Judges decide the fate of others on a daily basis, from dismissing speeding tickets, to sentencing a serial killer. These decisions effect how the public views the criminal justice system and how the public views particular judges, therefore, judicial selection methods continue to be a much debated topic. There are currently three common methods of judicial selection: the federal system of appointment, popular elections, and merit selection (commonly known as the Missouri Plan). These three methods each have their own unique set of pros and cons. The articles I chose examined the different systems with the majority of their focus on the merit selection process and the partisan election process and how they affect the accountability of the …show more content…
judges and how much influence the public has in selection. Both make very good and valid points, but how should judges be selected? Which way allows for better, more informed decisions? Is there a way that allows more public participation, or do both ways limit how the public can be involved in the process? Since judges represent the public and the public opinion, the involvement in the selection process is something members of the public should be entitled to.
However, the method of selection that would allow this is still a large debate. One article argues that the partisan election is the best method of selection because other methods, primarily the merit selection method, are not beneficial to the public, and that by attaching a partisan label to the election, the judges ideology and philosophy can be open to the public (Shackelford and Butterfield, 2010). However, the other article debates that the merit selection process allows for better public involvement, since the merit selection method allows for a vote from the public after the judge has been on the bench for a certain period of time. In the article, Champagne states that the “mainstream legal community” favors systems of judicial selection that “support independence from the electorate,” such as merit selection, whereas many political scientists support partisan elections (Champagne, …show more content…
2011). The merit selection system starts with a select group of people who screen potential judge appointees. Then a short list gets sent to the governor, from which the governor picks and appoints a judge. If the governor doesn’t pick one of the nominees suggested, then the panel can make the appointment, against the governor’s desires. The judge will run in a retention election at a later time, unopposed for public approval. The article by Shackelford and Butterfield, state that this is “elite,” with a panel of mostly lawyers, and seems like a “back-room political dealing,” since the judge is picked by a select few and runs unopposed in the retention election. It doesn’t leave much room for opposition or public opinion in the matter. They also stated that the mindset where some people are telling citizens that “they are abusing the system if they vote no on retention of a judge” (Shackelford & Butterfield, 2010). The retention vote could be viewed as “providing public accountability,” however defeat rates are almost unheard of, due to lack of an opponent (Champagne, 2011). There are two major aspects that come into play when selecting a judge: judicial accountability and judicial independence.
Each selection process effects how accountable and how independent they must be a little differently. The appointment system “stresses judicial independence,” as there is no check on the judge after confirmation. The merit selection system also stresses judicial independence and holds lower accountability to the public. The only real check on these two systems is the “electoral responsiveness” of either the judicial appointment or confirming officers, and commission or governor. Partisan and nonpartisan elections mostly promote judicial accountability, because they are subject to electoral control. The partisan election “promotes the greatest degree of electoral accountability of judges” (Champagne,
2011). The two arguments proposed in the article by Champagne focus on if elected judges are not as independent as they should be and if judicial elections are unable to promote accountability of judges. The author states that a major criticism of the selection process is that “voters do not know who their judicial candidates are” thus lowering accountability for the judges, since the public cannot hold them accountable. Studies involving name recognition show that voters are generally oblivious of judges, unless there has been unusual media attention.
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
“Corruption is like a ball of snow, once it’s set a rolling it must increase (Charles Caleb Colton).” Colton describes that once corruption has begun, it is difficult to stop. Corruption has existed in this country, let alone this very planet, since the beginning of time. With corruption involves: money, power, and favoritism. Many people argue today that racism is still a major problem to overcome in today’s legal system. American author (and local Chicago resident) Steve Bogira jumps into the center of the United States justice system and tells the story of what happens in a typical year for the Cook Country Criminal Courthouse, which has been noted as one of the most hectic and busiest felony courthouses in the entire country. After getting permission from one of the courthouse judges’ (Judge Locallo) he was allowed to venture in and get eyewitness accounts of what the American Legal System is and how it operates. Not only did he get access to the courtroom but: Locallo’s chambers, staff, even his own home. In this book we get to read first hand account of how America handles issues like: how money and power play in the court, the favoritism towards certain ethnic groups, and the façade that has to be put on by both the defendants and Cook County Workers,
The type of elections is widely criticized for delivering less qualified results, considering the fact that the public does not have enough information on judicial candidates and their qualifications. Furthermore, judicial candidates are not allowed to take stands on controversial issues or specific cases in accordance with the Judicial Code of Conduct (Corriher, 2012).
Gevinson, A. (2009, July 28). Supreme Court Nominations | Teachinghistory.org. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/22435
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court. Introduction Juries are a vital object to the legal system and are prioritized as the most democratic element in our society, aside from voting, in our society today.
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges are elected in nonpartisan statewide elections. Mid-term vacancices are filled by appointment. State law requires that nominees are state residents and have practiced law for a minimum of seven years.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
as it does supporters. But, if we do not allow the Supreme Court to translate
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
Arguments For and Against Juries The right to a trial by jury is a tradition that goes right to the the heart of the British legal system. It is a right fiercely fought for. and fiercely defended at those times when its powers have been seen to be under threat as those backing reforms are finding. The tradition of being "tried by a jury of one's peers" probably has its origins in Anglo Saxon custom, which dictated that an accused man could be acquitted if enough people came forward to swear his innocence.
Then there are bench trials which is where there is only one judge and they decide the verdict, which is the result/decision of a case. The Administrative Office of the United States took an annual report of verdicts in Federal Courts in the year 2010. Bench trials had a more reasonable result and the acquitted and convicted were more honest while most of the Jury trials were all resulted as convicted. (Document A) These stats help show that having a judge with more knowledge deciding a case will give the defendants more of a fair case. No person wants someone random deciding their sentence of that
Long-drawn out trials that go on for years cause psychological stress, tension in the family of those involved in the case, and these trials make a huge dent in the money supply of the court system in the government. Each day members of the jury have to be accounted for and must receive money for their services. Using a judge is both cost-effective and smart. Additionally, judges usually don’t take as long to make decisions in court as they are both efficient in what they do and are well-informed of the subject, the particular person on trial, and they have the know-how to execute the correct sentence. “In 2010, 2,352 federal criminal defendants had a jury trial and 88% of these criminal jury trials ended in a conviction.” (Document A) Now on the one hand some...
Torres-Spelliscy et al. (2010) encouraged diversity in the American court system and provided ten practices to attract the brightest female and minority candidates for the judiciary, and they are as follows: (1) grapple fully with implicit bias; (2) increase strategic recruitment; (3) be clear about the role of diversity in the nominating process in state statutes; (4) keep the application and interviewing process transparent; (5) train commissioners to be effective recruiters and nominators; (6) appoint a diversity compliance officer or ombudsman; (7) create diverse commissions by statute; (8) maintain high standards and quality; (9) raise judicial salaries; (10) improve record keeping (p. 3). Appointing minorities and females to the U.S. bench will increase public confidence, and it will also bring important value towards the representation of women and ethnic
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012
The given statement suggests that the emphasis on judicial diversity is unnecessary since there is no guarantee that a diverse judiciary would arrive at a different decision than that of a conservative judiciary. This essay attempts to argue that although there is no evidence that a diverse bench would radically change the outcome of a given case, the quality of justice will be substantially enhanced by the inclusion of a range of perspectives from which are currently not represented by the English judiciary.