Judges over stepping

[Themius]

All this talk of riots and the la riots got me thinking about judges who reduce time or awards exponentially, to the point the question has to be asked. "Why have a Jury?"

The first case that comes to mind if the hot coffee case, the one used to promote tort reform via the ignorance of people. The case just left most people going "how can you sue over x issue." and most of those people probably never cared to actually look into the case at all. It garnered national attention and was made fun of in shows like Seinfield and quite a few others over the years. It still remains one of the main cases people go to when speaking of frivolous law cases, yet most of them don't know much about the case at all. The reward if I remember correctly was in the millions (2) I believe. The judge however reduced this amount to something between 200-300k and then you also have lawyer fees. Was this really necessary? Does a multi billion dollar company not have the bank roll, and why if the jury says one amount would you go so terribly low. It almost cheapens the point of a jury.

The second case (as I did mention the riots.) is the Latasha Harlin case. A 15 year old girl was putting a drink in her bag, the shop keep grabbed her accused her of stealing, the girl punched her and the lady threw a stool at her. The girl put the drink back on the counter and began to walk away and was shot in the back of the head. She died with $2 in her hand, which the shop keep obviously did not see.

Now the jury said 16 years the judge gave her 0, probation, and community service because it was "self defense" which is quite puzzling, in the video the girl puts the juice down, turns her back, and then falls as she is shot in the head. That's not defense at all. It's as though the jury was completely ignored. The judge said that there were high tensions as the rodney king thing was 2 weeks prior; however, what does that have to do with shooting a girl in the back of the head as she's walking away after she's returned the merchandise that was accused of stealing?

So question is should judges who disregard the jury (or seem to) have their rulings called into question and reviewed by other judges, perhaps a re-ruling type of thing.

[Deleted]

It is not up to the Jury to decide sentencing since they will not be qualified lawyers anyway, their job is to decide whether she is innocent or guilty and let the judge decide on the punishment. Although this case does sound very fucked up and does need reviewing.

[Deleted]

What do you expect from the US justice system ?

[Themius]

It is not up to the Jury to decide sentencing since they will not be qualified lawyers anyway, their job is to decide whether she is innocent or guilty and let the judge decide on the punishment. Although this case does sound very fucked up and does need reviewing.

Yeah I know they're just suggestions essentially, but some cases (like that one) should be scrutinized by other judges, almost like a jury, but of judges is the idea i was thinking.

[Deleted]

Yeah I know they're just suggestions essentially, but some cases (like that one) should be scrutinized by other judges, almost like a jury, but of judges is the idea i was thinking.

Doing so would undermine the authority of the judge, but then again judges can be corrupted like anyone else, this is a tough choice well above my paygrade.

[belfpala]

Yeah I know they're just suggestions essentially, but some cases (like that one) should be scrutinized by other judges, almost like a jury, but of judges is the idea i was thinking.

There is an appeals system for a reason, and those will have more than one judge sitting.

[Themius]

There is an appeals system for a reason, and those will have more than one judge sitting.

You usually appeal when cases are judge too harshly or have had jury tampering.

[Socialhealer]

What do you expect from the US justice system ?

this....cmon shooting someone in the back of the head? ok they've punched you in the face, this does not give you the right to murder someone, if every time someone got angry and hit you, you are now allowed to shoot them in the head most of us wouldn't make it to 10.

by "allowed" i mean getting community service and probation, for killing someone thats the same as getting not guilty tbh.

[Windfury]

You usually appeal when cases are judge too harshly or have had jury tampering.

There are many grounds for appeal, including judges making an error in interpreting the law, and the severity of the sentence (i.e. both too harsh and not harsh enough - this latter happen less often, it's up to the prosecutors to follow it up, and they don't tend to unless there's a real public outcry).

[Moadar]

Not sure how you don't get some jail time for blasting someone in the back of the head, that's unarmed, and walking away.

[Themius]

But that was settled.


The judge reduced it from $2.86 mllion to $640,000. But it was settled.


Whether or not the punitive damages in that case were appropriate, you cannot decide to fine people more just because they can pay more. All are supposed to be equal before the rule of law. Now, that's a fantasy, but that doesn't mean we should deliberately ignore that principle. Whether the amount was appropriate based on the actual case is also a separate issue.


If it was "self defense" she wouldn't have been punished at all. The jury convicted her of voluntary manslaughter conviction, it was up to the judge to set the sentence. I don't know where you got the "jury said 16 years" nonsense from. The judge decided that Du was under extreme provocation and was unlikely to ever offend again, so punished her lightly. Whether or not that was an appropriate decision, has nothing to do with whether the jury was ignored.

Now, Judge Karlin is, in my opinion, an absolutely incompetent imbecille who never should have been allowed to preside over anything beyond a TV court. And her decision should have been reviewed and declared retarded. But that's a separate issue to whether judges could set sentences.

The Jury suggested 16 years.

[Themius]

Not sure how you don't get some jail time for blasting someone in the back of the head, that's unarmed, and walking away.

Basically because the black community was in a rage about Rodney King the Judge "understood" Du's fear. Though once she put down the stolen merchandise and was leaving (money in hand) there was nothing to defend. Stool was self defense, shooting? Not at all.

- - - Updated - - -

No they didn't. The crime of voluntary manslaughter carries a maximum sentence 16 years.

I know the crime carried a maximum of 16 and the Jury suggested the maximum. At least this is what the news sources at that time said.

[Themius]

Cite these "new sources at that time". But even if they did that's irrelevant. They have no right or power to set the sentence.

That's why it was said they "suggested". They don't set the years, they can only suggest.

[Sunseeker]

Doing so would undermine the authority of the judge, but then again judges can be corrupted like anyone else, this is a tough choice well above my paygrade.

Well the Lawyers don't decide sentencing either, and honestly the jury is allowed to rule on if they think certain parts of the sentence fit or not. The point of the jury is basically to ensure the law still applies based on the modern viewpoints of the people. The point of the judge is really just to officiate.

[DeltrusDisc]

I do believe this is why appeals courts exist...

[belfpala]

Well the Lawyers don't decide sentencing either, and honestly the jury is allowed to rule on if they think certain parts of the sentence fit or not. The point of the jury is basically to ensure the law still applies based on the modern viewpoints of the people. The point of the judge is really just to officiate.

A judge can (but they very rarely will) issue a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgmen...anding_verdict or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed_verdict

[McCulloch]

I would think it hard to step over something in those robes...
OT: Justice system isn't perfect. Like was said before, the jury can only suggest a sentence.

[DEATHETERNAL]

I wonder if that (other judges giving a second ruling) would constitute double jeopardy. It seems like it would and would therefore be unconstitutional in criminal court. I'll have to read up on that. As for civil court, I don't see the purpose of a jury deciding what amount should go to whom in the first place. Compensation in civil court should be based on what quantifiable damage was done, not what a group of random people think it was worth.

[Moadar]

Basically because the black community was in a rage about Rodney King the Judge "understood" Du's fear. Though once she put down the stolen merchandise and was leaving (money in hand) there was nothing to defend. Stool was self defense, shooting? Not at all.

.

Maybe if she shot her in the middle of the conflict could I agree with the ruling but not when the person is walking away and has their back turned.