In a democracy we are ruled by consent. I fundamentally oppose secrecy for those in power. We are not afforded such privilege as citizens. There are existing laws, that would severely punish anyone harassing a judge. But a judge is part of the community. Judges need to be accountable to the communities they rule in. If they do something that would result in a violent mob showing up at their house.
Like for example, overturn an election unjustly. Then we are already down the path of severe political instability.
The machinery of the state is set up to protect judges. If judges are being tracked down and killed in large numbers. Then its a sure sign that the state is failing too. In such a case, I would rather that the state fail quickly.
Having secret judges, secret tribunals, or anonymous judges, would only make oppression easier. This is what dictatorships do.
And your logic would equally fit any politician, as most have received death threats. And some have been harassed at their homes.
> If judges are being tracked down and killed in large numbers. Then its a sure sign that the state is failing too. In such a case, I would rather that the state fail quickly.
Oh right, so what you are saying is that once the killin starts, you hope it ramps up fast!
Like the other commenter said, I hope I don't live near you.
You make a bunch of valid points. Thanks for clarifying.
>Having secret judges, secret tribunals, or anonymous judges, would only make oppression easier. This is what dictatorships do.
But I don't really get what you mean by this. We don't have secret or anonymous judges. And anyone who wants to address any particular judge knows exactly where to find them -- at the relevant courthouse.
In fairness, we do have the FISA court, whose proceedings are secret (and I don't like that one bit), but the judges who sit on the FISA court aren't anonymous or "secret." And again, if someone has an issue with any of those judges, they can just go to the relevant court and do so.
Going to people's homes to intimidate or harm them or their families is repugnant to me personally and to a free society in general.
You said that "Laws like this just give them more cover."
Are you advocating that people go to people's homes to intimidate, threaten and harm people and/or their families as a check on how they deal with others?
That sounds a lot like the vigilantism you appear to decry.
Or are you claiming that we live in a failed state, so any actions taken against public figures is not only acceptable, but encouraged?
I guess the tl;dr is that you didn't answer my question. Will you do so now?
Having secret judges, secret tribunals, or anonymous judges, would only make oppression easier. This is what dictatorships do.
And your logic would equally fit any politician, as most have received death threats. And some have been harassed at their homes.