Poor Richard Sanders
Just when I thought The Seattle Times was coming around, they had to go and ruin things. They were taking some really good editorial positions on the various initiatives, and increased their stock by endorsing Justice Richard Sanders to be returned to the bench. They threw all that goodwill of mine away by revoking it.
Justice Sanders was at a court meeting and discssing the fact that African Americans are overrepresented in Washington prisons. (They make up four percent of the total population but one-in-five prisoners is African American.) This really set off the Seattle Times editorial board, to the point that they pulled his endorsement. The board opines that Justice Sanders had come to a more "thoughtful, nuanced views about racial disparities in the criminal-justice system."
A judge judges. He's the referee who is supposed to make sure that everyone is treated fairly in a courtoom. That includes both the defense and the prosecution. He isn't supossed to favor one side or the other based on some outside factors. All things are supposed to be equal; that's why the statue is Blind Justice, and not Prejudiced Justice or Bribe-able Justice. Imagine if a baseball umpire asked both managers to come out and open their checkbooks, and whoever paid him more would get favorable calls all day. Or if a football referee based his calls on the fact that one team has more minority players on a team. You would scoff that such a thing is absurd, and you'd be right.
Never mind that we're dealing with statistics here. I'll even include that disparities in the demographic groups can be attributed to drug-enforcement policies (one swath through HempFest could set things level), being unable to afford decent counsel, sentencing and enforcement procedues and any number of other causes. That doesn't change what the numbers are, and you can't just wish things differently.
The Seattle Times obviously thought well enough of Justice Sanders to give him the thumbs-up and only pulled back when he said something they didn't like. He said something factual; that African Americans are overrepresented behind bars in Washington state. That point isn't up for debate, the statistics bear that out. There isn't any "nuance" there to be said, at least not by a judge. That should be left to James Bible, and not judges.
Justice Sanders was at a court meeting and discssing the fact that African Americans are overrepresented in Washington prisons. (They make up four percent of the total population but one-in-five prisoners is African American.) This really set off the Seattle Times editorial board, to the point that they pulled his endorsement. The board opines that Justice Sanders had come to a more "thoughtful, nuanced views about racial disparities in the criminal-justice system."
A judge judges. He's the referee who is supposed to make sure that everyone is treated fairly in a courtoom. That includes both the defense and the prosecution. He isn't supossed to favor one side or the other based on some outside factors. All things are supposed to be equal; that's why the statue is Blind Justice, and not Prejudiced Justice or Bribe-able Justice. Imagine if a baseball umpire asked both managers to come out and open their checkbooks, and whoever paid him more would get favorable calls all day. Or if a football referee based his calls on the fact that one team has more minority players on a team. You would scoff that such a thing is absurd, and you'd be right.
Never mind that we're dealing with statistics here. I'll even include that disparities in the demographic groups can be attributed to drug-enforcement policies (one swath through HempFest could set things level), being unable to afford decent counsel, sentencing and enforcement procedues and any number of other causes. That doesn't change what the numbers are, and you can't just wish things differently.
The Seattle Times obviously thought well enough of Justice Sanders to give him the thumbs-up and only pulled back when he said something they didn't like. He said something factual; that African Americans are overrepresented behind bars in Washington state. That point isn't up for debate, the statistics bear that out. There isn't any "nuance" there to be said, at least not by a judge. That should be left to James Bible, and not judges.