NationStates Jolt Archive

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=554489
Most of you have heard about this by now. A Chicago judge came home to find her husband and mother murdered. Who do it? We don't know. Why did they do it? There are probably many motives. But whoever did it would be, in a perfect world, tried for treason.
Yes, there probably weren't the two necessary witnesses needed for a treason conviction, but I believe that should be changed. This was an assault on the most important pillar of democracy, and as I see it, an attack on America. The Constitution must be changed to say that treason is murdering a judge, or intimidating him through violent acts. Legislators and executives may have to be killed in the future, so the crime must simply be kept at murder. But these men answer to themselves, and can be above the law. Judges are the law, and have been consistently proven to be the ones that follow it the most. We must also get rid of that archaic provision that states that a conviction can be obtained only through two witnessses.
And one more thing: please don't give me a sob story on how judges in Italy or Colombia or anywhere are killed all the time, and that I am overreacting. Those nations manage these crises in their own method. This is my proposal.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=554489
Most of you have heard about this by now. A Chicago judge came home to find her husband and mother murdered. Who do it? We don't know. Why did they do it? There are probably many motives. But whoever did it would be, in a perfect world, tried for treason.
Yes, there probably weren't the two necessary witnesses needed for a treason conviction, but I believe that should be changed. This was an assault on the most important pillar of democracy, and as I see it, an attack on America. The Constitution must be changed to say that treason is murdering a judge, or intimidating him through violent acts. Legislators and executives may have to be killed in the future, so the crime must simply be kept at murder. But these men answer to themselves, and can be above the law. Judges are the law, and have been consistently proven to be the wons that follow it the most. We must also get rid of that archaic provision that states that a conviction can be obtained only through two witnessses.
And one more thing: please don't give me a sob story on how judges in Italy or Colombia or anywhere are killed all the time, and that I am overreacting. Those nations manage these crises in their own method. This is my proposal.

Don't make it treason. Just make it a capital offense to kill a judge, like it is for the police in a lot of states.

Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Killing a judge is not treason. Nor should it be. It's murder, plain and simple.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=554489
Most of you have heard about this by now. A Chicago judge came home to find her husband and mother murdered. Who do it? We don't know. Why did they do it? There are probably many motives. But whoever did it would be, in a perfect world, tried for treason.
Yes, there probably weren't the two necessary witnesses needed for a treason conviction, but I believe that should be changed. This was an assault on the most important pillar of democracy, and as I see it, an attack on America. The Constitution must be changed to say that treason is murdering a judge, or intimidating him through violent acts. Legislators and executives may have to be killed in the future, so the crime must simply be kept at murder. But these men answer to themselves, and can be above the law. Judges are the law, and have been consistently proven to be the wons that follow it the most. We must also get rid of that archaic provision that states that a conviction can be obtained only through two witnessses.
And one more thing: please don't give me a sob story on how judges in Italy or Colombia or anywhere are killed all the time, and that I am overreacting. Those nations manage these crises in their own method. This is my proposal.
You might want to grease up that slope in your argument a bit more, its not slippery enough.

You might want to grease up that slop in your argument a bit more, its not slippery enough.

Yeah, left my bum a bit raw. The argument provided is laughable.

2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family[/I]

Killing a judge is not treason. Nor should it be. It's murder, plain and simple.
1. Love the definition. Is it from a dictionary?
2. This isn't a sovereign, but judges are some of the most important people to this country. They aren't as flashy as the other two branches, nor are they as loud, but with out them, the US Constitution would be no more than a piece of paper. Thus, killing or intimidating judges is tantamount to an attempted coup.

1. Love the definition. Is it from a dictionary?

www.m-w.com

2. This isn't a sovereign, but judges are some of the most important people to this country. They aren't as flashy as the other two branches, nor are they as loud, but with out them, the US Constitution would be no more than a piece of paper. Thus, killing or intimidating judges is tantamount to an attempted coup.

Maybe in your head, but not in the real world.

Maybe in your head, but not in the real world.
And why is that? Judges don't make policy, but they keep it in the bounds of the constitution. That is far more important in the long run.

Killing anyone is a serious matter. In the case of a judge, it should be established: Was it business or personal? If it's a personal dispute, then it should be treated like all the other murders that average civilians commit against each other.

In this case it was business. The woman's husband was killed because she ruled against a white supremacist group. She was upholding the rules of her country. That makes it domestic terrorism, therefore the perpetrators should be treated like terrorists under the judicial system.

Hence, capital treason. Seems simple to me... if you don't want to get executed by the federal government, don't go killing people in authority who you don't agree with?

P.S. Whoever said they reserved the right for themselves to kill executives and legislators is similarly disturbed. If you don't agree with them, don't vote for them. End of discussion. Murder is not an option.

The judicial branch is the most important section of our government. I think it should be treason to kill a judge or to attempt to intimidate a judge. These people are the pillar of democracy. To those who make the "slippery slope" arguement, what would that lead to? I don't exactly understand what bad things could occur if we make this treason. It sort of sounds like you are grasping for an arguement and found one that just might, if their is some hard data behind it, work. However, I don't think there is any data to show that other bad things would happen if this occured, therefore your arguement is null.

[Edit] I think the guy was talking about if they grab power or attempt to grab power, then it shouldn't be illegal to kill them. At least, that was my reading. Maybe I was wrong, but perhaps he should clarify?

And why is that? Judges don't make policy, but they keep it in the bounds of the constitution. That is far more important in the long run.

Treason involves the undermining of the country you owe allegiance to. Killing a judge or threatening him/her (or his/her family), while horrible crimes, is not tantamount to treason. Neither is killing an MP or a single minister.

Now, if it is done to several of them in such a manner as to weaken the government purposefully, then that might be treason, depending on motive. But the case you've mentioned just isn't even close.

Killing anyone is a serious matter. In the case of a judge, it should be established: Was it business or personal? If it's a personal dispute, then it should be treated like all the other murders that average civilians commit against each other.
That I can agree with.

P.S. Whoever said they reserved the right for themselves to kill executives and legislators is similarly disturbed. If you don't agree with them, don't vote for them. End of discussion. Murder is not an option.
I wouldn't personally kill a government member, but this is in case they turn despotic, as has happened in the democracies of Russia and Venezuela. I don't want to wash all responsibility to be washed away, but it should be a bit under treason.

Neither is killing an MP or a single minister.
That I agree with.
[/quote]Now, if it is done to several of them in such a manner as to weaken the government purposefully, then that might be treason, depending on motive. But the case you've mentioned just isn't even close.[/QUOTE]
Killing one shocks the system, and it is an intimidation to judges anywhere. Besides, judges are extremely important in the operatiion of a modern democracy.

Killing one shocks the system, and it is an intimidation to judges anywhere. Besides, judges are extremely important in the operatiion of a modern democracy.

The same could be argued for any citizen of any profession; garbage men, for instance, who perform a vital task imperative for a country to function.

It doesn't make it treason, especially since treason is such a crime of motive. I might get up and kill the Swedish prime minister because he's a fat bastard. Would that be treason? No. If I kill him because I want to bring the entire government down, perhaps helping a foreign enemy, now that would be treason. No crime is automatically treason.

The same could be argued for any citizen of any profession; garbage men, for instance, who perform a vital task imperative for a country to function.

It doesn't make it treason, especially since treason is such a crime of motive. I might get up and kill the Swedish prime minister because he's a fat bastard. Would that be treason? No. If I kill him because I want to bring the entire government down, perhaps helping a foreign enemy, now that would be treason. No crime is automatically treason.
Most are, but not all. You know my position on killing judges, which I regard as automatically treason. The reason, however, is that they are far more important than anyone else in running a government. They don't change a thing, but they aren't supposed to. They are defenders of the constitution, and they protect us all from tyranny. Presidents seem almost expendable next to judges.

Most are, but not all. You know my position on killing judges, which I regard as automatically treason. The reason, however, is that they are far more important than anyone else in running a government. They don't change a thing, but they aren't supposed to. They are defenders of the constitution, and they protect us all from tyranny. Presidents seem almost expendable next to judges.

I'm sorry, but what you regard it as is inconsequential. It isn't treason. By definition. And very few crimes, if any, are automatically treasonous.

Dumb idea for a number of reasons.

Killing a judge isnt an attack which aids an enemy nation or threatens our sovereignty.

Starting to classify things that arent treason as "treason" has never, in human history, led anywhere good.

Changing the Constitution to declare it treason to murder a goverment official?

Why do they deserve more retribution than anybody else?

If a judge goes crazy and draws a gun on police and they end up killing him, would that treason?

Bad idea over all.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=554489
Most of you have heard about this by now. A Chicago judge came home to find her husband and mother murdered. Who do it? We don't know. Why did they do it? There are probably many motives. But whoever did it would be, in a perfect world, tried for treason.
Yes, there probably weren't the two necessary witnesses needed for a treason conviction, but I believe that should be changed. This was an assault on the most important pillar of democracy, and as I see it, an attack on America. The Constitution must be changed to say that treason is murdering a judge, or intimidating him through violent acts. Legislators and executives may have to be killed in the future, so the crime must simply be kept at murder. But these men answer to themselves, and can be above the law. Judges are the law, and have been consistently proven to be the ones that follow it the most. We must also get rid of that archaic provision that states that a conviction can be obtained only through two witnessses.
And one more thing: please don't give me a sob story on how judges in Italy or Colombia or anywhere are killed all the time, and that I am overreacting. Those nations manage these crises in their own method. This is my proposal.

This is not treason. A judge is not the government.

This is not treason. A judge is not the government.
Your right. A judge is far more important than the government.

I'm sorry, but what you regard it as is inconsequential. It isn't treason. By definition. And very few crimes, if any, are automatically treasonous.
But here's my reasoning behind this. Killing a judge based on a verdict is indicative that whomever did it hates the judicial system. If they had direct motivation, they'd procede with trying to kill off the judiciary, but otherwise, it is a latent desire. Nevertheless, it is a desire which was acted on, and is a threat to democracy.

But here's my reasoning behind this. Killing a judge based on a verdict is indicative that whomever did it hates the judicial system. If they had direct motivation, they'd procede with trying to kill off the judiciary, but otherwise, it is a latent desire. Nevertheless, it is a desire which was acted on, and is a threat to democracy.
This is athreat to democracy: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20050304/cm_usatoday/padillasindefinitedetentionputsyourrightsatrisk
Killing a judge because you disagreed with something they do is paramount to killing an abortion doctor. You are doing shit illegal, but one should be be classified higher than the other

But here's my reasoning behind this. Killing a judge based on a verdict is indicative that whomever did it hates the judicial system. If they had direct motivation, they'd procede with trying to kill off the judiciary, but otherwise, it is a latent desire. Nevertheless, it is a desire which was acted on, and is a threat to democracy.

Do not insult democracy by claiming that this is a threat to it.

But here's my reasoning behind this. Killing a judge based on a verdict is indicative that whomever did it hates the judicial system. If they had direct motivation, they'd procede with trying to kill off the judiciary, but otherwise, it is a latent desire. Nevertheless, it is a desire which was acted on, and is a threat to democracy.

It would not change the outcome. You kill the judge of the judiciary, the system will go after you until you are caught.

It didn't work for the mob. It won't work for these animals.

Do not insult democracy by claiming that this is a threat to it.
I do not see it as an insult. Similarly, no modern democracy finds it an insult to preserve its most important institutions. If you do, then you are probably a great philosopher. That's good, as I haven't seen a new one this century.

It would not change the outcome. You kill the judge of the judiciary, the system will go after you until you are caught.

It didn't work for the mob. It won't work for these animals.
Detterance, however, is not the point, even though it may be an effect. The point is the principle of the matter.

I do not see it as an insult. Similarly, no modern democracy finds it an insult to preserve its most important institutions. If you do, then you are probably a great philosopher. That's good, as I haven't seen a new one this century.

It is an insult to deem democracy so weak that such a petty crime would be a threat to it, and demeaning of all the other, serious threats that face democracy.

It is an insult to deem democracy so weak that such a petty crime would be a threat to it, and demeaning of all the other, serious threats that face democracy.
We have to provide for all situations. Some democracies, such as the US, Japan, and most European countries, are strong. Others, like Russia, Venezuela, and Nigeria, are under threat. Even the core democracies are seriously threatened from time to time, such as with the rise of fascism, and the near communist takeovers of France, Italy, and Greece in the fifties and sixties. No serious threat exists now, but we must take into account all situations. Life is a continuum of perturbations.

We have to provide for all situations. Some democracies, such as the US, Japan, and most European countries, are strong. Others, like Russia, Venezuela, and Nigeria, are under threat. Even the core democracies are seriously threatened from time to time, such as with the rise of fascism, and the near communist takeovers of France, Italy, and Greece in the fifties and sixties. No serious threat exists now, but we must take into account all situations. Life is a continuum of perturbations.

And this is not one of them.

And this is not one of them.
But we must take into account future scenarios, when tyranny rises uncontrollably. Because of a weak judiciary and legislator, for example, Vladimir Putin has no trouble rising to power in Russia. To the contrary, he has enjoyed popular support.

Treason involves the undermining of the country you owe allegiance to. Killing a judge or threatening him/her (or his/her family), while horrible crimes, is not tantamount to treason. Neither is killing an MP or a single minister.

Now, if it is done to several of them in such a manner as to weaken the government purposefully, then that might be treason, depending on motive. But the case you've mentioned just isn't even close.

Obviously, trying to subvert the effectiveness of an entire branch of government would be undermining our nation. Thus, let it go. It could be construed as treason.

Obviously, trying to subvert the effectiveness of an entire branch of government would be undermining our nation. Thus, let it go. It could be construed as treason.
Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution and in no way could killing a judge be so construed as to count as treason

...I'm sorry, but the idea that killing Judge Judy is the same as trying to sneak a terrorist cell in to the country just doesn't work.

Many of our judges -should- be shot. Only SOME of them actually follow the law.

Being in judge's robes doesn't magically make you a law-abiding person.

--

Besides, crimes against Federal employees are already punished more harshly than against civilians.

Well I disagree with a lot of "activist liberal" judges but I wouldn't want to see them shot because that would send them to hell.

Like I said, business or personal... if a judge is upholding the spirit of the country's laws and is targeted by domestic terrorists, as was probably the case here, then it COULD be construed as treasonous. It doesn't HAVE to be, but it COULD.

You can't have treason without reason. Actually, I'm not big on killing and wouldn't kill anyone, but I really don't have any loyalty to the Empire.

I never said killed, just shot. ;)

And anything COULD be called treason.

"Cheese is a vital part of the American economy, setting a warehouse's supply of cheese on fire is TREASON!"

Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Killing a judge is not treason. Nor should it be. It's murder, plain and simple.

On top of the dictionary definition, I'm pretty sure the legal definition has always been that treason is only betraying your country in wartime. That's what made the Rosenberg case such a controversial one.

On the other hand, i think that "conspiracy to subvert democracy" is a crime, so "attempt to subvert democracy" could also be. Of course, to make this applicable to the killing of a judge you'd have to set a pretty high standard for its applicability. Otherwise you're just creating an aristocracy. You're saying "these people's lives are more important than yours." While you're entitled to think that in practical fact, it should not be enshrined in law.

I never said killed, just shot. ;)

And anything COULD be called treason.

"Cheese is a vital part of the American economy, setting a warehouse's supply of cheese on fire is TREASON!"

American Football is vital to our national identity, to be a soccer fan is treason. :D

The crime was not an act of treason, true it was more than a simple murder but the additional crime you're looking for is coercion.

Coercion is a seperate crime or special circumstance that I'm sure will be added to whomever is eventually tried for this crime.

Well, they found who did it. He committed suicide, and confessed in the note. That's too bad, as many of us would gladly kill him so he wouldn't have to do it. Traitor.

...I'm sorry, but the idea that killing Judge Judy is the same as trying to sneak a terrorist cell in to the country just doesn't work.
What!? They killed Judge Judy!? Awww no :(

Well at least I can finally admit that we had a steamy affair when...

Oh wait, she's not dead?

Um... I'll be going now...

Don't make it treason. Just make it a capital offense to kill a judge, like it is for the police in a lot of states.

Agree, this is a simple way to address this. Although this does bother me that this happened in todays society. But again if you look in America's past. You will see alot of these things happening. Hopefully they catch these people and hang them high.

Agree, this is a simple way to address this. Although this does bother me that this happened in todays society. But again if you look in America's past. You will see alot of these things happening.
If you mean killing judges, then no. In all of US history, only three judges were killed for political reasons, and all were in the past 35 years. This is the first time someone attacked a judge for political reasons.

It iprobably wasn't the white supramicists. Apparantly, it was a deranged man with cancer.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/ross10.html

Well, a judge was actually killed in Atlanta. Given the lack of violent acts against judges in US history, it is highly unusual to have two violent incidents in as many weeks. Hang Brian Nichols for treason!

Well, a judge was actually killed in Atlanta. Given the lack of violent acts against judges in US history, it is highly unusual to have two violent incidents in as many weeks. Hang Brian Nichols for treason!
I'm getting the "hang self because the statement is so stupid" feeling

I'm getting the "hang self because the statement is so stupid" feeling
Any other intelligent comments?

Any other intelligent comments?


Your contention is that shooting judges (or their family members?) is *treason.*

This is practically a spam thread.

Your contention is that shooting judges (or their family members?) is *treason.*

This is practically a spam thread.
I see it as an expression of my views.

I see it as an expression of my views.


And...

And...
A suggestion on policy.