Judge sentences woman to 300 days behind bars after she talks back to him
90 replies, posted
[QUOTE=redBadger;50143543]Judge was fair imo. The way these things work in American court is you keep your mouth shut and follow the rules, and only talk when you're asked to.
Even if she was held for 30 days she could easily have been bailed out. She shouldn't have acted like a fool in court and shut her mouth after the first 30 day sentance[/QUOTE]
what kind of justice is it where a judge can arbitrarily increase jailtime like that
no wonder the american legal and prison system is so fucked up and dysfunctional
The first one was justified. She just admitted she was going to go against a court order to the judge's face. The rest was basically allowing a woman who clearly does not have a lot of ability or forethought to sort herself out to dig her life into a deeper hole from a few seconds of hot-headed stupidity.
the thing that was most amazing is how the judge actually lost his composure and started stumbling over his own words. this is what happens when you elect your judges too, you're already setting them up to be biased and to affect their decision making
:snip:
[QUOTE=pentium;50144511]
You tell someone of authority to to fuck off and you get bitchslapped. Who would of guessed! It's almost like there's laws against being vulgar to other people.[/QUOTE]
Oh my god, are you purposefully ignoring what people are saying.
Her talking back to a judge has gotten her nearly an entire [I]year in prison[/I]. Exercising the first amendment has just gotten her sent to fucking [B][I]jail[/I][/B] because this judge was such a pussy
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50145623]Oh my god, are you purposefully ignoring what people are saying.
Her talking back to a judge has gotten her nearly an entire [I]year in prison[/I]. Exercising the first amendment has just gotten her sent to fucking [B][I]jail[/I][/B] because this judge was such a pussy[/QUOTE]
Why do people keep saying she lost a year of her life?
[QUOTE=Snapster;50143910]How is she gonna respect a no contact order if she won't even listen to the judge and back talking him. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
This is what brought this video attention again.[/QUOTE]
As the above shows, she was already being sentenced for her remaining 212 days. her "fuck you" got her an extra 90, not a whole fucking 300.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50145453]the thing that was most amazing is how the judge actually lost his composure and started stumbling over his own words. this is what happens when you elect your judges too, you're already setting them up to be biased and to affect their decision making[/QUOTE]
Elected judges is such a retarded concept. If you watch John Oliver video on it, any bozo on the street can have a decent chance to be elected if they just pretend to look tough on crime.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50145623]Oh my god, are you purposefully ignoring what people are saying.
Her talking back to a judge has gotten her nearly an entire [I]year in prison[/I]. Exercising the first amendment has just gotten her sent to fucking [B][I]jail[/I][/B] because this judge was such a pussy[/QUOTE]
[quote]Court records indicate that after Ebony Burks, 32, had served 88 days of her jail sentence she was released in December to participate in the residential Key for Women Program. But Burks lasted less than a month in the program, according to court records.
“The defendant has been asked to leave treatment due to her negative behavior,” a Jan. 2 docket entry said.[/quote]
Was she expressing her first amendment while in that program too? or maybe that's the type of person she is.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50145623]Oh my god, are you purposefully ignoring what people are saying.
Her talking back to a judge has gotten her nearly an entire [I]year in prison[/I]. Exercising the first amendment has just gotten her sent to fucking [B][I]jail[/I][/B] because this judge was such a pussy[/QUOTE]
You don't talk back to a judge though and only address them when addressed. That's how the court works.
In a full court you cant just say whatever you want whenever. There's a very strict structure that goes into every case. In the end, everyone including lawyers, are at the mercy of the judge.
That type of behavior is what gets cases thrown.
[QUOTE=redBadger;50145741]You don't talk back to a judge though and only address them when addressed. That's how the court works.
In a full court you cant just say whatever you want whenever. There's a very strict structure that goes into every case. In the end, everyone including lawyers, are at the mercy of the judge.
That type of behavior is what gets cases thrown.[/QUOTE]
the judge in the video literally let his emotions cloud his decision making. he arbitrarily extended a penalty on someone and lost his composure
i don't know about you, but that is not what a judge should be. contempt of court is something too easily abused in common law systems
judges should be appointed on basis of their merit and impartiality. they shouldn't be petulant manbabies who were elected by people because they promised to put black people into prison for longer
[QUOTE=Chaitin;50145659]Elected judges is such a retarded concept. If you watch John Oliver video on it, any bozo on the street can have a decent chance to be elected if they just pretend to look tough on crime.[/QUOTE]
IDK about in canada but Judges here have [url=http://learn.org/articles/Judge_Become_a_Judge_in_5_Steps.html]pretty heavy requirements[/url] before they can be elected/appointed.
To be fair to the judge the lady's kind of a piece of shit and proved she wasn't willing to play ball at any point. 300 days is harsh but she was being (and apparently still is) asinine.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50145908]IDK about in canada but Judges here have [url=http://learn.org/articles/Judge_Become_a_Judge_in_5_Steps.html]pretty heavy requirements[/url] before they can be elected/appointed.[/QUOTE]
it's not the qualification in itself, it's the fact that judges are even elected is the problem. judges could be subject to a billion requirements, but as long as they are elected it will undermine the legal system
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50145905]the judge in the video literally let his emotions cloud his decision making. he arbitrarily extended a penalty on someone and lost his composure
i don't know about you, but that is not what a judge should be. contempt of court is something too easily abused in common law systems
judges should be appointed on basis of their merit and impartiality. they shouldn't be petulant manbabies who were elected by people because they promised to put black people into prison for longer[/QUOTE]
But if someone gets so heated up that they're willing to argue and start heated exchanges in a courtroom, they're letting on that they should likely be kept for longer.
Sure, the judge was being a dickhead by provoking her, but he's not a criminal and she is. If she's so hot tempered that she'd take the bait in a court room where her direct future is going to be decided for her, she deserves more time behind bars to cool off and get a shot at understanding she was a god damn cunt to begin with.
Basically he doesn't have to prove shit. She has to prove she's capable of staying in society and respecting the rules, and she fucked that up multiple times.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50145933]But if someone gets so heated up that they're willing to argue and start heated exchanges in a courtroom, they're letting on that they should likely be kept for longer.
Sure, the judge was being a dickhead by provoking her, but he's not a criminal and she is. If she's so hot tempered that she'd take the bait in a court room where her direct future is going to be decided for her, she deserves more time behind bars to cool off and get a shot at understanding she was a god damn cunt to begin with.
Basically he doesn't have to prove shit. She has to prove she's capable of staying in society and respecting the rules, and she fucked that up multiple times.[/QUOTE]
Someone being stupid and not realizing the legal authority the judge has over them is not the same thing as deserving a year of jail time. Being upset at losing your freedom for loss of composure [I]after[/I] the appropriate sentence was already determined is no reason to be jailed for a year.
I don't think you understand how much time a year is or what it does to someone's life. Maybe you would like to experience that?
[editline]16th April 2016[/editline]
acting like she had it coming is so fucking absurd and really shows off how unhinged from reality you are to not recognize the gravity of what just happened
300 days, nearly a year
That's almost the same you get for killing someone in some countries, or for doing a more serious crime.
[editline]17th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=redBadger;50145741]You don't talk back to a judge though and only address them when addressed. That's how the court works.
In a full court you cant just say whatever you want whenever. There's a very strict structure that goes into every case. In the end, everyone including lawyers, are at the mercy of the judge.
That type of behavior is what gets cases thrown.[/QUOTE]
I can agree that its how a court works, but that almost feels like Saudi Arabia levels of sentences, like getting stoned or your hand chopped off for stealing a loaf of bread to not die of hunger.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50146535]I can agree that its how a court works, but that almost feels like Saudi Arabia levels of sentences, like getting stoned or your hand chopped off for stealing a loaf of bread to not die of hunger.[/QUOTE]
This sentence is ridiculous but it's nothing like that.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50145920]it's not the qualification in itself, it's the fact that judges are even elected is the problem. judges could be subject to a billion requirements, but as long as they are elected it will undermine the legal system[/QUOTE]
Isn't electing them the only viable way to try and control corruption within the judicial branch though?
Like, imagine how much more easily you could corrupt the court systems if judges were appointed via secret circles of influence and the public had no say. I don't see an alternative that isn't inherently likely to be exploited in a way that would produce worse results than election. The only problem with election being that people don't really care enough to learn about the most of the judges that are running and what influence they may have.
Well here's one way to look at it, she now has 300 days of free health care, lodging, and food.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50146683]Isn't electing them the only viable way to try and control corruption within the judicial branch though?
Like, imagine how much more easily you could corrupt the court systems if judges were appointed via secret circles of influence and the public had no say. I don't see an alternative that isn't inherently likely to be exploited in a way that would produce worse results than election. The only problem with election being that people don't really care enough to learn about the most of the judges that are running and what influence they may have.[/QUOTE]
Here in Canada though, corruption in the judicial branch is unlikely to happen because our Canadian courts have established very strict rules on how a judge should be nominated by the head of government, how much they should be paid and when they should retire. These rules are enforced by our executive branch and the moment they fail to execute their obligation, it's a constitutional violation that can be struck down by our supreme court. I can guarantee you that judges here can never go corrupt and we will never feel the need to elect judges, because for a number of years we never stopped increasing their salary WAYY above the standard of living. If they are underpaid or not paid enough, it's a constitutional violation. So even if we believe that their salary is ridiculous compared to others judges from other countries, our Supreme Court can say "nope too low, higher please!". Also judges can be fired for misconduct, all you need to do is file a complaint to their association and they will handle the case.
What I don't understand is why judges (and even prosecutors in some states) should be elected by the common folks who are totally clueless about the law, not to mention all the political influences. It's like handing my resume to a jury and they have to decide whether I have the qualifications to be a judge. Judges, lawyers and legal academics are in a much better position to recommend judges. They can evaluate his judgment and his competence since they know the profession inside out.
Yeah but then your executive branch controls your judicial branch to a certain extent, doesn't it?
So corruption starting in your executive branch could easily and rapidly spread and link into your judicial branch.
[QUOTE=pentium;50144511]Find a mod. Any of the mods here. Tell them "fuck you" and see what happens.
Better yet, in the event you are banned and you make an appeal, be just as vulgar to them and watch what happens.
You tell someone of authority to to fuck off and you get bitchslapped. Who would of guessed! It's almost like there's laws against being vulgar to other people.[/QUOTE]
fuck garry though
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50147193]Yeah but then your executive branch controls your judicial branch to a certain extent, doesn't it?
So corruption starting in your executive branch could easily and rapidly spread and link into your judicial branch.[/QUOTE]
In theory yes, but our executive branches have to be so corrupted that all the anti-corruption mechanism our courts have created would fall apart. It could happen, but it is extremely difficult since our judges are selected by the executives but reviewed by a independent committee composed of experts, lawyers, etc (and these people are selected by the legislative branch).
Well it certainly works better for now, hope it stays that way, at least one country on this continent should exercise a little sanity.
Still I believe that elected judges are more prone to corruption, because to run for the office you need money and campaigning. When money is involved, corruption is likely to happen, no matter how small the chances are.
[QUOTE=redBadger;50143543]Judge was fair imo. The way these things work in American court is you keep your mouth shut and follow the rules, and only talk when you're asked to.
Even if she was held for 30 days she could easily have been bailed out. She shouldn't have acted like a fool in court and shut her mouth after the first 30 day sentance[/QUOTE]
I was under the impression that the way it works in America is that Judges are supposed to make their judgement objectively.
Well, this is why you don't verbally attack authority figures. You have to be pretty stupid to talk back to a judge or a police officer.
[QUOTE=pentium;50144511]Find a mod. Any of the mods here. Tell them "fuck you" and see what happens.
Better yet, in the event you are banned and you make an appeal, be just as vulgar to them and watch what happens.
You tell someone of authority to to fuck off and you get bitchslapped. Who would of guessed! It's almost like there's laws against being vulgar to other people.[/QUOTE]
lol you're seriously comparing the american justice system with the way someone runs his web domain.
[editline]17th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mindset;50148392]Well, this is why you don't verbally attack authority figures. You have to be pretty stupid to talk back to a judge or a police officer.[/QUOTE]
Why should that be the case? They're people too. If they can't handle emotion they really aren't fit to be in a position that recquires objectivity.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;50146683]Isn't electing them the only viable way to try and control corruption within the judicial branch though?
Like, imagine how much more easily you could corrupt the court systems if judges were appointed via secret circles of influence and the public had no say. I don't see an alternative that isn't inherently likely to be exploited in a way that would produce worse results than election. The only problem with election being that people don't really care enough to learn about the most of the judges that are running and what influence they may have.[/QUOTE]
Not really. America is unique in that it's the only country to elect judges.
The fact it's partisan means that judges are implicitly expected to change their decisions and judgements based upon what voters demand rather than justice.
Replace it with a system for appointments through the civil service rather than the ballot box. People vote for the laws they want enforced. Separation of powers means that ideally we shouldn't be both the legislators and judges
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50148397]lol you're seriously comparing the american justice system with the way someone runs his web domain.
[editline]17th April 2016[/editline]
Why should that be the case? They're people too. If they can't handle emotion they really aren't fit to be in a position that recquires objectivity.[/QUOTE]
If you think the court of law is based on objectivity you've got another thing coming
basically what it boils down to is that you don't argue. he went overboard, but she got out of her seat and started mouthing off during her pretrial while actively resisting restraint ('Get your hands off me!) from a police officer, all while saying things like 'Fuck you' to a judge.
A year was too much, but she clearly has no regard or respect for the law and had no intention of following that bail condition.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.