How The Criminal Justice System Ought To Work

[the_std]

I came across a CBC article today that discusses a judge's ruling on a man named Jesse Armitage. He's a native man who has spent his life dealing in minor criminal matters. The judge took the time to delve into his family history, his upbringing and the challenges he'd faced in his life to get perspective on why he engages in these behaviors.

It is a touching, well-thought out document written in plain language so that everyone can understand it. Reading it made me a bit teary-eyed, because it is an excellent example of how our justice system should operate - not evaluating a person based on the instance that brought them to the court, but making decisions based on that person and their life experiences, then choosing consequences that will allow that person to reform themselves and become a productive and happy member of society.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how viable this strategy would be if it were implemented on a wider scale, as I can imagine it was a fairly time-intensive piece to write. However, it makes me hopeful that this method could be adapted and deployed on a wider scale, to bring more empathy and understanding into the justice process.

I can also see it not sitting well with the faction of the population who view the justice system as a punishment machine, rather than a tool to improve society. And I'm aware that not everyone in the criminal justice system will embrace change with the open arms that Jesse Armitage has - not everyone wants to be helped. But wouldn't it be worth it for those people that do want help getting out of their current lifestyles?

[s_stabeler]

while I agree that it's a good idea to take into account someone's circumstances, it would need to be done extremely carefully- the problem being that it might give some judges the excuse to start imposing unfair penalties on people. ( by that, I mean for instance a judge deciding that all teenagers convicted in his court need the book thrown at them to "scare them straight" or a racist judge giving harsher penalties to a black offender)

[the_std]

s_stabeler, I'm not sure that I get your point. Why would this type of situation make it okay for judges to treat all members of a particular group (the teens or black offenders in your example) in one way?

[s_stabeler]

Basically, what I am pointing out is that if a judge is allowed to sentence an offender based on their background, then it's possible they let their own biases cloud their reasoning when they decide on an appropriate punishment. ( for en example, if the kid plays video games, the judge deciding it means the kid is likely to be violent, and punishing the kid accordingly)

I'm NOT claiming it would be OK, but that judges aren't perfect, and as such, it's not reasonable to assume that judges will always rule on an offender's circumstances without bias. Hence recommending SCRUTINY if such a change was made.

Oh, and there's another problem- quite a few court systems are swamped as it is. If you are going to have judges do an investigation into an offender's past, etc, then it may well cause even worse problems.

[Hyena Dandy]

They already DO. It's not like judges can't see black people or whatnot.

[Gravekeeper]

I feel compelled to point out Canadian judges are not elected officials. We're talking two rather different justice and policing cultures. A Canadian judge can engage in something like this without needing to worry or consider his re-election chances. For a US judge a ruling like this, especially on behalf of a minority, could be a complete career death sentence depending on what state he was in. =/

[Hyena Dandy]

Well that's true in a large number of US states, but not all of them. I always forget that they're elected, because in my state they are appointed.

[Gravekeeper]

Well that's true in a large number of US states, but not all of them. I always forget that they're elected, because in my state they are appointed.

Yes, hence I said depending on the state. What State are you in that has a pure appointment system? Some states do have an appointment system but the judges are still subject to retention elections. A few have crap like life tenure though.

I can't dig up anything that identifies any one state that doesn't have some level of shenanigans going on.