I don't think judges should necessarily be punished for bad decisions. The judiciary is a mechanism for allowing society to get along peacefully with one another (ie you can take your grievance to a judge instead of to the mob). I don't really want judges having to worry about punishment when doing their job.

On the other hand. Incompetent and corrupt judges have no place in the judiciary because it's basically an attack on the citizenry's ability to live peacefully. Now you need money, power, or violence to live security and that doesn't go well. Incompetent results in dismissal forever (sorry I don't have a good test for this). Corruption results in loss of past, present, and future benefits and significant jail time.

Third parties abusing the judiciary to abuse the citizenry is just as bad as a corrupt judge. Their end should be in a jail cell.

You forgot lazy. What do you do with the judges that simply can't be arsed to read the filings or briefs, and arbitrarily rule against those that seem to be making the most work for them? They want a light calendar, so they can spend more time doing literally anything else. So what do you do with those who will only do their job half-assed?

Vote them out in the next election?

I think I'd be willing to move to wherever place it is you may be thinking about where that actually works.

I always vote "do not retain" in every election that allows the public to vote for judges, on the off chance that someone else that knows something I don't may need the help in removing a bad judge, and none of those judges ever failed to remain on the bench.

But most places that I have lived don't even vote on judicial retention. The only reliable way to get rid of a judge is to get them appointed to a more prestigious circuit, which would be a pyrrhic victory.

> I don't think judges should necessarily be punished for bad decisions.

There are poor subjective decisions and then there are bad decisions.

"The technicality of the law" is a core component of the job of a judge. _Wilfully disregarding_ that is incompetence.

Example: in my state I work as a paramedic or EMT. In many states, including mine, there are Good Samaritan laws that protect bystanders, should they do harm in attempting to do well. There's a standard of reasonability.

For me? Not so much/at all. If this is my job, I am held, by my employer, by the state, by the Medical Director (whose medical license I practise under), and my patients to a core competency that means I am expected to know, and act as a professional care provider, and that I can be sued, sanctioned, or otherwise for failure to meet those standards.

And it should be the case.

"The judiciary is a mechanism for allowing society to get along peacefully with one another"

The Judiciary is much more than that. But even if that were the case, judges who make bad decisions impair the peace that they're charged with keeping. It would increase peace to get rid of bad judges and prevent them from issuing bad judgements.

I think our primary issue is "what constitutes a bad decision". You separate out bad decisions from incompetent and corrupt decisions. I think that any 'bad decision' is one that reveals a Judge to be incompetent or corrupt. In this case, I think the judge made a bad decision because their decision didn't reflect the evidence available to them. They should be put on probation at the least.