Do judges base their rulings on if your a "productive member of society"?
485656
Some do, some don't.  Judges are in most states elected or at least selected by elected officals, so they are on the bench due to the majority support of their stance, be it "by the book" or "alternative" punishments.  It all depends on who you draw.  All you can do is try to highlight a mistake and show remorse that you will never do it again, learned your lesson, will go save orphans from a burning building and commit 27 other selfless acts, etc.
504864
One judge I know found a woman in contempt for failure to show up when she was in labor.
721134
It all depends on the judge.  In California, for instance, judges have up to 90 days to issue a ruling.  I know some judges that will issue a ruling immediately.  Meanwhile, I know one judge in particular who will almomst always wait until the 90th day to give you a ruling.  It's infuriating but there isn't much you can do about it.  Judges have a tremendous amount of autonomy.  Once the case is submitted to him/her for ruling, all you can do is hurry up and wait.
379615
Even in jury trials, the judge (i think) is able to declare a mistrial if s/he thinks the jury's decision is completely off base.  Having one judge to make the final decision is simply a bad idea, what if he is biased for some reason?  Judges are human and do have biases even if they aren't suppose to.  If any changes are made, it should be towards creating a career of being jury members (professionally trained jurors instead of laypeople).  But, professionalizing juries would lead to increase court fees and probably isn't very practical.
402050
Judges is the best example I think.
381622
Federal law requires that a judge remove himself or herself from a case whenever "she knows that the petitioner (you?) and she have a personal and cointerest in the procedings and outcome. It's a basic infraction of the right to due process, and a jugde in that position, with extraordinary knowledge of a case, prior knowledge or special intrests, is bound by law and ethics to recuse herself from said case, and therefore, cannot by law be involved as that again is in violation of your right to due process under the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment...especially financial interests in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."  28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4).[29]  \n\nMore generally, the law requires recusal whenever a judge's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."  28 U.S.C.§ 455(a).  The law also requires a judge to "inform herself about her personal and fiduciary financial interests" and not sit on cases in which his interests may be at stake.  28 U.S.C. 455(c).    \n\nIn short, judges can’t rule in cases in which they have financial and or personal interests at stake, and they have to know their financial interests well enough to know when to recuse themselves.  \n\nJudges also are bound to "disclose on the record any information that a judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the issue of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.”[30] \n\nThis obligation is designed to protect judges from investigations into their personal and financial interests.  As one court concluded: "litigants (and, of course, their attorneys) should assume the impartiality of the presiding judge, rather than pore through the judge's private affairs and financial matters * * *  litigants and counsel should be able to rely upon judges to comply with their own Canons of Ethics."[31] \n\nIt really doesn't matter if it's OHIO as this is Federally mandated law, denoted by the codification (United States Code - USC) and the sections governing such actions, etc. However, they're is tons of case law throughout history from just about every state if you have access to Westlaw or NexusLexus you can look these cases up, as they're fascinating, with everything from a judge with special knowledge of water systems, having to recuse himself, because of said knowledge and the nature of the cause of action. And although Ohio is a Tort law state (Torts meaning a Personal Harm)  - as we speak, new and interesting COA's are being thought up. And believe me, many a judge has to step down because of intense personal knowledge into petitioners action(s), suits, etc. It all goes back to Civil Procedure and Judicial Ethics.
38085
the courts usually give you one if you qualify
115882
Absolutely! If the judge is aware of these facts, not only is he morally and ethically obliged to help. In fact, there may even be some criminal charges that can be pressed with enough proof. It is a despicable act on the Judge's and I would appeal to a higher court and sue the robe off that crooked Judge. Get an attorney and go with it. Go to the media if you have to.
630635
Dear Friend,\n\nJudges generally have discretion to recuse themselves from hearing any case in which they have a personal interest.  For example, if a family member, or the judge's church, or the company she worked with for decades came before her, the judge can and should ask another judge to take the case.  Certainly if the judge herself is a litigant, she cannot hear her own case.\n\nGenerally speaking, trial courts do have to hear whatever are filed in front of them.  Which particular judge hears which case is for the judges to decide.  Mostly this is done through random assignment to keep things fair.  However, for example, senior federal trial judges have the ability to say they don't want to take a particular sort of case... for example, criminal cases.  And if a judge has too crowded a docket, she can work with the clerk to have certain cases reassigned.  \n\nIntermediate appeallate courts usually hear everything as well, although they can decide for themselves whether to do so in panels of just a few judges -- or en banc, which means a hearing before all the judges of a certain area.  \n\nIt's not quite true that state supreme courts and the USSC have absolute discretion which cases to hear.  For example, death penalty cases are often appealed as of right to state supreme courts.  And the USSC is the only place that certain disputes, like those between sovereign States, can be heard.  But generally speaking those judges do have a LOT more say over which cases they hear.\n\nHope that helps.\n\nYour Friend, \nFrancesois
319754
the question should be, should a judge discriminate. the answer is no but he can.  however i have learned that there is always more to a story. who recieved the brunt of your swearing? what was your attitude and body language in court? do you have a record and what does that look like? the questions are unlimited. also take note that a judge has a window to work from when handing down a sentence from minimal penalty to the max. as long as the judge remains in that box.. you really have to have concrete evidence of prejudice. it sounds like your punishment was some type of community service.  who would waste a chance to be prejudice on something so minor.  not me.. by the way in some areas this would be a violent crime.. assault.. domestic violence or worse. so i would be satisfied with what i got. finally learn from this situation.. to quote the words of a song i love.. you  gotta  know when to hold em, fold em, walk away or run. u should have ran.
376644
The system functions to maintain the status quo. Wealthy white males protect their station in drafting, enacting, and enforcing their ideology. Mainly, that wealthy, white males are the only ones capable and intellegent enough to draft, enact and enforce laws. Read the Reimen book, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. If you are really interested in how the system works.\n\nIn prior years, I would have said that there is no consistency in the american judicial system; that, infact, it was the most arbitrary and capricious system ever developed. Now, with manditory minimum sentencing and all of the well intended groups getting their special laws and penalties for newly rewritten laws to set out with specificity their group, draconian sentencing seems to be a consistency in the law. \n\nYet, prosecutors still hide exculpatory evidence and misrepresent the facts to the jurors to ensure victory and reelection or to move to the next political arena. Through the unfortunate situation of mostly poor people getting arrested, the system grind on...Its like this: The case is tried by the Judge which is an elected position (popularity contest) and he/she acts under color of authority for the State; the Prosecutor, also an elected position is also a State agent; if the person arrested is poor that person will be represented by a public defender....you guessed it a State appointed attorney. The legal process is suppose to be a rigorous testing of the facts and an adversarial process. NOW, you tell if the state hears the case (judge) and it is prosecuted by the state (prosecutor) and the defendant is represented by the state (State PD), I ask you where is the adversarial process. I would say that the consistency of law is that it does not apply (normally) to wealthy white males.
841039
Yes they can serve on a jury and some have. Although, depending how big the celebrity is, it might cause too much disruption in the courtroom so, the judge can pardon them.... ;)
345215
The answer is yes, "people" do pre-judge based on where you live. That is, people in general do.  That doesn't mean it's right.  In my opinion ANYONE who "pre judges" ANYTHING based on something like that is wrong.  We're not suppose to judge, but just accept people for who they are, based on their character. We're all really the same!!!
390231
Depends on when the judge makes the decision.Followup with your lawyer.
1180057
That is an excellent question and a very good point. I totally agree with you. What makes anyone think they are good enough to judge others, and what right have they to set the standards for other people. As long as people are doing their very best within their means, people should live and let live within reason, providing they are not causing a danger to themselves or others.
815866
If a judge has ordered them to remain in the state, then they can't leave.  Otherwise, as long as they show up in court at the appointed time, they can go to the moon and back, for all the judge cares.
209852
I think on an outward, juvenile approach society may, but ultimately I think the answer is no. We reward those that have high intellectual achievements, by paying them more than those who do not have it. The financial gain for intellectual enrichment is a statement that our society and economy needs our "nerds" in order to stay competitive.