Lock up judges who release predators
By adamg - Thu, 02/21/2008 - 11:17am.
Jules Crittenden says it's time to do something about Massachusetts judges who release predators who then prey on new victims:
... Lock up the judges. There's a sound basis in law for it. You drive the getaway car in a bank robbery, embark on a criminal venture in which someone else carries the gun and pulls the trigger, you're just as guilty, and will do time. Even if you didn't think anyone was going to get killed. ...
| 
| 
Utterly stupid
It's hard to know where to start analyzing the fallacies. We can start with the fact that the analogy between not giving a sufficiently harsh sentence and driving a getaway car is completely invalid. The claim that all "sexual offenders" -- a term which covers everything from child rape to urinating in public -- are inevitably repeat offenders is nonsense. The threat of prison for leniency is an outrageous concept, even when the leniency is wrong.
You are correct
I've worked with a number of DMH clients who are required to register as sex offenders because they urinated in public. And one whose conviction was wandering outside naked while actively psychotic (I'd really love to meet the person who was apparently sexually victimized by seeing that psychotic people sometimes don't think to wear clothing).
Also, recidivism rate for sex offenders is quite low. Actual figures depend on what types of offenses we're looking at and what types of treatment we're comparing and whatnot, but overall, it's lower than many crimes. Certain offenses do have high recidivism rates, particularly when the offender also meets a diagnosis of pedophilia. The majority though do show remorse and actually many show considerable insight into their behavior and can find other ways to get those needs met once they've worked hard in treatment. The offender treatment program where I worked had a recidivism rate of less than 1% at the time I was there.
Jules Crittenden doesn't understand the role of the judiciary
Judges have to be protected against lawsuits and criminal prosecution for their decisions (even wrong ones), or else they can't do their work properly at all. There are other proper ways to deal with, and possibly remove, judges who consistently err.
What about bungled investigations?
Sometimes Judges have no choice but to let people go because somebody else has screwed up so badly that there is no legal case.
Does this "jail the judges" guy get the whole State Crime Lab mess? Does the name "Newman Flannagan" mean anything here? Other screw ups, dust ups, and messups we can name that mean that justice isn't served?
Typical Mob Rule Attitude
That's why we need an independent judiciary, to save us from people like Mr. Crittenden. When applied to a particular case, 9 times out of 10, comments like these are made by persons unfamiliar with the applicable law being applied, the facts of the case, who merely disagree with the result.
Review of these matters should be left to appellate courts, and not the misinformed.