What kind of judge would do this?

[Simply Sara]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ctim-failing-appear-court-trial-attacker.html

Saw the end of this story on GMA this morning. I am absolutely ticked off. Anyone who has lived through any type of thing like this knows it is cause for anxiety. I mean, I know you can put a witness in jail for contempt of court for not appearing when subpoenaed, but there were other things that could have been done, such as community service or making her go to a shelter with her child for mandatory counseling.

Nancy Grace was so pissed off it was obvious she was trying to contain her outrage by what the judge did. I am concerned that the ruling will deter other women from coming forward. Most don't now, but even fewer will, and those who commit crimes against women ought to be made to answer for them. This woman needed counseling for her anxiety, not 3 days in jail.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tough call. The Judge seems to be pissed off that she could only give the perp 16 days because the witness didn't show and so there is a larger picture too - obviously feels that Nancy let the side down - but the councillors that said it's OK to miss the trial because "anxiety" need to be asked to think a little bit harder about reality too. Life is full of anxiety and sometimes you have to face it to get unpleasant things done. We seem to have a very infantile culture these days where anxiety is such a crippling disorder. If you are going to start something like criminal charges you NEED to be aware of what it will take to finish the job and "anxiety" is part of the cost of getting it done.

As to how it will effect how women interact with the law in such cases I hope it will mean that they will live up to their commitments when they file charges. It may also mean that some charges won't be filed but that's fair too. Filing charges shouldn't just be a freebie. If you are going to eff with someone's life it's only fair to have to bare some short term discomfort for that.

There has to be a balance and it is very hard to find the right one but we should at least always try to find a good one. Allowing people to charge other people and just walk away without any more responsibilities is asking for a very nasty social outcome.

 

[Wayne]

As I understand it, I would have to play devil's advocate here.

• The guy had a record of abuse.
  
• The judge wanted to throw the book at him.
• The victim wanted to -- in essence -- "let him off the hook" to "get on with her life" so she didn't bother showing up when required by law to do so.
  
  If that's the case, then,
  
  
• The judge was then pissed off because she could only pass a reduced sentence, in essence, letting the guy off with a slap on the wrist.
• The judge is then understandably pissed at the victim because the victim wants to stay a victim which would probably piss off any woman.

It's true, the Judge probably took her frustration out on the wrong person (the victim) but the simple fact is that we weren't in the courtroom and don't really factually know all the details of the conversation. As usual with most reporting, there are probably extenuating circumstances that we don't know about, and it's probably not nearly as "horrible, evil judge" as the jaded article probably wants us to believe...

Wayne