I agree, but Merriam-Webster remains a bad way to try to squash claims of nuance. You are correct independent of the bad and redditor-esque method of argument you chose. You should know very well that texts with actual authority exist that better establish these things, like the DSM in this case.
You shouldn’t try to answer clinical questions with Merriam-Webster. It’s a very redditor thing to do and just as incorrect as that would suggest.
There is a substantial difference between “being suicidal” in the clinical sense and having decided to commit suicide. We have no reason to believe, lacking an avenue for the “self expression” of immolation, that he would have jumped from a bridge or hung himself in the attic. As far as we can tell, he looked at the present political situation and judged that the most effective thing he could do to accomplish what he believed had to be accomplished was by doing something that required the investment of dying. That’s not the same thing as “being suicidal”, though you and I both disagree with his choice for our respective reasons.
As far as I can tell, that’s mostly not what the study says. What it is saying is that the event of a judicial election and the pressures associated therewith demonstrably cause systemic disadvantage to defendants and appellants near election time, but it doesn’t actually address how the overall rulings of elected judges compare to appointed judges except for one study it mentions that does say, in your defense, that they [elected judges] reverse death sentences less often in the states that have the death penalty. However it goes on to say:
These studies leave open several important research questions. For example, they generally do not compare systems, and thus do not address whether some re-election or retention election systems have more of an impact on criminal justice outcomes than others, or whether reappointment processes may also have an effect.
And later says:
Much of the empirical research considering the impact of judicial selection dynamics on criminal justice outcomes has focused on elections. Further study is needed to understand the incentive structures created by appointive systems, particularly those that provide for reappointment. The few studies that have considered these dynamics suggest there may be reasons for concern.
For example, in one such study, Joanna Shepherd examined how the political preferences of those determining whether to extend a judge’s tenure impact judicial decision-making. Just as the public’s preferences may impact case outcomes within electoral systems, Shepherd found that the preferences of governors can have a similar effect in states where they play a role in reappointing judges. 92 Indeed, Shepherd determined that as governorships change hands, so too do judicial rulings; when a Republican governor replaces a Democratic governor, judges’ rulings in a variety of cases, including criminal cases, shift.93 Shepherd’s findings suggest that reselection pressures are a concern even outside the election context, and highlight the need for further inquiry into the dynamics of appointive systems.
And that’s really the full extent to which it addresses the subject of appointment.
I’m pretty sure Yog isn’t the one doing the deleting, though I don’t know 100%, but you can still see deleted comments in the modlog, so the context isn’t actually lost, just inconvenient (that’s how I know what all the comments were, since I got here after the deletions). Anyway, I’ve antagonized yog multiple times and he’s never deleted any of my comments. My view on him is that he’s very driven and determined with his agitating and gets a little caught up in his passion for it when he gets resistance from people, especially since a substantial amount of that resistance if from genuinely reactionary assholes. I can understand being frustrated with him, though.
The other fellow was being a real asshole, so I think perhaps the mod was primed to a very hostile reading (e.g. of our friend yog being a paid shill or something), since I think you were being obnoxious but it’s counter-productive to take mod action against something so trivial when just responding suffices.
If you’re interested in an answer, while I don’t entirely agree with Yog on most issues relating to China, Marxists are obliged to have quite a lot of evidence to back up their claims while liberals can just sort of coast off of cultural norms because their ideology is already hegemonic. I don’t keep a list of links because I don’t take notes for almost anything, but I definitely make sure to remember the titles (etc.) of useful articles so I can retrieve them in a circumstance like this. That’s very inefficient though, so it makes sense that yog would just keep them on-hand for common liberal talking points to prevent needing to look them up over and over.
“usually not as bad” requires a citation, since we can point to lots of evidence of systemic injustice in sentencing as it is. example
What you are describing is a judge pursuing an agenda and/or having an unconscious bias, which is what we have already. That’s the thing I keep getting with objections to voting in judges, problems that we already have presented as though they only apply to elected judges, or problems that would be demonstrably less bad with popular input.
You need judicial succession anyway, given that people die, but we have plenty of examples of the intuition you express there not holding up. After all, there are no term limits for US congress people despite the strict term limits for the President.
Of course, I oppose term limits, I think they’re another guardrail for capital, since the capitalists don’t have a term limit on their wealth, which they can use to keep backing pliable puppets.
And if the system doesn’t perform well for those less advantaged, courts aren’t the best place to defend making this systematic change. At best, it acts as a relief valve to pushing actionable political change.
Having a judge who won’t rule your relatively benign protest action to be “terrorism” seems like a good way of supporting systemic change.
I’d rather an incompetent evangelical ghoul hold office than a competent one, but I don’t really see a point in your argument either way since those same places are getting evangelical ghouls appointed already. It’s not like there’s some enlightened progressive governor presiding over a clear majority of racewar enthusiasts or whatever. When there is a disjunction between a politician and their “constituents,” it is usually that the politician is more conservative than the people, but the people weren’t given someone more progressive to vote for. That’s the way the system works, it is fundamentally right-biased, with many checks on democratic power.
There is no such thing as an apolitical judge. The judges you see as apolitical are just centrists supporting the status quo, but that is not actually an apolitical frame of action.
I’d rather have a bumbling judge who is trying to help people rather than a competent evangelical ghoul
Just removing veto power seems like the simpler solution (not that that would happen either)