Do you agree with this judge's decision? Why or why not?
603311
If they had passed Jessica's Law in Nebraska, we wouldn't have judges legislating from the bench! The judge's decision was flat out wrong! To show more compassion to the perpetrator than he does for the victim? \n\nAnd by the way, since when does our sentencing need to include reform for the guilty? Was it at some point switched from being a penalty to aid?
967194
The judge did not commit a crime.  He did the job he was paid to do and did it in good faith.\n\nThe victim will have to seek compensation, usually through legal action.
64298
Judges do that all the time.  I am not saying that they are perfect.  They normally make decisions based on the law that exist at the time.\n\nAs long as the majority of the Supreme Court is able to be unbias, then I am happy.
717074
I think she made the right choice. Myself, I would have messed him up way worst than she did. I am glad she won her suit against him.
286723
Yes because he did not represent you or did your paperwork for your divorce.  If her current husband is a judge, that would be a different story.
116422
Your question is very vague. Even if you gave ALL the details and we had access to the files in the case, we still couldn't answer it any more than if we were shaking a Magic 8 Ball or reading Tarrot Cards.\n\nThe fact is, there are three people who have the best idea of his chances, the deffense attorney, the prosicuting attorney, and the judge. Your man probably doesn't even know very much himself.\n\nNo matter how good the evidence is, one way or the other, it depends on how it's interpreted by the judge and jury before a judgment can be entered.\n\nHe won't know until the judge hits the gavel with his final judgment.\n\nGood luck.
763973
The judge reached the correct legal conclusion.  What is there to react to?  The criminal court system lacks the jurisdiction and is under no obligation to order or arrange for his care.\n\nOn a human, rather than legal, level, none of us has the right to judge his actions during his time of grief, which are more understandable given his mental illness.
774721
I hope you enjoy the link to get your results since I don't know what type of judge you're asking for.  I hope this helps you out.
575152
Well..... yes it is relative to the "judge's" morals.
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.
860756
I think people are too sue happy. I hope he doesnt lose a single case. I hope the judge tells everyone to lighten up and learn to live with a joke.
928706
As a former registered voter, I'll say that in my case (unique as it is) I quit voting because I'm sick to death of all judicial activism. Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, Lawrence v. Texas -- the judges are in control of things that they aren't supposed to be in control of. And when they don't do their job right, it takes away from me the reason for voting.\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmMw9x3DOqdoPlmDb0OnlXXsy6IX?qid=20060806183105AAoLAcf\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkVZYcDl.zTriszMuuSI2pnsy6IX?qid=20060808153658AAvrjbs\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqEXC_l9wLiax7Sl6WpCp5rsy6IX?qid=20060908175423AAliALu\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As.u7eoSfWGemI1RJIEd4Prsy6IX?qid=20061010152455AAzyTMA\n.
708979
It's used when an objection is made -- basically the judge is agreeing w/the objection.
638232
It's a judge;of course he/she can.
494401
God knows what is best.  He will answer your prayers as he sees fit.  It may be difficult for you to understand why he made the decision he did.  But he has a reason for all things. in my life he made choices for me that i didn't agree with but looking back now i understand.
730560
I would say no, not until the final ruling is handed down after reconsidering.  However, he may later have to pay retro to 10/31/06 if it doesn't go in his favor.
626655
The court was split in the following manner:\n\nIn a opinion by Kennedy, J., joined by Rehnquist, Ch. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ., joined as to holdings 1 and 2b below by Stevens, J., and joined as to holdings 1a, 1b, and 2 below by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., it was held that the Court of Appeals should remand the case to the District Court, where the (1) Court of Appeals had erred (a) by invoking the do novo standard of review, as the appellate court reviewing a District Court's decision to depart from the sentencing ranges in the Guidelines ought to apply an abuse-of-discretion standard, (b) in finding that the suspect's misconduct did not justify the District Court's downward departure five offense levels, and (c) in finding that the officers' susceptibility to prison abuse and their burdens of successive state and federal prosecutions could not be relied upon for downward departure; and (2) the District Court abused its discretion in considering, as factors justifying downward departure, the officers' (a) career loss, and (b) low risk of recidivism.\n\nStevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, (1) agreed with the Supreme Court's opinion that (a) the Court of Appeals had applied the wrong standard of review and had erred in finding that the suspect's misconduct did not justify a downward departure and in finding that the officers' susceptibility to prison abuse and other burdens of successive state and federal prosecutions could not be relied upon for downward departure, and (b) the District Court had abused its discretion in considering low risk of recidivism; but (2) expressed the view that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it relied on the unusual collateral employment consequences faced by the officers as a result of their convictions.\n\nSouter, J., joined by Ginsburg, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, (1) agreed with the Supreme Court's opinion that (a) the Court of Appeals had applied the wrong standard of review and had erred in finding that the suspect's misconduct did not justify a downward departure, and (b) the District Court had abused its discretion in considering the officers' career loss and low risk of recidivism; but (2) expressed the view that the Court of Appeals' rejection of the downward departures based on susceptibility to abuse in prison and on successive prosecutions ought to be affirmed.\n\nBreyer, J., joined by Ginsburg, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, (1) agreed with the Supreme Court's opinion that (a) the Court of Appeals had applied the wrong standard of review and had erred in finding that the suspect's misconduct did not justify a downward departure, and (b) the District Court had abused its discretion in considering the officers' career loss and low risk of recidivism; but (2) expressed the view that the record in the case did not support departures based upon either the simple fact of two prosecutions or the risk of mistreatment in prison.