Judges with the temperaments of children should not be judges

In a 4-3 decision at the Ohio Supreme Court, a judge’s decision to add six more years to a person’s sentence after the individual called them a “racist ass bitch” during sentencing was deemed unjustified and has been reversed. The defendant, Manson Bryant, was convicted of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery and initially was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

Following the judge’s sentence, and in light of a co-defendant getting just 12 years for the same crime, Bryant had his emotional outburst, and in response, the judge added another six years onto his sentence, making it 28 years.

I certainly don’t support aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery – particularly after having been a victim of these crimes myself – but adding 2,190 days to a prison sentence because you’ve been insulted is something only done by a hypersensitive, irrational, vengeful, non-judicious jackass.

A lot of descriptors, I know, but each one seems especially apropos.

Perhaps this incident took place on the judge’s worst day, but even so, the judge should’ve had at least one much better day following this sentencing and reversed his decision.

But no, he allowed it to stand.

But what concerns me even more than the judge’s emotionally thin-skinned decision are the judges in the Ohio appeals court who upheld his decision, along with the three judges on the Ohio Supreme Court who did as well.

It was only by the single vote of one seemingly rational judge that this ridiculous, vengeful decision was reversed.

I hate being in the position of a defending violent felon, but the last thing I want is for a judge to be able to imprison an American for about 8 percent of their expected lifespan because the judge was called a name or because the decorum of their courtroom was somehow violated.

Apparently a whole bunch of judges in Ohio disagree with me.

This frightens the hell out of me.