I’m going to make an assumption or two. 1. everything this man is doing or has done is legal i.e. he’s not into kiddy porn or something else that crosses the legal lines 2. He thinks what he is into is proper and doesn’t have a problem with everyone, meaning the public, his family, etc knowing about it.
Even if those first two conditions are met, I wouldn’t want this guy in public office, especially as a judge. When your own personal code of conduct, ethics, morals and behavior is less than what the average person would consider acceptable, you open yourself up to manipulation. Second, if his judgment about personal matters is such that he holds himself to a lower moral standard than most people, what standard of behavior is he going to hold himself and his decision making to for his job? Third, I don’t want someone with low moral expectations of himself making life and death (potentially and figuratively) decisions for society.
I didn't understand the context of the first post. Knowing more about situation I still stand by my first reaction.
As for the legalities, I am inclined to think that if this is in fact Harris, there is no way, in my mind, that he could have honestly made some of the allegations against Smartt. Under oath.
That last quote of his sums it up quite nicely.
I always appreciate your input Res.
I made this same comment on the other blog but it bears repeating. The recent killings in Canada at the college were noteworthy in one respect because the killer was a regular player of a first person shooter game. our Sam says that he engages in the same kind of fantasy murder one to six hours per day. That kind of mentality is of concern to me. combine that with the other comments about killing people and hiding the bodies and I have to question where this person really stands on a moral compass.
I for one have no doubt that this is our local JP. This shows me that Sam holds people in his court to a much higher standared of moral conduct than he would apply to himself and his friends.
Sorry for cluttering your blog up with this long comment, firefly, but I think that the perspective I have to offer is important. And since Geeguy deleted this comment from his blog, I have posted it here, even though the internet furor over this is now dying down.
As I told geeguy, his worries about putting himself out there on an island were obviously misplaced. Indeed, I am the one who feels like Simon walking into the fire-circle, my lone cry that "there's no monster here" being drowned out by the strident calls of every one else to "Kill the Beast!" You know, if you are going to have a witch hunt, October is certainly the month to do it. But with all due respect, witch hunts have been passe amongst civilized people for several centuries. So I would ask that geeguy's (and your) readers lower their torches and pitchforks a bit, and hear me out. I am not the "Avatar O'Sam" that some seem to think. I am, I hope, a reasonable man, with a differing opinion.
I think one of the anonymous commenters hit the nail on the head.
Harris' Gore postings are not relevant to his fitness to serve in his judicial position.
It is perfectly legitimate to criticize a judge for intemperate behavior from the bench. To maintain the integrity of the bench, judges need to be impartial in their treatment of those before them, and respectful and temperate in their courtroom demeanor. I have no problem with anyone taking this or any other judge to task for perceived shortcomings in this area.
It is also appropriate to criticize judges who have a high rate of error. Our system takes into account that judges are human and make mistakes by granting the right to appeal, and by having the final appellate authority composed of a panel of judges, rather than just one. It is appropriate to criticize a judge who is abusing his power, even though there are remedies in the law for such abuses. A judge who is too often wrong, or abusive, is damaging to the system. So discussion of these is also fair game, although I would caution that one who does so ought to fully investigate first, given that sitting judges cannot comment on pending cases, placing them at somewhat of an disadvantage.
So if you and geeguy have these sorts of complaints about Harris, well then blog away, I say. I may or may not agree with your opinion, but I believe these are legitimate topics of discussion.
Where I disagree is on the disclosure of the Gore forum posts.
I understand, firefly, that part of your motivation was based on your inability to reconcile Harris' public statements on the Smartt matter with the tenor of his Gore posts. I don't know Harris' thought processes. I can only offer two things: an observation; and an anecdote. My observation is that the human mind is an incredibly complex thing, and not easily predictable. My anecdote is this: I have a friend who is a police officer. Occasionally, when we are relaxing over a beer, he will make some
comment that is insensitive, callous even, toward criminals or even crime victims. But I know him to be a top-notch officer, who works hard at his job and genuinely cares about the law and the people he serves. His occasional vulgar comments are blowing off steam, a way that he handles the stress of dealing with, day in and day out, the filth and crime, mindless violence and senseless victimization that it is his lot to prevent when he can, and bring to justice when he can't.
My problem with gg's history is its assumption of hypocrisy.
To be a hypocrite, Harris would have to be engaging in the same activity he publically criticized Smartt for. But it doesn't take a refined legal mind to see that there are substantial, meaningful differences in the conduct of Smartt and Harris. There is a difference between explicit photgraphic porn and written vulgarity. There is a differecne between using government property and using your own computer. There is a difference between doing something at work and doing it at home, on oyur personal time. And there is a difference between exposing an employee to explicit porn and and posting a comment on a forum that is compatible with forum tenor.
I would agree that the conduct of both can be loosely described as "internet improprieties". But the differences are so significant as to nullify and claim of hypocrisy.
Well, at least with respect to Harris.
GeeGuy wrote:
"Harris' accusations destroyed Mike Smartt. After the scorn and humilation that was heaped upon him by Harris and others, he could no longer sit in judgment of others Once it became public, it became over....
[W]hat struck me (and many other lawyers I have talked to) about the whol affair was how unnecessary it all was. It was Judge Harris's public rendition of it all that destroyed Mike Smartt's ability to judge. Mike Smartt's credibility was systematically and purposefully destroyed.
Had this matter been handled between two, rational adult human beings, Mike Smartt could well be alive today. Imagine if, instead of creating a public furor from his own offense and righteousness, judge Harris had instead confronted Smartt privately and, failing that, privately sought the admonishment of others to implore Smartt to take his problems home, away from his chambers. If Smartt had still insisted in engagin his desires at the Courthouse, couldn't we then at least credit Harris for trying to solve the problem in a way less damaging to the man and the office?"
So, Geeguy claims Harris acted wrongly in, having discovered the internet improprieties of a sitting judge, taking them public rather than addressing them privately, out of respect for the man and the office.
What has GeeGuy done here?
Yeah, you know what is coming next....
He has discovered the internet improprieties of a sitting judge and taken them public, admittedly to destroy the man, rather than address tehm privately out of respect for the
continued, again:
Geeguy has discovered the internet improprieties of a sitting judge and taken them public, admittedly to destroy the man, rather than address them privately out of respect for the man and the office.
I do indeed smell the foul odor of hypocrisy in the air. But it's not coming from the JP's office, is it?
Okay, I am done.
Allen
I have no problem with the length of your comment, and actually, I wanted to discuss this with you.
I absolutely do not agree with you when you say Harris would need to be engaging in the same actions for this to be hypocritical.
Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
He stated several times that Smartt's actions deeply affected him, and his ability to do his job around Smartt.
He stated that Smartt did not have the morals and ethics to sit in judgement, due to having been caught looking at porn.
To prove Harris a hypocrite, you would need to simply prove that looking at porn did not affect him deeply, and that looking at porn did not affect Smartt's ability to do his job. Go re-read some of those comments. Then take a look at that definition up there and tell me again Harris is not a hypocrite?
I've been reading about JP Harris and I honestly hope this doesn't just get swept under the carpet. I am a total observer, have no friendship/relationship/or whatever, of either Sam Harris or Mike Smartt. I have observed both of them in their official capacity, frankly if I was ever to be "judged" by either man, my preference would have been Mike Smartt. I have always believed that what he(Harris) did to Mike Smartt was very very wrong. I also believe that JP Smartt should not have been looking at porno at work . . etc. However the public humiliation and ruining of his good name, was just not right.
In my opinion, my hope is that Sam Harris will step down - In my opinion, he does not have what it takes to be a fair and balanced judge. I read what he wrote about Bill Clinton on the gore forum (plus many of his other posts) and I think, that he gave his own answer to this situation in that post. I don't wish any ill will on him - he just doesn't make a very fair and impartial judge.
Further, I disagree that this is just how guys talk. Perhaps in a locker-room, but I personally expect more of someone in his position - In this regard, I agree with the Montana Canons of Judicial Ethics ". . . but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach."
Frankly, I'm uncomfortable separating what Sam Harris does in a public forum where he openly flaunts his identity as a judge in Great Falls and what he does with a black robe on.
His addiction to a "single-person shooter" video game, which takes up 1-6 hours/day, borders on pathological for any grown man. I just don't feel right to know that a judge engages in such behavior -- couldn't the learned judge be reading Dickens or Dostoevsky or something, or am I just expecting too much culture out of these guys?
Anyways, the implication of electing judges is that citizens can evaluate them on whatever aspect of their exposed character they choose to. That Judge Harris has a weird addiction to such games explains, to me, a lot about his much-noted temperament as an off-the-handle and capricious arbiter in court which, I agree with Allen, is really the bigger issue.
Commenting by HaloScan
