• Wouldn't it be the jury that let the person out, not the judge?
  • Absolutley!! I think they need to be held accountable for their actions too!
  • No, because it is usually decided by the Jurys finnal say, I belive the lawyer who got the jury to belive should be punnished.
  • No i don't think anyone should be "convicted" if it was a one time case and maybe somehow they got away with it THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE IDIOT JURORS AND JUDGES that let go of pedophiles and early release for rapist! OMG anyone sick enough to molest a child ONCE should be killed
  • The problem is that some judges make their own interpretations of the law instead of following what's in print. Just my 2 cents worth. Goes for everyone else too. Oh yea, the judge should be help responsible when he or she make an interpretation like that.
  • Has a serial killer ever been found guilty served time, appeared before a parole board and received early release? Can a Judge be the only deciding factor in a release? I don't know I would have to research this.
  • The judge, attorney and whoever else is responsible for giving them the chance.
  • That's one of the huge holes in our justice system. We leave the case to two attorneys and the case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In most trials, the jury decides although a judge does reserve the right to set aside a verdict. Regardless, sometimes even though someone commits a crime, the attorney doesn't have enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes its the circumstances of the case and sometimes it's the fault of the prosecutor. Either which way, I think our justice system needs to seriously be revamped.
  • Perhaps the shrinks and parole review board that recommended the release in the first place, leaving the judge to decide based upon their expert testimony.
  • Not necessarily. Judges are supposed to follow the laws of the locality/state/country. If their ruling is within those guidelines, then it's not their fault, but the rule of law by which (s)he was basing their ruling. If they go too stiff on the penalty, the criminal could get off for the judge using his authority incorrectly. If they go too leniently, THEN they may be at fault, but if it's within the guidelines... If the criminal has gone to jury trial, and the jury finds them innocent, then there's not a LOT the judge can do. If a criminal has gone to JAIL, has come up for probation, and THEY release him, there's not much a judge can do. If the prosecuter tried the criminal with flimsey evidence, and they went free, there's not much the judge can do. If the police arrest the criminal, screw up the paperwork, screw up the crime scene, screw up the rights of the crimial before it even comes to trial, there's not much a judge can do. So, except for one case, above, it seems the judge SHOULD not be held responible. DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a lawyer or judge, or associated with the legal system in ANY way. These are MY interpretations of what I know and believe to be the way judeges work.
  • My opinion is, if you're not going to execute a murderer, then they should NEVER be let out of prison. Period. No violent criminal should be let out of prison.
  • When a Judge allows a person to go free on a technicality . Yes I believe they are to be held responsible.
  • No I don't think so - Judges are bound by the law and must apply it equally and without favour. However, I think it you should be looking at the lawyers some of these people seem to be able to provide themselves with...what do you think of that? Then, perhaps the accused has been clever and not left enought evidence to be convicted on with out a doubt. We make these laws to protect the innocent and so must either change the laws or live with the guilty till they can be convicted by the law we made.
  • A serial killer should NEVER be considered for parole. They've already done too much damage to society.
  • No. If they follow the law, then they follow the law. If they buck the law and override everything that is obvious and observed, then maybe at best.
  • And how my good (wo)man would the law get enacted then? No one would take the job, period. It's not the responsibility of the judge to control someone else's actions, it's just that simple.
  • I'm pretty sure it's the parole board who's responsible for letting anyone out. If he's found not guilty? Well, that's the way the US legal system is. Innocent until proven guilty, and sometimes laws made to protect innocent people (search and seizure, miranda rights) get broken in the process of arresting someone who turns out to be guilty. It's not the judge's fault that the application of the law requires evidence in that case to be thrown out.
  • The parole board that releases repeat offenders should be required to give them room and board for a month if they are so sure the ex con has 'found god' as most of them claim.
  • No - The law is the law and the Judge can't make the rules he just has to judge the nim-wits according to the rule book he has in front of him.
  • Yes I do..just as I believe those who release mentally ill people from hospitals should be held responsible for their actions. All over the country criminals are being released early because of "crowding" in jails..or because of budgetary constraints..or because of whatever. It's a dangerous world out there and those who have the responsibility to protect us are not doing a good job! :(
  • Its the Jury, not the Judge.
  • Morally yes, legally no. They know all this very well but they are legally bound to follow the letter of the law even though so many do not.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy