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…
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…
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,
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).
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
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,
Gevinson, A. (2009, July 28). Supreme Court Nominations | Teachinghistory.org. Retrieved February 19, 2014, from http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/22435
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
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.
An advantage of electing judges is that it insures that the judges are loyal to the people
The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Chief Justice John Marshall affected the American Judicial System. The reader will therefore first find a brief biography of John Marshall. Then the paper will explain in detail the origins of the Judicial Power to subsequently...
Today juries are much more diverse. Men, women, and people from diverse backgrounds are called to jury duty. Although the origin of the jury system is not clear, history has shown that William the Conqueror from Normandy introduced a similar system to England around 1066 CE (Judiciary of Vermont 1). After the American Revolutionary War, the jury system became the American ideal of justice. This essay will explore the history of the American jury system and illustrate how it has evolved over the course of the American history.
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
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.
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.