Should Judges/ Prosecutors Be Held Criminally Or Civilly Liable If People They Release On The Public Kill People?

[Ladsin2]

Yes, They Should Be Able To Be Charged Civilly And Legally

Civil Charges Are Fine, Legal Charges No

They Shouldn't Be Charged For Either

Other

[KostasKouvalis]

I would like that, but the way our justice system is set up and the whole due process thing, it would never be allowed. But this reminds me of Dexter and some other movies I seen, where there was an argument made that the people who let killers and rapists walk should also be punished. Some guy wanted Dexter to kill a lawyer, he initially made the argument that she is simply doing her job. Now, if they find some sort of corruption, then there should be legal implications. Otherwise, there's nothing you can really do, because at least in America, everyone is entitled to due process.

[Ladsin2]

In Dexter's case the lawyer in question was a defense attorney. Her job literally is to defend the prosecuted. That's why I specified in this question Judges/prosecutors as the argument that they're doing their job isn't valid. They're doing the opposite of their job. More like Law Abiding Citizen.

[Anonymous]

Then people would just be convicted preemptively by judges to avoid any personal risk. Don't take the abuse of some ideologies to ignore the law as an excuse to provide a motivation to go the other way.

[Ladsin2]

This is obviously the concern, but I think it could be done in a manner that would prevent it. For example Judges would be subject to review by a panel of peers and would only be convicted in the case of some egregious error that resulted in the death of a civilian.

[Opinion Owner]

I am not opposed to your solution @ladsin2 provided you give a serous answer of who separate from the men who appointed the judge for the propose of such abuse would appoint said 'peers'?

We are dealing with judging acting ideologically as they were appointed not merely going rogue. A rogue judge is already checked by the higher judges. But when all of them being appointed by the same politicians/faction go rogue in the same way for the same reasons. you got issues.

That is why there is no law in many cities of America, not because of 1 judge but a great many executives appointing all of them like that of the same ideology elected again and again.

It took decades to turn New York in to a slum,

[Ladsin2]

I think it's important civilians be protected from errant judges via double-jeopardy protections, but I don't see anything to prevent a very lax judge or prosecutor from failure to perform their duties in a way which can and will harm the general public. So I suppose the jury of peers would not be a sufficient failsafe in all circumstances, but I think it some failsafe is better than none.

New York was only clean for a few decades. 80s/90s were the most violent they've ever been in history. They were only a safe city for Giulliani and part of the Bloomberg administration.

[exitseven]

yes, liberal judges think nothing of letting dangerous criminals back on the street and than go home to their gated community. Some of them need a wake up call.

[DrPepper12]

They're not criminals. They are indicted and presumed innocent until trial.

[DrPepper12]

What a stupid question. Who would take that job under those conditions? Why not hold every occupation responsible for decisions?

[Ladsin2]

Most professionals are responsible for the decisions they make. If I make a mistake and flood someone's house. I'm held responsible. That's why we have insurance. If a doctor makes a mistake and kills a patient, he goes before a review board to see if he should be able to keep his license.
If it comes out that somebody acts in a professional capacity with extreme negligence or even malice they can then be held liable both civilly and criminally. I'm trying to think of a profession that would insulate it's members like this. Can you think of any?

[DrPepper12]

Those are civil remedies for people that are certified by the state AND have liability insurance!!! JFC criminal charges?

[Ladsin2]

I have a friend who's a very good plumber. He decided when he was younger to do gas work without the proper licensing. No issues were apparent with his work, but he served jail time for that because of the potential that something could have gone wrong. Hence why I stated that you can be held liable both civilly and criminally. If I make a mistake that results in death and someone can prove I was negligent then criminal charges would apply. This is both in my professional and personal life. Again, can you think of any person who's both of age of majority and of sound mind that can't be charged for negligence or reckless disregard for life?

You mentioned above that we can't call people who've been found "not guilty" of being criminals because they're innocent until proven guilty. That's not accurate as we're talking in a colloquial sense. Pretty much everyone agrees that OJ is a criminal despite being found not guilty; whereas, many people in prisons may be innocent.

[DrPepper12]

Working without a license is a criminal offense. It's fine

[Ladsin2]

Right... My question is if it should be a criminal offense to be woefully negligent as a prosecutor or judge.
Did you forget what the question was about?

[noohair]

Things change when is is your loved one dead...

[Ladsin2]

The whole point of the judicial branch is to remove the need for vengeance by electing a disinterested third party to act as the arbiter. If the third party stops acting fairly the victims will start to take justice back into their own hands. That's how all of human history was.