I don't think I could be objective about a former classmate, unless I did not remember anything about him or her.

Would you believe -- I fucked up.

--imm

However if the judge feels that she cannot properly apply the law for some reason, that might work.

--imm

Eep! On edit, I was answering Merrily's post #1. Sorry.

--imm

--imm

into that.






.

Think about it. How can a person be objective? And think of how often a judge knows the person they are facing.

Sure a judge should recuse if they think they cannot deal, or avoid the appearance they can't appear unbiased.

Also, in the case above, I think she was just setting bail.

--imm

And think of how often a judge knows the person they are facing.

Again, my issue was ability to be objective; and I think bias can affect setting bail.

On a different point, though, having gone through school with someone every weekday for years is not the same as having met one someone at some point.

A judge is sworn to act 'as if' he/she was being objective, but they are not. Everybody has baggage. Suppose the judge she passes his case to doesn't know him, but is a racist. Could happen. A judge will immediately form an impression of whomever they encounter, so they can't be objective.

Judges around the country frequently encounter people they serve with in community projects, perhaps worship with, and have gone to school with. The question should be can they adjudicate fairly? That can actually be evaluated.

Recusal is for family members, business associates, and some other rare instances. It's not about objectivity, it's about professionalism.

--imm

Objective and fair are synyonyms. I said that I could not be objective about someone I'd gone to school with. That's maybe 13 years times 180 days, not a snap judgment based on eyeballing a stranger. I could not be objective, meaning I could not be fair, impartial, etc.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective
adjective: objective

1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral
"I was hoping to get an objective and pragmatic report"
antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.
"a matter of objective fact"
synonyms: factual, actual, real, empirical, evidence-based, verifiable
"eight objective measurements to track student performance"
antonyms: subjective
2.
Grammar
of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.

and

CANON 1
A judge shall uphold and promote the, independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

CANON 2
A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.

- See more at: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct.html#sthash.h4Hy1Ha2.dpuf

I'm pretty sure what the judge did was within appropriate guidelines. Synonym or not, she doesn't have to be objective (internal perception) to be fair (external action.) The word list you presented don't all mean the same thing as 'objective.' But those words might be substituted depending on the situation. And once you allude that there can be 'degrees of objectivity' it's a question of whether the judge can surpass the threshold of required 'objectiveness.'

There is no objectivity. There can only be 'the appearance of objectivity.' If you want to be objective about it.

(Where is The Magistrate when we need him?)

--imm

That was exactly my point in my first post on this subject.

The word list you presented don't all mean the same thing as 'objective.'

Disagree. Also, I did not post a list of words, I posted a dictionary definition. You are saying that the dictionary definition of a word does not mean the same thing as the word means.

There is no objectivity.

Again, both the dictionary and I meant "objective" within human ability. That should go without saying, but I did say it in my prior post.

These words do not all mean the same thing. Situationally, they could be substituted.

As is the case in most arguments, this has devolved into into a duel based on the meaning of words. Let's take it back a step. You are saying that you, because of emotional reasons, would feel you could not deal fairly with the detainee. Fair enough. I'm thinking she had no problem doing her job. One could say it was within her human ability. If she didn't think so, she could recuse.

If she recuses herself -- is that being objective? IMO, pairing 'objective' with 'human ability' is oxymoronic. I would be very surprised if the notion of 'objectivity' is referenced in any judicial canon. I am hesitant to ascribe the term 'objective' to any human activity. Things like the speed of light, the value of Pi, and the Capital of the US, are objective. Human morals, not so much. Although we might strive toward such an ideal. Which is what a judge does.

--imm