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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (8523)	1/9/2006 3:18:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541556

I think judges generally would not hand down decisions like this, but judges (and juries for that matter) are human and subject to all the follies, mistakes, and foolishness that being human entails. They can find guilty people to be innocent and innocent people to be guilty. They can also make the correct determination of guilt but give punishments that are far to harsh or far to lenient. I'm not sure that this particular case even remotely approaches the norm. In response to such aberrations number of states (and the federal government for federal crimes) have instituted sentencing guidelines (mandatory or just recommendations) and/or higher minimum punishments. There is a downside to restricting judges in this way but this specific case shows how there is an upside as well. I wonder if a judge who "no longer believes in punishment" could be impeached, or if a recall election is possible for Vermont judges. If this judge does have to face re-election, or has a limited term and would have to be reappointed than he won't be a judge after the end of his term. If he has a lifetime seat on the court and if he didn't violate the standards for impeachment in VT (if for example there is no mandatory minimum for child molestation or rape in VT), than I imagine defense attorneys are going to try to get their clients in to this guy's courtroom. Tim