recently while in court with a friend, the judge stated that a crime that he was sentencing at the time was a pet peeve of his.I've always thought that a judge was suppose to be unbiased.The man's attorney didn't seem bothered by this, so I was a little confused.Anyone know if this was legal?
2007-05-11 17:11:15 · 9 answers · asked by karen b 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Judges should never give their personal opinions. They are there to enforce the constitution, not their moral values. I would talk to the media about this, because what that judge did was dead wrong. Its scary ti think that morons yield such power in our formerly free country.
2007-05-11 17:19:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Once the trial is over and it is just the sentencing that has to be dealt with, the Judge can say anything he likes. He does not have to remain unbiased at that point because the person has already been found guilty. At that point it is up to him to hand down a sentence and it is very common for a Judge to speak their mind about the case. They have no more fear of influencing a jury as that part is over. During the trial itself, the Judge remains unbiased. If he does not, the attorneys can ask him to recuse himself.
2007-05-11 17:21:48 · answer #2 · answered by nana4dakids 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well lets put you in the judge's place.
How many murderers do you think you will let off with a light sentence? How many do you think you'll throw the book at?
How long until you get sick and tired of seeing people found guilty of check fraud? Manufacturing meth? Rape?
It is all relative. To be honest, whether it is a pet peeve or not, judges are influenced by the crimes as much as who commits them.
2007-05-11 17:39:59 · answer #3 · answered by Kevin k 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think if you work the restraining orders and anti-harassment hearings enough you'll be quite entertained with plenty of personal opinion. Those judges develop quite a few pet peeves.
It's perfectly legal though and our federal supreme court is known for swinging left or right on certain issues depending on who is in office. Of course it's personal opinion oriented, but they are required to take all the facts into consideration and look to the totality of the circumstances.
2007-05-11 17:37:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there is a way you can sit in a courtroom, listen to the whole story and remain unbiased. You would have to be deaf not to form an opinion. After all he is the one in the end that gives the sentence and I believe how he thinks and feels, carry's a lot of weight when he sentence anyone.
2007-05-11 17:18:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
they should remain unbiased but they epress their feelings all the time. even though they should keep theri mouths shut and just judge it on a case by ase basis depending on the evidence.
2007-05-11 17:15:12 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
justice is supposed to be blind, he should keep his mouth shut. Judges however are above the law, they can say and do just about anything.
2007-05-11 17:19:26 · answer #7 · answered by Reisnoh 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Judgement is outcome of personal feelings only.
2007-05-11 17:21:02 · answer #8 · answered by Brave 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes
2007-05-11 17:22:16 · answer #9 · answered by pantyhose_creature 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋