Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

I guess people of authority should be carefull of what they say.....

>>Link<< (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/04/judge.racial.remarks.ap/index.html)

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- A Virginia judge has resigned after the disclosure of racially charged remarks he wrote in an Internet chat room, including statements suggesting that blacks have a biological tendency toward violence.

Richmond General District Judge Ralph B. Robertson stepped down after 19 years on the bench. He stopped hearing cases last week and filed for retirement, which is to take effect April 1.

The Richmond Free Press, a weekly newspaper with a predominantly black readership, reported Thursday that Robertson endorsed the notion that "African-Americans are prone to crime and violence because it is in their genes" and agreed with another chat-room writer who said that some minorities are "people who have no regard for sanitation, courtesy, private property, etc."

"My heart and my deepest apology go out to the black community of the city of Richmond," he said in remarks published Thursday in the Free Press.

When reached at his home by The Associated Press, Robertson would say only that he was sorry and declined to comment further.

Robert E. Walker, a black defense attorney who frequently appeared in Robertson's court, said he still considers Robertson "a good person and a good judge" who always decided cases based on the facts and the law.

"I never had a feeling when I practiced in front of him that he's racist," Walker said.

The judge's online comments were posted between January 25 and February 19. The Free Press got the comments from a member of the chat room and later spoke to Robertson, who confirmed that he wrote them.

"I am not a racist," he wrote, according to the paper. "I am a racialist. The difference being I don't discriminate against an individual, but I do recognize the fact that there are a lot of differences between races which I assume from a biological standpoint is caused by difference in DNA.

"If DNA controls everything else, why shouldn't it cause a difference in ability to learn or play sports or a proclivity for violence?" he wrote.

Robertson, 60, criticized civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as a plagiarist and described Jesse Jackson as "a thief, a liar and a traitor to his own people."

He was also critical of the civil-rights movement in which he participated when he was younger. "I have long since removed myself from the civil-rights movement and generally see it for the scam that it (is) and was," he wrote.

Robertson was a defense attorney and assistant prosecutor before becoming a judge in 1985. He was elected to his fourth six-year term last year.

good, that kinda **** doesn't belong. I hope he didn't have children he was teaching that to.

More of this should happen. There should be watchdogs that watch websites and forums just for blowing the whistle on people that have such powers. We must remember that these guys work for us and we are not under THEIR thumbs..

Well we know the judge wasn't on stormfront at least - there would have been accolades, not condemnation.

His science sounds a bit wobbly but I'm not a scientist so I can't critique it.

I didn't appreciate his remarks about Dr King whom I regard as one of history's great men but that's just my personal opinion and doesn't count for much in the way of facts.

I also thought he was a bit disillusioned with the civil rights movement but then what's wrong with him expressing his opinion?

If his views weren't affecting the way he did his job (sounds like he was okay as a judge) then why should he be forced to resign because of privately expressed remarks? By the way I don't think that expressing your thoughts in an internet chat room (IRC included) is public expression, to me it's much more restricted. For example I don't believe my remarks here could be compared with my writing a letter to the editor of my local newspaper with the intent of publication.

Personally I think this sets a dangerous precedent.

the problem with that, is even if he said it in private, he still believes it. There is no way people can seperate their thoughts from decisions they make. Thats how they form judgements, from their beliefs and experiences.

If he didn't have the job he did then it wouldn't matter. He would just be another ignorant dumb ***, but he does.

Public office is intrusted and to lay the publics trust in someone who is clearly has issues that are not in the publics interest is dangerous. How can a judge be trusted if he is a racist? How many convictions or sentances were handed out unfairly because of his beliefs? Who knows?
He did the right thing by stepping down.

A single judge sitting as a court has superior courts in the hierarchy that can check any decisions made whether they be directions in law to the jury or sentencing decisions. A judge has to follow binding precedents in direction on law and is also bound to follow rules in sentencing. A deviation would be checked by an appeal and review from a superior court. I do believe that it is possible to separate personal beliefs from professional actions. Cops do it all the time. I have no doubt that this judge would have been able to do it as well. If he was unable to do that then it would have shown up in his decisions and he would have been corrected by a superior court on appeal. There is no information on the amount of successful appeals against this judge so I can't carry that further. I am addressing butter's point there.

Now Zen - this is a serious question and it is not being asked just to start a sh**fight. What is a "racist"? Let me explain why I am asking. It is because I hear and read the term "racist" and "racism" a lot. It has got to the point where I think the terms have lost their value.

This judge called himself a "racialist". My understanding of the term "racialist" (and I will admit that these are highly subjective terms and are loaded so if we don't agree on their meaning then no problems) is that a person who is a racialist not only believes in racial differences but also believes that certain races are superior to others. How that can be is beyond me because it doesn't make sense, that one race is superior to another. It defies logic, but then perhaps I'm a bit thick on that one. Now this judge can believe that if he wishes, it just seems bit short on logic for me.

Standby for discursive posting:

Now let me explain why I think this situation is dangerous. I don't believe that people should be punished for what they think. Think what you like, it's your actions that will be visible and on which you should and will be judged according to society's prevailing values.

Diversity of thought and opinion is healthy for any society. Crushing dissenting views will only cause harm - whether the crushing is done by the Right, the Left or anything in between.

I know this is a bit yada yada (great term that) but forcing compliance is tyrannical. It harkens back to Stalin and his need for total control over not just action but also thought. Heck Stalin even thought he could control nature (reference to Trofim Lysenko and the dialectical materialism in biology).

Anyway back to the point. I believe that people should be able to think what they wish, not be told what to think. I believe that people should be able to express themselves freely but within accepted limits (this is a reference to the old legal saw about us not being free to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre).
I believe that people should be judged on their actions and not their thoughts.

I believe that this judge was treated unfairly.

You, Oscar are a credit to any discussion board. With explainations like that one cannot help but to read and re read untill it soaks in and becomes clear that I surely have much to learn from you.

I think Oscar is a closet lawyer!

Norm I'll sue!!!!!! What little reputation I have will go right down the toilet if that gets out LOL

BTW neat signature line :D