Is it? Is it, really?
I disagree.
I don't just disagree kinda - I disagree vehemently!
Judges, for the most part, are so detached from everyday society that they may as well live in the same prisons that they don't send the crims to.
"We will be sitting again this week. It's very simple - get rid of suspended sentencing."
What is this rubbish about suspended sentencing anyway? Who came up with this crock of shit? Was it created by some fool magistrate who wants to pretend that he's some kind of touchy-feely social worker and that every tortured soul can be saved?
"You've been a bad bugger lately and I've seen you in my court several times before even though I'm not allowed to make reference to that fact or consider it in making a judgement. Since you say that you have remorse and that you feel bad about the other 15 times you committed the same crime, I will let you out onto the streets and take you on your word that you won't do it again.
"What's that?
"Ahhh - who cares about what law-abiding society thinks - they're not going to break the law as retribution for my stupidity now, will they?
"Go now - be free and do as you will. I'm a judge and I answer to nobody!"
Can I be a judge too? I'm sure that I can teach myself to not know how much a loaf of bread costs anymore or that it's OK to drive the car after half-a-carafe of sherry or cognac (gift from an equally inept politician for letting his son off the hook).
I know for a fact that I will be able to handle the $215,000 a year that a normal scungy magistrate makes (in WA, anyway) not counting the car and kickbacks.
Mr Hulls said continued professional development would help judicial officers respond to community expectations.
"The Bracks government is committed to modernising the legal system," he said in the Herald Sun.
So, which is it? Helping judicial officers respond to community expectations or having the Brack's government 'modernise' the legal system?
These are mutually exclusive events going on what I hear is going on in 'Brackistan'.
2 comments:
We have loony activist judges here in America too. Their brains must rot sitting up there in their ivory towers.
By "modernise" they mean, for example, that they're going to teach judges to be culturally *sensitive*. You know, like when a twelve year old girl from *another culture* is raped, a judge will know that the *other* culture doesn't really think it's a big deal to be raped - because it happens so often - the judge can then take account of that in his verdict or sentencing.
Yep, we need more of that in the courts.
Stoopid me: when I first heard about the re-education of judges, I though "beaut", then I found out they meant politically correct brain washing, rather than a re-eduction so that judges understand what the public expects for upholding community standards and what a healthy but fair society requires.
Post a Comment