
Man jailed for criticizing court system - wallace_f
https://www.wxyz.com/news/region/macomb-county/grieving-dad-jailed-for-repeatedly-criticizing-court-system-in-macomb-county
======
alexandercrohde
I think we like to believe that judges are impartial, unemotional, and
objective. And they should be.

Maybe this idea is too ahead of its time, but:

I wonder if there could be an automatic test of judges' ability to maintain
these traits. For example, every year a fake case comes before them in which a
clearly innocent defendent is particularly rude and disrespectful of the
system. If the judge shows an inability to separate their own ego from the
ruling (e.g. penalizing the innocent indignant party) then the judge gets
further review.

I think such "abuse tests" could be effective ways to vet many people in
positions of power, particularly the executive branch (e.g. police).

~~~
chatmasta
Interesting thought. It’s like pentesting ethics!

There would be a _lot_ of practical issues, though. And people in power have
no motivation to pass these laws, so they’d exaggerate the problems even more.
They might say that the court system is already stressed, innocent people are
waiting in jail for trial, we can’t afford such a distraction.

But honestly I think you’ve struck at the core of a major problem in modern
society. It’s too easy for the government to take rights away, and too hard
for a citizen to take them back. Automation is a great solution to that
asymmetry; I think suggestions like yours are on the right track.

~~~
de_watcher
In 40 years the court speak will consist entirely of insults.

~~~
ozzmotik
the estimate of 500 years from Idiocracy has certainly been severely adjusted!

------
Keverw
Sounds like a first amendment issue. He should get an attorney and look into a
section 1983 lawsuit. A man in Colorado was detained, handcuffed and held in
the back of a police car for filming police and got $40,000, along with the
city agreeing to train officers on public photography and the first amendment.
Maybe it'd send a message and hold them accountable, but then again cities and
counties have insurance policies to pay for it anyways.

I wish more people were aware of their rights, it's sad people who are
supposed to protect and serve, and sworn an oath to uphold the constitution
yet they willingly and knowingly take advantage of uninformed people.

I am starting to wonder if police officers and even some judges who get sworn
in have even ever read the constitution, or just raise their hand and repeat
what they are told as part of the oath. Should quiz them on the constitution
before they are given the oath, and if they fail the quiz they are
disqualified from taking the oath and have to get held back until they improve
and try again.

~~~
paulddraper
Objectively speaking, I'd suspect the causes are

1\. A few bad apples. After security breaches (Apple, Adobe, Equifax), it
unfair to say that all software developers fill their products with atrocious
security flaws.

2\. A jaded outlook. When you spend most of your day with people who lie,
manipulate, and assault you, it's easy to sop caring about their rights.

------
SN76477
Something is very wrong here. “charged with malicious use of
telecommunications services” yet did not make violet threats.

~~~
paulddraper
Also a half million dollar bail.

What is going on?

~~~
ta0987
_A judge ruled he violated his bond conditions._

That was not the initial bail.

~~~
spacemanmatt
Generally, "not committing any more crimes" is in every bail condition,
somewhere.

~~~
cardiffspaceman
Worded to allow for the presumption of innocence I assume. “Not committing
crimes”

------
ncmncm
There is no shortage of crooked judges. Especially, lately. We should see this
judge unseated and disbarred. Abuse of government authority is much, much
worse than anything private citizens can be guilty of.

~~~
spacemanmatt
It should be a crime. We put regular citizens in prison for so much less.

------
100100010001
This is ridiculous!!! Then again we have a legal system, not a justice system.
The corrupt will continue bending laws to their advantage. The judge should be
ashamed!

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
Maybe your conclusion is reasonable, maybe not.

IME, it's a good idea to withhold judgment until we've fully heard from both
sides.

~~~
cbanek
> The Macomb County Sheriff’s office responded and found he criticized what
> Judge Rachel Rancilio pinned on Pinterest as in his opinion inappropriate

> The investigative report also says at no time did he threaten harm or
> violence.

The burden of proof should be on the side trying to restrict the rights (the
judge), not the person exercising their rights. It seems like it was a
judgement call over free speech.

Depriving someone of their rights while waiting for due process is not due
process.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
> The burden of proof should be on the side trying to restrict the rights (the
> judge)

That statement seems to beg the question, in this case.

~~~
danShumway
I'm not sure I follow.

I took GP to be arguing that a judge should not be able to preemptively strip
someone of their rights before a jury of their peers has determined they're
guilty of a crime.

There's an argument that could be made that bail should only be used for
dangerous offenders or for flight risks. The father doesn't fall into either
of those categories; even the investigative report admits he never made any
actual threats.

So even if it's just on an emotional level, there is something kind of
disturbing about the idea that someone can be locked up for 10 days over what
seems to be pretty obviously protected speech. It's a blurry line, but at some
point that turns into preemptive punishment.

None of that seems like obviously circular reasoning to me. I take GP to be
arguing that in a just system, if a judge wants to see the father locked up or
told to stop posting, the judge should _first_ be required to have a trial
with a jury.

------
Cpoll
Serious question: Can this sort of (non-physically threatening) speech cross
the line into harassment? I haven't seen the posts, so I can't evaluate them.
And I imagine the Judge's position (as a public figure?) may factor in?

Specifically:

> His dad felt otherwise and repeatedly posted criticism of the judge and
> friend of the court on his Facebook Page.

> Judge Rachel Rancilio saw the posts, many of which are publicly targeted at
> her.

> Then he made more posts, such as one that reads, “Dada back to digging and
> you best believe I’m gonna dig up all the skeletons in this court’s closet.”

------
NIL8
I really hope this gets more coverage. This is Civil Rights 101.

------
Maskawanian
Does anyone know the name of this judge? He should be publicly shamed.

~~~
gonzo
From the article:

“Judge Rachel Rancilio saw the posts, many of which are publicly targeted at
her. She apparently felt uncomfortable and possibly threatened.”

~~~
spacemanmatt
Even if she believed she legitimately felt threatened, she had to know her
actions as a judge would paint a much huger target on her back.

~~~
cardiffspaceman
Given a situation where a person (who might have been speaking on a protected
topic like the administration of justice) said something the judge felt
threatened by, the fact-finding and judgement should not have been left to
that judge. A different judge, though no less prone to an emotional rather
than rational response due to similarity of circumstances, would give the
results a little more credibility.

