265
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
265 points (98.9% liked)
News
23305 readers
3618 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How can the judge who has been attached not be disqualified from ruling in that case?
She's not ruling on her own assault, she's finishing the original sentencing which was interrupted when he launched at her.
So her decision on sentencing was already decided, she just never got to announce what it was. His subsequent behavior proves that sentencing is the correct course of action.
Edit As expected:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/08/us/las-vegas-judge-attacker-sentenced.html
"sentenced the man on Monday to 19 to 48 months in prison on a previous battery charge, emphasizing that his actions last week did not affect her sentencing decision."
and:
"On Monday, Mr. Redden returned to Judge Holthus’s courtroom to complete the sentencing hearing that his violent outburst had interrupted."
and:
"Judge Holthus emphasized that Mr. Redden was being sentenced solely on an April 2023 battery charge, to which he had previously pleaded guilty. She said any charges related to his attack last week would be handled by a different judge.
“For purposes of the record,” Judge Holthus said, “I want to make it clear that I am not changing or modifying the sentence I was in the process of imposing last week before I was interrupted by defendant’s actions.”"
Ahh... I thought she would rule on his subsequent assault charge
Too soon, it just happened. He still needs to get through being charged with it.
Keep in mind, the assault he was about to be charged with was from last August or something. That's how slow it moves.
Not necessarily. If they actually were reformed and the judge wasn't hearing it, the sentencing wasn't correct.
Dude leaped over the bench and beat her ass and you think he's reformed lmao
You understand though, he was angry in that situation that he was going to face consequences, it's totally different.
?????????? Being grumpy about something warrants physical assault, huh
The comment heavily reads like sarcasm.
Good thing we all decided we were too sensitive for the ol' /s and that this kind of misunderstanding never happens
If you need a /s to realize that was sarcasm you don't have the reading comprehension/social skills to be on the internet by yourself anyway.
I had that attitude until I stumbled on people who clearly must live in upside-down world. The "/s" is essential for a site where that relies on text as the medium and where people will have no prior knowledge of the writer.
Sarcasm in the real world can usually be understood through body language and tone. We don't have that here.
Lol talking about social skills while not knowing that sarcasm is generally conveyed with changes and tone and other markers that aren't possible with text...
I picked up on that being sarcasm just fine. The context of the comment was plenty to assume that.
Nice job!
Poe's law is an adage of internet culture which says that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Yes, those are the ones that shouldn't be on the internet unsupervised.
Thank you.
Lol oh you're being sarcastic
From the article:
I'm not saying he can't turn his life around, but I'd venture to say he hasn't been reformed yet. Most functional citizens know by 30 that you can't assault a judge.
Most nonfuctioning citizens do too
I mean I’ll say he can’t turn his life around. Multiple violent offenses is the entire point of jail. People like that should be permanently removed from society.
No. Bad. rolls up newspaper
That isn't the point of jail. Anyone can turn their life around. Jesus dude.
No, not everyone can. Some people are irredeemable, and some crimes are unforgivable and should result in permanent removal from society regardless of reformation.
This is a dude that has multiple convictions for increasingly escalating violent assaults. This most recent one was for beating someone nearly to death with a baseball bat.
How many chances should he get to kill someone?
Fucking idiots will bend over backwards to defend violent scumbags before defending the innocent people these fucks prey on.
If I understand you correctl,y people can change, like you said: he's growing more violent.
So they only can get worse? The only path for a human is into darkness? That's still change, bud. And you're silly if once you acknowledge change that it's only one direction.
Aside from that, the point of jails is to punish and ideally reform people so they become better. So the original premise is flawed from the start, it was never about "locking them away for good", it was always deterrent and to prevent them from doing it again.
You didn’t say change. You said turn their life around. Don’t change your words now, bud. To which I said, no not everyone can turn their life around. Some people are only capable of getting worse.
And sure that’s the point of the criminal justice system, ideally.
The point of jail/prison itself is to keep offenders segregated from society while that happens, with security levels matching the severity and risk of the offender. For those that cannot be reformed or have committed unforgivable crimes, the point is to permanently segregate them from society to prevent them from further harming it.
To turn someone's life around is to change for the better. I also quoted you with that phrase.
If you're going to argue semantics, invest in a thesaurus. Also, if youre going to play the pedantic card, don't use colloquialisms.
I'd suggest you do some reading on the histories of criminal punishments and how society has evolved around them.
I'd also like to point out how you ignored what I said: you acknowledge he has changed, but is only capable of changing in one direction. Which is a silly thought if you've ever met a person who has made mistakes. Maybe you haven't.
My god you really have no reading comprehension do you? Or you just don’t know how to have a good faith conversation.
YOU started with the colloquialism. That was entirely you. I never used it other than responding to YOUR use of it.
I know what it means, and I am arguing that SOME people are NOT capable of changing for the better. SOME people only change for the worst.
Violent crimes are also not “making a mistake”, ffs. They are a conscious act to decide to severely harm another person. In this dudes case he consciously made the decision to try to end another person’s life by violently beating them with a baseball bat. After having repeated other offenses of violently attacking others and being given chances to reform.
And even then he was given incredible leniency by having the charge dropped from assault with a deadly weapon to attempted assault causing substantial bodily harm.
Plenty of violent crimes are mistakes. Plenty of people are not actually violent during a crime and charged as accessories, thereby making them as violent in the eyes of the law (and by extension, the layman).
And I quoted you for the phrase "turn their life around".
But we can still ignore the rest of what I'm saying if you want: jails aren't for what you said they were for. If you want, I can offer you another word though - prison. Which is where you actually go in the states to be locked away for life.
Which is still not good and does more harm than anything else. So you had the words wrong and you are pushing a childish, vengeful, harmful view that only exists to make you and others like you feel good. Most of the developed world disagrees with your small thinking and can back it up with proof.
I don't think I have a problem with reading, words, or their meanings. Do you?
My brother in Christ, again you need reading comprehension.
Why don’t you go look at the comment I replied to before you jumped in. I’ll wait.
Read it? So you see where it says it first and I replied to that?
I’m done with you here. You can keep defending violent scum. Hope you sing the same tune when it’s someone you love affected by a repeat violent offender that was repeatedly let out.
Jails aren't prisons. People can change. Both of those statements being true mean that your original comment that started this chain of events is false.
the only part i disagree with is "entire adult life"
at 30 dude hasn't had an entire adult life yet so that seems prejudicial
The lengths some people go to defend criminals is worrying. Dude proved he hasn't reformed by leaping across the bench and attacking the judge sentencing him, after pleading his case talking about how he is reformed, and you're still trying to defend him.
Perhaps consider the impact this clearly unreformed criminal will have on the impact of society and perhaps his other future victims.
FWIW, I'm not defending him at all, I'm saying he hasn't been reformed.
I'm saying he needs a lot more work to get there.
They weren't reformed. Jumping the judge proves that.
You don't want people to be able to ditch judges they don't like through means of violence.
I think she deserves a rematch and the chance to teach this idiot a lesson.
Can't imagine another judge being excited to deal with this guy, maybe she's the only one with a score to settle
I score to settle means that she will most likely be unable to rule impartially. This increases the chances of her ruling being found cruel and unusual, thereby increasing the chances of a successful appeal.
Would it influence the judge? Maybe, but modern jurisprudence strongly disfavors anything that enables litigants to choose their own tribunal. The question of whether the American legal system does a good job of that notwithstanding, the problem is that if you enable a defendant to get another roll of the judge dice by assaulting the first assigned judge, you've created a perverse incentive to assault court personnel in a non-zero amount of cases. You don't want to allow for the possibility of rewarding a defendant for bad behavior. Consider:
Capital defendant is on trial for murder. The first judge they draw is strongly in favor of the extreme penalty. The alternative with a different judge would be life--maybe even with the possibility of parole, depending on the jurisdiction. If convicted, the sentence for assaulting a judge is always going to be less than death. Ergo, if you're the defendant in this case and have the opportunity to assault the judge, knowing that doing so gets you a new judge, then rationally you should assault the judge. Courts generally expect litigants to be rational. That is, if the penalty for x is less than the risk value of y, a reasonable litigant will do x, even if x is jumping over the bench to take a swing at the judge.
That's no good, and it's not a new phenomenon. Usually this kind of "forum selection legal game theory" applies in questions wherein a litigant has the choice to initiate an action before one of a number of courts, and forum (and judge) shopping is a major topic in legal academia. [It's not an accident that Aileen Cannon is Trump's judge of choice.]
All of that said, should this judge recuse herself? Personally I don't think so, for the aforesaid reasons, but I also don't want to give the impression that it's cut and dry. Being pragmatic, many judges wouldn't want the hassle of being personally invested in this kind of debate. Some might stand on the principle (and they would be right), but in my experience, most judges would rather take a punch in the face than be reversed on appeal.
That makes a lot of sense. I guess she should stay.
Because that’s not what impartial means. Impartial doesn’t mean dispassionate, hardly any judge sits a bench and not feel something about at least ten percent of their cases.
Impartial means not allowing that emotion to be the main driver. Judges and juries are not robots and the Court system takes this facet into account in appeals.
But, if some dude had jumped at you like a flying squirrel, attacking you and pulling out some of your hair, do you think that you’d be able to make any determinations about that individual without emotion?
She should recuse herself since she’s once of his assault victims.
She had already determined the sentencing, she just needs to deliver it without getting beaten up. If any defendant could get a new judge by assaulting the one assigned, it would bring in a new era of judge shopping.
I think he needs a good long stay in prison. He's already a convicted felon and this just proved he's not fit to be in society. The judge is well within her rights to sentence him to life if she chooses.
I think he deserves life in prison as well, but that should be sentenced by another judge.
Yeah. It comes with being a sociopath. Have you met lawyers?
Again you're mistaking what impartial means. It does not mean zero emotion, it means that emotions cannot be the primary factor.
The judge is a human being, expecting zero emotion is not having a real world view of the court system. Human beings, that feel emotion dictate justice for other human beings. Justice is not an innate construct of the universe, it exists merely as an idea within our mind and nothing more.
There is no such thing as absolute objective justice nor is there absolute subjective justice. It is a balance and each step of the way in the system is to ensure that balance. But there's no magic string of words that instruct how to keep that balance, it's just up to the minds of those that preserve justice to do such.