This kind of thing really gets my blood boiling:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327590,00.html
Here, once again, we have a liberal judge siding with a violent perpetrator. Go Massachussetts. To hell with the innocent victim(s) and public safety. And then (surprise!) someone gets hurt - again.
I wonder if this Judge Moses (ironic name) feels compelled to apologise to the little boy who was raped?
My big question is this: Shouldn't there be some kind of REVIEW PROCESS for judges? I mean, isn't this country all about CHECKS and BALANCES? Shouldn't there be a panel of random citizens (lets say twelve - a jury) in each district that gets together once a year to review the track records of the sentencing judges in that district. There could be a simple piece of paper for each judge with two columns. In the first column: Sentences passed. In the second column: the defendant's "performance" since sentencing. If a judge shows a pattern of exposing the public to dangerous criminals, he gets demoted back down to being just another lawyer. It seems so bloody obvious.
In the other two branches of Govt (Executive and Legislative) our leaders actions occur in the spotlight and are naturally subject to the court of public opinion. Not so the Judicial branch. Judges (most of whom are NOT elected) are able to run amok like little demi-gods, "interpreting" the Law as though it has no fixed meaning, and laughing at sentencing guidelines. I think it's a serious flaw in a system which I generally admire very much.
