"Needed Judicial Change" by sirwrksalot / LJWorld.com

Blogs home sirwrksalot

Needed Judicial Change

We are arriving at the new election. It is time to consider what to do with a number of persons in office. One I am most concerned about is Judge Paula Martin. There have been a number of questions concerning her fitness to remain seated on the judicial bench. I can not nor will I tell you to remove her from this very important position. I can however ask you to consider her actions and decisions. The most notable of these is the rape case from 2004 I believe where she said an intoxicated 13 year old young woman gave consent to have sex with multiple partners. Since consent was given she used this as a reason to issue extremely lenient sentences to those who participated. I understand this was overturned on appeal and a stiffer sentence was applied later. The judicial process is one that follows a set of guidelines and in those guidelines the penalties are spelled out for consistent use of them. The judges have the right and ability to consider mitigation circumstances, such as mental capacity...However common since is not a requirement to have any position, one of authority or not. Nor is common sense learned in education through college. Now let's consider this poor young lady. How can an intoxicated underage person legally give consent for anything? Currently, the following types of sexual intercourse with unmarried persons under the age of 16 years of age are sex offenses within the Kansas criminal code: Rape (forcible), defined generally as nonconsensual sexual intercourse. This crime is classified as a severity level 2, person felony. Rape (commonly known as statutory rape), defined as sexual intercourse with a child who is under 14 years of age. This crime is classified as a severity level 1, person felony. Aggravated indecent liberties with a child (also known as statutory rape), defined in part as sexual intercourse with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age. This crime is classified as a severity level 3, person felony. Unlawful voluntary sexual relations (commonly known as the Romeo and Juliet law), defined as engaging in voluntary sexual intercourse with a child who is 14 years of age but less than 16 years of age and the offender is less than 19 years of age and less than four years of age older than the child and the child and the offender are the only parties involved and are members of the opposite sex. This crime is classified as a severity level 8, person felony. Through the enactment of "statutory rape" laws, Kansas has long provided protection to unmarried underage girls from sexual intercourse. "From the earliest times in this state the age limit stated in the statute defining statutory rape has been spoken of as the 'age of consent.' Actually, however, the word 'consent' does not appear in the statute. The real meaning of the statute is that whereas under some other statutes the state must prove the use of force or promise of marriage, the use of a drug or some other element, in a prosecution for a violation of G.S. 2935 21-424, all the state has to prove is that the sex act occurred and that the female was under eighteen. That construction gave us the term 'statutory rape. The act of committing a rape of a child injures that child as a matter of law. The long held policy of the State of Kansas is that sexual intercourse, consensual or non-consensual, with a child of a specific age or younger is harmful to the child and that such conduct should be prohibited. This policy is of such weight that the State prescribes strong penalties for violators of this prohibition. This action reflects the State's interest in justice, protecting children, deterring future wrongful conduct and the belief that sexual intercourse, in any fashion, with children is inherently harmful to the child. The State's position is supported by extensive empirical data and the long-term nature of the policy. As a judge Paula Martin should be aware of basic laws and tenets pertaining to felony actions. This case has shown she is not in touch with the job and there for in my opinion should not keep it. I will vote to remove her. I suggest you the public educate yourselves and vote your decision. Reference info for both sides of this choice are listed below: http://www.reasonablejudges.comhttp://www.retainjudgemartin.com

By sirwrksalot

October 10, 2008

sirwrksalot

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

10 October 2008
at 3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan72 (Alia Ahmed) says…

Truthteller, Are you still the treasurer for the Citizens for Reasonable Judges organization?
11 October 2008
at 11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

BigPrune (Anonymous) says…

Please correct me if I am wrong, but at voting time aren't judges automatically given a “yes” vote by the registered populace? The only way to vote a judge out is by getting the majority of registered voters to vote them out. That means that everyone would have to vote. In other words, people that don't vote or leave the space blank give the judge an automatic “yes” vote to remain.This is my understanding, and please anyone correct me if I am wrong. If I am right then something needs to be changed.
12 October 2008
at 11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

MSLGWCEO (Anonymous) says…

All these sex offender laws are based and steeped in myths, lies and hysteria created by the entertainment news media for ratings and politicans for VOTES. They totally ignore real facts.Just like the Halloween fear mongering. What is so INSANE about this is, there has NEVER been a case in the entire history of the united states where a registered sex offender EVER molested a Halloweener. not one!Here is PROOFhttp://www.cfcoklahoma.org/index.php?option=com_content…gainst-sex-offendersOnly one who is inherently interested in fear mongering would use this case to petrify the public into thinking that Halloween is unsafe because of the presence of RSO's. To calculate risk in epidemiology, you divide the number of cases divided by the population of interest. In this case it would be 1/650,000. The risk is so incredibly low that my calculator gives the division an error!!!!!! ” And times that by say, 50 years. OH MY! Fear mongering is what the entertainment news media and politicians are MORE concerned about than protecting children.Lets protect the children!!!!!laws based on emotion make for bad law because “emotion lacks intelligence.”www.cfcoklahoma.org
14 October 2008
at 1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sirwrksalot (Anonymous) says…

Alia Ahmed, sorry I am not but you can contact them on the website listed at the bottom of the article. I listed both to ensure there was a fair opportunity of your own personal research…BigPrune you are partially correct…A judge is appointed, once appointed they can only be removed two ways, or they can retire. First for conduct that puts question to the office, or basically bad behavior. The other by a majority vote, however it only counts for those voting. So if 51% of those voting vote her out then she is removed. Those who stay home and do nothing then complain about how bad life is don't count…I am encouraging as many people as I can to vote…I really do not care how they vote if it is done intelligently. I only ask they exercise the privilege earned by so many who gave their lives for this in the past history of this wonderful country…mslgwceo i have no idea what in the heck you are blathering about. Did you even read the information? Not one area of your comments even remotely touches on the subject discussed. Your thoughts of not to worry since there is only a remote chance of something happening are ludicrous. You obviously have little or no friends or relatives with kids, and probably none of your own. Nor have you looked at the number of sex offenders in your area…I believe at last count there were 54 sex offenders in Lawrence alone…take a look at the link to the sex offender map here:http://www.ktka.com/sexoffenders/?city=3Or herehttps://www.accesskansas.org/ssrv-registered-offender/searchCounty.doThe odds are it will or has happened to someone you know even if it is never reported or they tell no one about it. None of this however has any bearing on the law…the law is clear and constant. Unfortunately the application of the law is varied. If I understand some of what you are saying you do not feel this law needs to be in place:if you feel this way then contact your state officials and request it be changed or removed. However the only thing you have succeeded in doing is allowing others to think you may be one of the 54 listed:I hope not:
14 October 2008
at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

towanda54 (Anonymous) says…

I'm confused, this blog was initially written by truthteller, now the author is sirwrksalot. What gives?
15 October 2008
at 1:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sirwrksalot (Anonymous) says…

Jerk_patrol - I really do not know what you think if this is a tired old issue for you. What have you done to change it? What effort have you made to learn what is going on in your community and in your (the peoples) name? It is still a current issue since the person making these decisions is still making poor ones. With the election coming in approximately three weeks she will be on the ballot again as all judges are. If you feel the job she is performing is done well then vote to keep her; if not then vote her out. Someone is at least voicing a concern and showing others a thought provoking subject which should concern everyone. I am showing people the information and events to consider then they make their own mind up: What are you showing the same people?towanda54 - I am not aware if this same subject has been blogged before. If it has great, it means I am not the first to be concerned about the subject and I would be pleased to see a link to it so I could read it:good, bad, or indifferent, any information can be used to learn and improve our knowelge or decissions
15 October 2008
at 9:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

towanda54 (Anonymous) says…

Well, sirwrksalot, the very first comment on this blog was addressed to truthteller. It was posted on 10/10/08 at 3:54 pm. You do resemble your hero, George W. Bush, even when you're caught in a lie, you won't admit it.

15 October 2008
at 11:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sirwrksalot (Anonymous) says…

Well I am all for freedom of speech it is one of the basic tenets of the constitution of this troubled but wonderful country. I am glad you are here reading the information. I understand you have some difficulty understanding or recognizing someone telling you the truth since it is not done much now a days. However I wrote the subject posted here, there was another person who posted but it is not there now he was the first one before Alia Ahmed…I do not know why it was removed or when. As for heroes I personally would look outside of politics if I needed one at all. I might even look to past history if one was needed. But for now I look to what my sense of right and wrong is telling me then ensure to educate myself on the subject and exercise the privilege to vote in a free election or contact my political representatives to advocate change. As for anonymous slander if you live in a glass house do not throw rocks, and definitely realize there are people who can recognize uninformed closed minded negative views when they are pushed on us. The whole point of this blog was to have people think about the issue of a judge basically making her own interpretation of what justice is rather than follow the dictates of the law. The law is in written from. For some laws it lays out a definitive definition and dictates the sentencing when breaking it. For others it is less clear. However this one is simple; the fact is that currently, sexual intercourse with unmarried persons under the age of 16 years of age is a sex offense within the Kansas criminal code. This is in the law; it was made by our political appointed or elected representatives. If we do not like it then we, the responsible people, need to educate ourselves and then call for a change. If we feel it is not being upheld in the manner we feel is needed then we need to speak up. If we sit back and do nothing we are contributing to those creating the problem. I have not directed anyone to vote in one direction or another. I am offering information:make your own mind up as to what to do:If anyone has a solution or information on this subject other than mine please post it. I am willing to listen and learn. However if the only contribution you offer is whining, complaining, far fetched ideologies of little / no laws, or name calling it shows everyone who has actually put intelligent thought into this, and who has not: I understand this subject was brought up during the last election and 38% of the people who actually exercised the freedom to vote voted for her removal. Unfortunately only approximately 23-25% of the eligible voters actually came out to vote for what ever reason…What does this say about the average American in this day and age? This is a sad state of affairs…
17 October 2008
at 11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

melott (Anonymous) says…

I will enthusiastically vote to retain her.
17 October 2008
at 3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sirwrksalot (Anonymous) says…

Voting is everyone's privilege and one few people actually use. I am glad to hear you plan to exercise yours. I hope you do so intelligently after reviewing the issue and concerns rather than just because…It is all anyone can ask…Thanks for sharing.
17 October 2008
at 6:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bad_dog (Anonymous) says…

Isn't it ironic that you take Judge Martin to the woodshed when the significant majority of those who work both with her and before her approve of her performance. In fact, the Kansas Commission on Judicial Performance reported: The Commission received survey responses from 31 attorneys and 106 non-attorneys. Survey results showed that 87% of attorneys and 86% of non-attorneys recommended that Judge Martin be retained in office. Survey results also indicated that 100% of the attorneys surveyed perceived Judge Martin to be completely neutral in criminal cases. Judge Martin received an overall average score from attorneys of 3.45 on a 4.0 scale, an overall average score from nonattorneys of 3.38, and an overall average score from appellate judges of 3.1. Judge Martin's scores exceed the required minimum average grade of 2.0 from each category of respondents. The Commission recommends that she be retained.http://www.kansasjudicialperformance.org/evaluation.cfmEven more ironic is the fact the above referenced commission has a link to their website directly from this “blog” page.Given the above, you are in the significant minority whether it be lawyers or non-lawyers assessing her performance. What really drives your agenda?Note: The caps in the performance evaluaations are placed there by the Commission.
17 October 2008
at 6:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bad_dog (Anonymous) says…

Nevermind my caution above, the LJW apparently removed the caps from the words “be retained”.
17 October 2008
at 9:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sirwrksalot (Anonymous) says…

I tried to include both sides of the information to be fair and allow people to make their own mind up. However since you reference the review, I don't think attorneys are all that free from bias when they benefit from her judgments. A lot of her rulings benefit the accused and their attorneys. As for non-attorney questionnaire responses how many actually have ANY information on her actual judgments or court room dealings. The judgments are not easily collected. I know I have tried. So unless the persons are in the courtroom to see and hear what the verdicts and judgments are then all they have is a guess. I have been there in the courtroom in the past and heard some of her cases and rulings. I have put questionnaire results into a statistical review for briefings at work before. When only the results are listed it leaves out allot of information, and incomplete. I find the results of the judicial review can be misleading, and without the questions to compare it to, and information on how the responders interacted with Judge Martian, incomplete. I recently filled out a questionnaire on another judge in another county and the questionnaire was really basic. Besides the Kansas law is really, really, clear on the definitions and elements that define what rape is, and what the punishment are. I copied and pasted the information directly onto the original Blog. A judge is someone who is supposed to know and understand these laws intimately. If the judge makes such a terrible error in judgment sentencing people who preyed on an underage, intoxicated, girl. The extremely lenient sentencing issued was way off base. It was found to be totally inappropriate, and directed to be reissued with a more appropriate ruling. This took another court, several judges, not to mention approximately a year or more out of the young girl's life. If you honestly feel that a judge who rules in favor of those who would behave in this manner is a good supporter of the law and our communities then by all means keep her. If it raises any questions then vote her out:You make the difference, your vote, your choice:
17 October 2008
at 9:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…

Whoa, man, let me introduce you to those things called paragraph breaks. That would be tab, then enter. Make sure that you do this at a defined, preferably subtle point, for maximum effect. Your column of text is somewhat less than Corinthian.
17 October 2008
at 11:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sirwrksalot (Anonymous) says…

Thanks I was just trying to get the information out not worried so much about proper english and punctation…I will try to improve it…

18 October 2008
at 12:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bad_dog (Anonymous) says…

“I tried to include both sides of the information to be fair and allow people to make their own mind up.”What part of the “other side” did you present? Aside from some statutes all I see above are your conclusions and opinions.”I don't think attorneys are all that free from bias when they benefit from her judgments.”Note that Judge Martin's evaluations come from attorneys that represent the Prosecution and defendants as well as appellate judges-the same judges that review decisions of lower courts. In virtually every case at least 50% of the parties will benefit from her rulings.”As for non-attorney questionnaire responses how many actually have ANY information on her actual judgments or court room dealings.”It's my understanding they all do-otherwise what basis would they have to evaluate her??? I suspect they may have more relevant information and ability to interpret that information than do you.”If you honestly feel that a judge who rules in favor of those who would behave in this manner is a good supporter of the law and our communities then by all means keep her. If it raises any questions then vote her out:You make the difference, your vote, your choice:”Judges are humans and thus do make errors in the interpretation and application of laws. That is why we have a multi-tiered court system. You act as if Judge Martin ruled in this manner to punish the young lady and reward the defendants. I am not very familiar with this case, but it seems Judge Martin must not be a recurrent problem or she would not have the positive feedback she receives from attorneys and laypersons on both sides of any given dispute.From my perspective, one of the more compelling statistics arising from her evaluation is the fact that 100% of those polled perceived her to be completely neutral in criminal trials.You too can interpret the data in any fashion you choose and vote the way you believe appropriate. You do seem to base your opinion on a ruling arising from a single case. I would, however, urge you to consider the opinions of others on both sides who give her very high approval ratings before publicly seeking her removal-despite the ruling in this controversial case.
18 October 2008
at 11:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sirwrksalot (Anonymous) says…

Websites for the pro and con are both posted…so both sides are represented, my views and opinions are here also. If you go to the questions and answers you will find more cases and opinions…I mention the worst case as it alone can stand by itself. You mention that judges are human and make errors in judgment. They are human, yes. However the law changes very little, and when it does change it is slow. This case was basic law, little or no interpretation needed. The law for the most part is cut and dried. A judicial post is not a position we want someone to make mistakes in. The mistakes they make cost other people, and harm the judicial process. A judge is supposed to be chosen for their knowledge and understanding of the law. She is not demonstrating this skill on a consistent basis.
22 October 2008
at 1:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sirwrksalot (Anonymous) says…

When people have contact with the judge in her official capacity it is generally on a limited basis. Yes there are exceptions but they are the minority in the judicial review process. These would be the attorneys and other judges.Now the majority of the responses for the judicial review questionnaire were from those with a single or limited contact with the judge. Usually just one case and never is everyone responding to the same case. Their view in filling out the questionnaire is based on just that single occurrence. This in of itself is limiting. I know as I participated in this same process for another judge. If we look at all of the rulings of any single judge regardless of whom, then we have a complete picture. However this information is very difficult to gather…and for most people not readily available.This community is one that will vote on the liberal side for the most part no matter what the situation. It is full of good forgiving people, who for the most part will find rationalizations to leave things as they are. This is not necessarily a bad thing. However it does create some challenges with change. With a list of cases most persons would not excuse away the judges actions or decisions. This then might be viewed differently. Look at both web sites listed in the main narrative and look up the cases referenced:inform yourselves then decide what you will do. Don't just refuse to believe, or take one persons view. Provide your own verification then decide:and finally vote.
22 October 2008
at 2:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jeremy (Anonymous) says…

I am familiar with a criminal case where Judge Martin did not sent a convicted cocaine dealer (convicted by a jury) to presumptive prison as mandated by the sentencing guidelines, to probation, because “men have the abiltiy to go to boot camp and women do not”. So… Judge martin gave a convicted cocaine dealer probation to prove a political point!!!!! WTF?!?!?Rumour has it…
23 October 2008
at 11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sirwrksalot (Anonymous) says…

She handled another case where a person assisting in a murder recieved a lighter sentence than the murdered persons brother got for possession of drugs.