I think she did go too far -- I would say she provided grounds for appeal. In this case the evidence leaves little doubt about Nassar's guilt, however, the US justice system has, with little hesitation, sent innocent people to prison or sentenced them to death on many occasions. In those cases, an impartial judge is essential to a fair trial.
Aquilina's statements to Nassar indicate that she lacks the objectivity and detachment to judge cases where is the evidence is thin and the only barrier to a politically minded prosecutor convicting and an innocent person with an underpaid public defender is a vigilant judge. While purely objective judges don't exist in reality, the idea and the goal of having highly impartial judges is quintessential to a fair justice system, and I would say she failed that particular test miserably.
With regard to her statement supporting an eye-for-eye system of justice, this further demonstrates a level of bias that we should all find unacceptable.
“Our Constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. If it did … I would allow some or many people to do to him what he did to others.”
The idea that she needs a constitution to prevent her from imposing cruel and unusual punishment is little different from those who would support torture if the constitution allowed it or if it were legal. The inhumanity of such ideas is not dependant on the constitution or on legality and if the only thing that holds back your worst instincts are words on a piece of paper, then perhaps being a federal judge is not the right occupation.
No comments:
Post a Comment