Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (52544)	7/6/2002 7:07:55 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

If memory serves, it was not simply those who did not like the death penalty, but those who would not support it. I think his point was that if it's part of the statutes of a state, a judge either has to support and enforce it, as he or she must support and enforce ALL the laws, even ones they may not like, or the judge shouldn't be a judge. Otherwise we get the same basic philosophy of some Southern judges during the first part of the last century, who wouldn't find a white man guilty of raping a back woman no matter what. Or if a jury did manage to convict them, the judge would sentence them to time served, even if it was only an hour in custody. In another area, some judges up to not so long ago believed there was no such thing as marital rape; if you were married, the man had a right to congugal relations, and if he had to take them by force, that was his right. Judges will, of course, have personal opinions about a lot of things, but as judges it's their job either to enforce or support ALL the laws the legislature (or the people through referendum) pass (unless they're unconstitutional), or the judge has to stop being a judge. While that principle may seem controversial when applied to the death penalty, it is a policy that makes a great deal of sense.