Not the Headlines! Extra Bartenders v. Judges

The Listening To presents Not the Headlines Extra. I saw a meme that asked, if bartenders can get charged for overserving customers who go on to drive drunk, why don't prosecutors and judges get arrested for releasing career criminals who go on to murder people? Let's dive into that a bit. A bartender must be able to determine that a customer is visibly or obviously intoxicated and still serve them in order to break any law, which vary from state to state. With video as common as it is, there may be proof that a person was visibly intoxicated when they walked in. That doesn't mean the bartender saw them walk in. Perhaps the customer slurred their words when they ordered a drink. That would be a good clue. But maybe the customer has a speech impediment. If it's a regular customer, then the bartender should know. But new customers are an open book when it comes to behavior or speech. We're encouraged to give people with other than average social, physical, and mental skills the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with that. I always have been accepting of people the way they are. But we're not talking about morality here. We're talking about the law. Bartenders can be charged because there are laws that govern how alcohol can be served and to whom. The bartender who serves too much alcohol to someone who then goes on to cause the death of somebody else as a result of drunk driving can face a penalty of up to a year in jail and a thousand dollar fine if found guilty of that crime. But it's very hard to prove unless the alcohol was served to a minor. But determining if a customer is intoxicated is a bit more complicated from a legal perspective. In any case, the bartender is only charged with serving the alcohol, not the crime committed by the consumer of the alcohol. Sometimes those crimes rise to the level of vehicular homicide. The opinion that it was an accident is irrelevant. The bartender could not have assumed that would happen. But the question we're examining if bartenders can get charged for overserving customers who go on to drive drunk, why don't prosecutors and judges get arrested for releasing career criminals who go on to murder people? Only states that someone drove drunk. It doesn't even imply that anything bad happened. Driving while drunk is the law that was broken. Turns out being a judge is a lot like being a bartender. Both positions have ultimate authority. You never win if you argue with a judge or the bartender. Here in Pennsylvania, they say that state game officials have more law enforcement authority than the state police. Well, bartenders outrank all of them, as do judges. So the premise of the question is a legitimate one as there are no laws that hold judges responsible for the outcome of what they serve to their customers, i. e. convicted criminals. What the judge is serving is a smorgasbord of law mixed with personal emotions and opinions and possibly pressure from outside sources. The laws are the equivalent of the ingredients of the drinks, and the bartender and the judge both have control over the ratios. Personal emotions and opinions can play a major role in the execution of both justice and the strength of a drink. Some judges may hear the cheers of chug, chug, chug more often than a bartender. Metaphorically speaking, it's true the elixir of justice served by some with the authority to do so is done without any regard for the consequences. Allow me to first point out that judges never get credit when a convicted criminal never appears on the radar again. That's how justice is supposed to work. Not just a punishment, but also a deterrent. When judges minimize an offense without consequence, the deterrent facet of the law is ignored and a certain percent of criminals will continue to offend. These are among some of what many consider to be preventable crimes. These preventable crimes include the most severe crimes like murder, not accidental murder like a drunk driving accident, but a purposeful murder as part of a crime. A crime that may not have been committed if the perpetrator had been properly punished for the previous crime. Perhaps it was a judge that put the perpetrator back on the street. What should the crime for the judge be? Should it be a year in jail and a thousand dollar fine like it is for the bartender? Or should it be more severe, since the judge had the ability to keep the person off the street, but didn't? The bartender can cut you off. Well, it's never happened to me. I've seen it happen, and as a one time part time bartender at the Leavenworth, Kansas VFW, I cut off the president of the auxiliary, so I know it's possible to tell when someone's had enough. Not to mention, my first two wives were bartenders. The judge also has the ability to cut you off, and some of them do, and some of them don't. Those who do are sometimes vilified as being overbearing or mean. But it's those who don't who may be doing the most harm to society. But in the judge's defense, they only have the ability to conclude on the case before them when it comes to criminal proceedings. They can't be held responsible for the societal effect of the justice system. They are merely facilitators of the laws put in place by Congress and approved by the executive. Except for the emotional and opinion parts of their rulings, therein lies the divide. The laws are clear. It's viewpoint that skews the results of justice. But in order to hold judges accountable for their rulings, you have to deny them well, wait. You wouldn't deny them anything. Oh, yes, you would. You would deny them their own discretion. Judges have a lot of leeway when it comes to punishment for convicted criminals. So in a strictly legal sense, judges could be held accountable for how they administer justice. This way, if they elect to inject personal viewpoints into the sentencing of a convict, any subsequent crimes committed by the convict could be tracked by a point system that would identify judges who are erring on the side of the criminal instead of the public. They can't be convicted of anything as there aren't any laws about it, as there are for bartenders, but it could certainly be used as a tool to safeguard the public from activist judges who serve slaps on the wrist like a bartender serves shots at a bachelor party. But the question in question overlooks an important variable, the venue. Some bars are more closely watched and have reputations for trouble. Some judicial districts have DAs who don't prosecute many of the people the police arrest, and therefore the judge never gets a chance to hear the case. So you can't only blame the bartender or the judge. Sometimes criminals aren't held responsible simply because of where the crime takes place. Some areas select district attorneys who have an agenda other than enforcing the law. If we continue to elect prosecutors who don't enforce the law, then we might as well hold responsible everyone who voted for them when a criminal case isn't pursued and the perpetrator commits another crime. After all, that's what they voted for, and their candidate allowed more crime to happen. But when you examine this question, if bartenders can get charged for overserving customers who go on to drive drunk, why don't prosecutors and judges get arrested for releasing career criminals who go on to murder people? The first thing you should notice is that it only accuses the judges of being an accessory to murder. It doesn't even mention any secondary effect of someone driving drunk. Not even an injury. We can assume, based on the question, that the drunk driver made it home safely without causing any harm to anyone or any property. So while I think the premise of the question is worthy of examination, it's easy to tell that whoever wrote it did so with the intent to disparage judges. Otherwise, the drunk driver in question would also have contributed to a death. But that's not how the question is written. The negligence of the bartender and the judge may be equal, but the results are not the same. The judges and the prosecutors cannot be charged with a crime for allowing another crime to happen. Only the bartender can. Here's where bartenders are as powerful as judges. I propose that all bartenders deny any judge or prosecutor a drink until all three positions are treated equally in the ears of the law. You don't think that can happen? A bartender has the authority to deny an alcoholic beverage to anyone at any time for no reason. The person doesn't have to be visibly drunk. The person doesn't have to be obnoxious. No judge or district attorney gets a shot of anything, or a craft beer, or a mixed drink, until they hold themselves responsible for crimes committed because of their negligence in the same way a bartender is.