Friday, June 9, 2017
Worst US District Judge in America gets praise for promoting vigilante violence from the bench
Apparently this judge has a long history of stupid remarks and getting "benchslapped" for apparently screwing up trials. But when you advocate straight up murder from the bench, you're at least worthy of an award. A SHIITAKE award! In fact, here are some cases he screwed up:
United States v. Cherry, 720 F.3d 161, 167-69 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Echlin, 528 F. App’x 357, 363 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Garries, 452 F. App’x 304, 309-11 (4th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); Murphy v. United States, 383 F. App’x 326, 334 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); United States v. Dabney, 71 F. App’x 207, 210 (4th Cir. 2003) (per curium).
He's a senile old crone appointed by Reagan. I'd say that's reason enough to bench this clown. However, the comment section in the article is full of Trump-humper praise for this idiot.
By the way, I was almost tempted to add Mary Devoy to the nominees list. She claims to want to reform the laws but at times she seems to be more in tune with people like this guy than with REAL activists like me.
Child porn producers should be "shot," federal judge suggests in a Norfolk courtroom
By Scott Daugherty
14 hrs ago
From the bench this week, a federal judge unafraid of offering blunt opinions said that anyone who produces child pornography should be shot.
An exact quote of what Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Doumar said Tuesday during a case involving the collection of child porn was not available, but in an interview Thursday, he reiterated the comment multiple times.
“I said it. I said that they should be shot,” said Doumar.
He stressed he was referring to producers of “baby pornography” and noted that the case at hand involved particularly heinous images. The pornography included photos of very young children, penetration, bestiality and various other forms of physical and emotional abuse, prosecutors said.
“I feel very strongly on this,” he said. “They are not fit to live in our society.”
That said, Doumar, whom President Ronald Reagan nominated to a lifetime appointment on the bench more than 35 years ago , went on to explain that he did not “actually want to go kill them.”
The maximum punishment for producing child pornography is life in prison, and Doumar acknowledged that is all he can legally do when it comes to sentencing producers.
In 2014, Doumar sentenced a Virginia Beach man to life in prison plus 40 years on charges he was responsible for videos that captured the sexual abuse of seven children under 5 in Hampton Roads. At the time, he called Robert H. Scott Jr. the “epitome of evil” and offered a hint at what he thought was a truly appropriate punishment.
“Life in prison is not a satisfactory solution,” Doumar told Scott, “but it is the solution available.”
Doumar is known in legal circles for telling colorful stories from the bench. During many sentencing hearings in drug cases, he has recounted an extended history of China and the opium trade and compared it to the United States and its drug policies. He fears for the future of the country if drugs are legalized.
The judge’s penchant for interrupting attorneys, however, has drawn the ire of lawyers and even the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In 2015, American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing a transgender boy who sued the Gloucester County School Board over his right to use his school’s male restroom asked the appellate court to reassign their case to another judge. The attorneys complained that Doumar repeatedly said in court that their client had a “mental disorder” and that they were more interested in gaining media attention than representing the boy’s best interests.
“I’m having a huge problem with everybody knowing that he desires to be a male and, in fact, his attorney advertising that to the world,” said Doumar, who eventually ruled against the boy.
The case remains on appeal. Regardless of what happens, however, Doumar said he will not be involved with it anymore.
“I’ve removed myself from the transgender case,” he said in the interview.
Last year, a panel of three federal appeals judges criticized Doumar’s handling of a 2013 trial in which the head of a defunct Newport News brokerage firm was convicted of defrauding investors out of $1.75 million.
Fourth Circuit Judge Stephanie Thacker took Doumar to task for repeatedly claiming during Jeffrey Martinovich’s first sentencing hearing that the federal guidelines were mandatory – even though the Supreme Court had ruled they were not and attorneys for both sides had reminded him they were not.
In the same 32-page opinion – which was joined by Judge Henry Floyd – Thacker also criticized Doumar for repeatedly interrupting defense attorneys and prosecutors during the trial.
“Here, we are once again confronted with a case replete with the district court’s ill-advised comments and interference,” she said before referencing five other cases in her footnotes.
Doumar’s latest comments came Tuesday during the sentencing hearing of John M. Bowen, a convicted sex offender busted with one of the largest caches of child porn ever recovered in Virginia.
According to court documents, federal investigators found potentially 1.7 million pieces of child pornography on Bowen’s computers, along with a handmade sex doll that resembled a small child.
During the hearing, Doumar questioned what, if any, benefit mental health treatment has on sex offenders. He said he had tried to research the matter but couldn’t find definitive answers. “Does it do any good?” Doumar asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathleen Dougherty. “I’m curious about that.”
A 2014 study funded by the U.S. Justice Department noted that some research had found limited and even no benefits to treatment. The author’s review of several studies, however, determined it was “reasonable to conclude, albeit cautiously, that certain types of treatment can produce reductions in recidivism for certain sex offenders.”
Mary Davye Devoy, an advocate for "reforming" Virginia’s Sex Offender Registry, said Doumar’s comments were “upsetting for sure.”
She agreed people who molest babies on camera deserve the “full extent of the law.” But she said it was inappropriate for a judge to advocate from the bench for more than the law allows. She said a person who hears such comments might believe he or she has the judge’s blessing to act outside the law.
“A person saying that on the streets is one thing. A judge on the bench is another,” Devoy said. “It may be time for him to retire.”