A Judge's revealing Comments

[ToadBrother]

What you fail to comprehend is that a judge has absolutely no special training, skills or ability in making judgements. A judge has legal training - the same as any other lawyer - but in no way, shape or form is that legal acumen likely to be one iota better (it might not even be as good) as the lawyers facing him in court. But when a judge sentences someone there's a range of possible sentences, and most of what he decides is simply from their own personal feelings and thoughts, not from any legal acumen.

One judge sentences a person to prison. The other gives them a conditional discharge. Same person, same crime, different beliefs from the judges. Both sentences are legally permissable, but only one is the right decision.

But the point is that he does have legal training. A guy who pulls wood off a green chain does not.

[Wilber]

I don't want a judge doing heart surgery, and so I also don't want a maintenance worker who thinks they know better telling a judge how they should have ruled.

Judges sentence within parameters prescribed by the law. Which end of those parameters they apply are based on their own precedents and opinions, not the law. They are just as subjective as anything you or I could come up with. It ain't heart surgery or anything like it.

[Smallc]

It ain't heart surgery or anything like it.

And you can say that because you've done both, right?

[Smallc]

What you fail to comprehend is that a judge has absolutely no special training, skills or ability in making judgements. A judge has legal training

[Wilber]

And you can say that because you've done both, right?

You can say it is because you have done both, right? Fixing a heart is not about opinions, you either do it the right way or the patient is dead.

[Smallc]

You can say it is because you have done both, right? Fixing a heart is not about opinions, you either do it the right way or the patient is dead.

Uh huh, and that's why a judge shouldn't do heart surgery. It's also why a doctor shouldn't make judgments.

[Wilber]

Uh huh, and that's why a judge shouldn't do heart surgery. It's also why a doctor shouldn't make judgments.

Not at all, they are two very different things. There is nothing technical about handing down a sentence, nor are there any physical skills required. A judges legal training is centered around determining guilt. They aren't required to get a diploma in sentencing to be raised to the bench. Doctors on the other hand require special training for every specialty they practice. A judge requires no special training to pass a sentence other than knowing what the sentencing range is and precedent, which was determined by people no more qualified than him.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Wilber

[Smallc]

There is nothing technical about handing down a sentence, nor are there any physical skills required.

There's nothing technical? Really? That depends on what you consider technical. I get the general feeling that you feel judges are lazy people with easy jobs. You also seem to imply that judges aren't qualified any more than you or I would be, which is rather arrogant given the years of post secondary and legal training as well as legal experience that judges possess.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Smallc

[Wilber]

There's nothing technical? Really? That depends on what you consider technical. I get the general feeling that you feel judges are lazy people with easy jobs. You also seem to imply that judges aren't qualified any more than you or I would be, which is rather arrogant given the years of post secondary and legal training as well as legal experience that judges possess.

Far from it, I don't believe judges are lazy and I think their jobs are very difficult. They are very good at conducting their courts because that is where their experience and training is but we throw them in cold turkey when it comes to handing down sentences. All they have to go on is what others with the same experience have done before. Perhaps we are being unfair to them by not requiring more training and guidance when it comes to sentencing.

If sentencing was technical we would be better off having technicians doing it.

Edited December 24, 2009 by Wilber

[Argus]

But the point is that he does have legal training. A guy who pulls wood off a green chain does not.

Yes, but the legal training has nothing to do with his ability or skill to assess a given individual and decide whether to give him or her a low or moderate sentence (we won't talk about severe sentences since Canadian judges aren't familiar with the term. Legal training does not grant wisdom or good judgement. You either have those or you don't, and many Canadian judges appear not to.

[capricorn]

Yes, but the legal training has nothing to do with his ability or skill to assess a given individual and decide whether to give him or her a low or moderate sentence (we won't talk about severe sentences since Canadian judges aren't familiar with the term.

In criminal law, legal training also equips budding lawyers with the required knowledge to defend accused individuals even when the evidence is damning to their clients. As you know, lawyers don't have to believe in their clients' innocence because they have a professional duty to help them beat the rap. As far as I know, defense lawyers make more money than prosecutors, who are paid through the public purse. (Legal aid also provides defense attorneys with a stream of cases, but that's another issue). That in itself is enough to lure graduating lawyers into becoming defense attorneys. So it would not be surprising that the pool of defense lawyers is larger and more of them make it to the judge's chair. I wonder how much of this bias in favour of the accused is carried over into the sentencing phase.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Lawyers.....its just about time to deal with them, after the bankers, but still soon I think.

[Smallc]

And what exactly should we do with them?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Do you really want to know?

[Smallc]

Yes, I do, because I think that our society would have a very difficult time functioning without them and I'm wondering what could be done to 'improve' things.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes, I do, because I think that our society would have a very difficult time functioning without them and I'm wondering what could be done to 'improve' things.

Have ALL criminal lawyers work for the government. The judge draws two names by lottery, as close to equal in experience as possible, as in computer matched. One lawyer prosecutes the other defends. Level the playing field in criminal court, literally equal representation.

The rest of the lawyers deal with contracts in the private sector, leave them be. As for barristers attending the Queens Bench, that is where we need reforms so the poor and the rich alike have the same chance in the eyes of the law.

[Argus]

Yes, I do, because I think that our society would have a very difficult time functioning without them and I'm wondering what could be done to 'improve' things.

Somehow, Europe gets by with far fewer lawyers than North America, Asia with even fewer.

The fact is the more lawyers you have the more lawyers you "need".

Likewise, the fewer lawyers you have, the fewer you will need.

I'd do away with much of the work of lawyers and judges and use tribunals made up of laymen and a greatly expanded use of JoPs to hear cases. Only appeals would go to those highly paid judges, and only the more severe criminal cases would to go those heavily paid lawyers, and not just for criminal cases, but for most divorces and lawsuits as well. A trio of justices can hear a lawsuit and decide the fairness, the rightness, if you will, of a case a lot faster without going over all the legalese.

[Smallc]

So you don't think that the language of the law is important?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Somehow, Europe gets by with far fewer lawyers than North America, Asia with even fewer.

The fact is the more lawyers you have the more lawyers you "need".

Likewise, the fewer lawyers you have, the fewer you will need.

I'd do away with much of the work of lawyers and judges and use tribunals made up of laymen and a greatly expanded use of JoPs to hear cases. Only appeals would go to those highly paid judges, and only the more severe criminal cases would to go those heavily paid lawyers, and not just for criminal cases, but for most divorces and lawsuits as well. A trio of justices can hear a lawsuit and decide the fairness, the rightness, if you will, of a case a lot faster without going over all the legalese.

Let me throw this out there, perhaps the elected representative for the area should have something to do with this. They could be an appeals type of judge. Make them accountable to their constituents in a new manner. Tribunals could be elected and compensated on a case by case basis, covering lost wages from employment earning.

[Smallc]

Make them accountable to their constituents in a new manner.

Sorry Jerry, but that's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. I don't want a politician having anything to do with the dispensation of justice. Politicians are often forced to do what's popular, whether it should be done or not.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Sorry Jerry, but that's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. I don't want a politician having anything to do with the dispensation of justice. Politicians are often forced to do what's popular, whether it should be done or not.

You don't trust the partisan dog you elected to do the right thing for your fellow constituents? Why did you folks elect that person then, if you can't trust them that is.

[Smallc]

I trust them to be politicians, and I don't trust them to be much else. I am very opposed to electing anyone to do judging.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I trust them to be politicians, and I don't trust them to be much else. I am very opposed to electing anyone to do judging.

Why on earth not? These are the guys that write the damned laws to start with! Who else knows why the laws were written, what they intended, and what interpretation can be made from them than the authors of that legislation?

Lets review your thinking for a minute. You don't trust the politicians to do much of anything besides be politicians. That being the case, how does this impact the role of cabinet ministers and the like, because those are administrative positions. Which is a far cry from just holding a political seat in the house. What are you getting at here? Perhaps that the system is messed up from the top down to the bottom and that numerous reforms are needed to address the problems?

[Smallc]

I don't see reform as needed the way you do in that situation. In this country, administration is something that is done for them ost part by politicians.

[Argus]

Sorry Jerry, but that's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. I don't want a politician having anything to do with the dispensation of justice. Politicians are often forced to do what's popular, whether it should be done or not.

How is this any worse than judges having to follow precise legalistic formulas, regardless of whether it's right or not?

If the mechanism of legal policy says that the government or one of its agents mistakenly (however honestly) violated some aspect of the complex policies surrounding the acquisition of evidence a judge often has no alternative but to free the person in question, regardless of the certainty of guilt, regardless of the injustice of doing so.

I haven't heard an awful lot of complaints about JoPs going wild and doing crazy things with their power. It seems to me that a few of them can decide on the fate of a mugger or shoplifter or flasher or burbglar or pickpocket or drunk with a long record without need of complex legalistic arguments just as fairly and sensibly - if not more so than a judge with the aid of high priced Crowns and Defence lawyers. I put it to you that you don't need years of legal training to decide such things.