not I.
  - ebeip90 5y ago
    Yes.
saurik 5y ago
> If you knew you were in trouble at work, would you show up to your disciplinary hearing/meeting/whathaveyou with "Buttfucker 3000" written over your name on your badge in plain sight? > The same thing generally applies to the courtroom - it's showing a lack of respect for, and understanding of, the situation one is in. Others have said this, but I want to underscore it with different phrasing: you seem to not understand the difference between "fear" and "respect". > Were a judge to think they may want to give an individual a lenient sentence, they may change their mind were they to find out that that individual is basically saying, "Fuck you and fuck all of this, I don't care." Justice should not depend on how good you make a judge feel about themselves or how fearful you show yourself to be of the system; justice should look only at the facts of the case and be blind to these unrelated details, no matter how much they make the judge personally feel bad. I appreciate it isn't like that: justice is not blind, and is in fact horribly unfair. And this means we tend to leave laws on the books that disproportionately affect certain groups of people because we let law enforcement and judgement proceedings favor use "discretion" to "discriminate" (note the relationship between these words). But that someone knows this to be true and thereby chooses a strategy to play that maximizes their benefit, has nothing to do with "respect": it is out of "fear" of what the system will do to you if you don't put on the outward appearance of "respect", even if--entirely internally--you are feeling nothing but "contempt" (a feeling that I personally couldn't blame anyone for having).
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  When it comes to determining guilt, yes, justice should be blind. When it comes to sentencing, judges take all kinds of things into account. If I were a defendant, I'd want to keep that firmly in mind.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

quantumBerry 5y ago

The charge was for drug paraphernalia. There should be no respect at all of a tyrant enforcing such laws.

jjulius 5y ago
I don't disagree with you in regards to the need to greatly reform how we handle and prosecute (or don't prosecute) drug-related crimes, but having said that, what is the judge to do? Ignore a law and sentencing guidelines entirely?
- Sargos 5y ago
  If they had any morals yes. The fact that they sentence people to be held in cages for victimless crimes means they don't deserve the respect they needlessly demand from others.
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    It's pretty clear HN isn't in support of even the notion that enforcement of victimless drug laws is tyrannical. This is a terrifying but accurate view of our current society.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jjulius 5y ago
      Woosh.
      - quantumBerry 5y ago
        aye.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  Due process requires judges to recuse themselves when there is a strong possibility they will be biased (such as believing it is a BS law that requires no punishment). If every single judge does this, eventually the state is going to run out of resources to try the case. A nice start would be to recognize having "buttfucker 3000" in your name might simply be an acknowledgement of the unjust law and probably circumstances (found in traffic stop, likely questionable 4A grounds) (although the article states that he stated it was unintentional.) So the easiest thing would have been just to let it slide and continue on like it doesn't exist. Judge could also instruct jurors on "jury nullification" or make the prosecutor's life hell in other ways if they bring about these cases. Yes I think there is a moral duty to ignore an unjust law, even if it is illegal to do so.
  - gsk22 5y ago
    What are the limits to your proposed recognition of his frustration? Is the name "fuckthelaw" ok? How about "judgefucker 3000"? What if they include the name of a witness or victim in their name ("fuck <witness>")? What if it contains a racial, ethnic or religious slur? Court isn't an MMO; you don't get to choose a pithy username. You use your legal name, and the judge is right to enforce that.
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      Well when you're there for a victimless crime of some cop searched your car during a traffic stop and found a syringe, I'd say "fuck the state, the judge, and the cop witness" probably wouldn't be going to far. You're the one wanting to judge people's speech, not I.
- ebeip90 5y ago
  Yes.

saurik 5y ago

> If you knew you were in trouble at work, would you show up to your disciplinary hearing/meeting/whathaveyou with "Buttfucker 3000" written over your name on your badge in plain sight? > The same thing generally applies to the courtroom - it's showing a lack of respect for, and understanding of, the situation one is in. Others have said this, but I want to underscore it with different phrasing: you seem to not understand the difference between "fear" and "respect". > Were a judge to think they may want to give an individual a lenient sentence, they may change their mind were they to find out that that individual is basically saying, "Fuck you and fuck all of this, I don't care." Justice should not depend on how good you make a judge feel about themselves or how fearful you show yourself to be of the system; justice should look only at the facts of the case and be blind to these unrelated details, no matter how much they make the judge personally feel bad. I appreciate it isn't like that: justice is not blind, and is in fact horribly unfair. And this means we tend to leave laws on the books that disproportionately affect certain groups of people because we let law enforcement and judgement proceedings favor use "discretion" to "discriminate" (note the relationship between these words). But that someone knows this to be true and thereby chooses a strategy to play that maximizes their benefit, has nothing to do with "respect": it is out of "fear" of what the system will do to you if you don't put on the outward appearance of "respect", even if--entirely internally--you are feeling nothing but "contempt" (a feeling that I personally couldn't blame anyone for having).

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
When it comes to determining guilt, yes, justice should be blind. When it comes to sentencing, judges take all kinds of things into account. If I were a defendant, I'd want to keep that firmly in mind.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]