The judge is essential to the courts as are prosecutors and the attorneys of defense. The text states these are the three key actors of court if either one of the three are not present court will not proceed to session (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 104). In this essay I will discuss the three ways in which judges are selected, the advantages and disadvantages of the three methods used, and which selection method is most equitable.
Judges are paramount to the court system without a judge court would not be functional on the average day to day. Judges are selected to their jobs by three different methods: appointment, election, and merit (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 105). The first and oldest method of appointing judges is by appointment; which is done by the chief executive of the jurisdiction, the president of the United States, or the governor of an individual state (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 105). The next method is a judge being selected through election; which became popular in the 1830s with Georgia being the first state to implement this method (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014:105). Taking one or two forms, an election can be partisan or non-partisan. Meaning that the election can list or not list political affiliation on the ballot (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014:105). However; in Georgia and South Carolina judges are elected by the legislature (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 105). The merit system is the third and last method of judge selection. This system consists of three parts: a nonpartisan nominating commission selects a list of potential candidates based on the candidates’ legal qualifications, the governor makes a selection from this list, and last the selected candidates stand for election also known as retention (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 105...
... middle of paper ...
... to three reasons: the fact that a nonpolitical affiliated nominating commission selects a list of candidates, the governor makes a selection from that list, and then an election takes place (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 105). Having a nonpolitical affiliated nominating commission ensures that there will be no biased opinions of political parties when selecting the list of candidates. In addition, the governor filters that list to prepare for an election. The merit system encompasses method one and method two of how judges are selected which I think is only fair to the judge chosen, the governor, and the people of the community.
In concluding this topic, I have discussed the three methods that are used in which judges are selected. In addition, I have discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the three methods. I have also discussed which method was most equitable.
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 first model to the judicial decision making is the attitudinal model. This model of judicial decision making speculates that a judge’s behavior can be predicted mostly by his or her policy attitudes. It perceives judges of the court as motivated by policy goals and unconstrained by the law. Therefore, they decide cases according to moral preference rather than by the meaning or intention of legal texts. One review of the attitudinal model is the fact it relied heavily on unreliable evidence. Also, the attitudinal model of decision making does not always interpret from explaining justice’s decisions at the Supreme Court. Most legal practitioners such as lawyers and judges are likely to think that a very simple attitudinal model is missing
A solution, based in precedent, must be found to illustrate that judges are not consumed by their own opinions and agendas. Setting new precedent in the courtroom is essential to
It is simple to be confused by the federal court judges and their decisions and how they go about them and how they are in their position. Personally, I always thought they were elected by the Supreme Court or someone or something higher than them. But I was very surprised to know that they were appointed (assigned a job or role to). This leaves the judges from having to go through a process of campaigning and running against others. Although by being unelected officials it has both pros and cons. Pros being, that they are trusted enough to handle cases that go to this point and being able to make a decision under the law to better the society. Cons being, if a federal court judge makes any misdemeanor or crime they have the ability to be impeached
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
Smith, William (1997) “Useful or Just Plain Unfair? The Debate Over Peremptories; Lawyers, Judges Spllit Over the Value of Jury Selection Method” The Legal Intelligencer, April 23: pg 1.
However, this is not the only option. Being appointed without the possibility of renewal, such as an 18-year term limit, would accomplish the same goal. In both situations, the judges would not have to seek reappointment, run for office, or worry about their political popularity.
In addition to this, the analysis of law was not considered thoroughly during judicial decisions. Therefore, the court uses backward reasoning where it uses the expected results it wants to deduce to make decisions. Such activities in the justice department have a lot of impediments to the impartiality of judicial system. The rights of the criminal in many instances are affected by the use of such methods to deliver justice. According to Marshall, the legal analysis used to determine the outcome of the courts has reduced since the changes in the judicial system. The rights of the individuals have significantly reduced with the changes in the court system because only the nine judges are privy to the outcome of the court proceedings; they are also not liable to the questions that may be raised about the legality of their
Holten, N. G. & Lamar, L. L. (1991). The Criminal Courts Structures, Personnel, and Processes. Florida: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
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.
One of those disadvantages is that people cannot be certain that an elected candidate will be the better judge. Judges should be appointed based on their legal training, education, and experience. People often times do not take into account those issues of a judge. They simply vote in the best politician based upon that candidate’s presentation and politics. Another issue is campaign contributions given to candidates during election times. Many people see this as “buying a judge”. If that candidate is given large sums of money from a donor to help his election, then if elected, that judge will feel obligated to rule in that donor’s favor. Elected judges may not be more qualified than their opponent. But because they can raise more money, then they are elected easily. Furthermore, once a judge has won an election, the judge becomes indebted to the corporations and/or unions that contributed to his or her
The jury plays a crucial role in the courts of trial. They are an integral part in the Australian justice system. The jury system brings ordinary people into the courts everyday to judge whether a case is guilty or innocent. The role of the jury varies, depending on the different cases. In Australia, the court is ran by an adversary system. In this system “..individual litigants play a central part, initiating court action and largely determining the issues in dispute” (Ellis 2013, p. 133). In this essay I will be discussing the role of the jury system and how some believe the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system, while others disagree. I will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of a jury system.
remain on the bench. While this greatly reduces special interest money, critics call these systems undemocratic. Nevada has had some problems with the current system in the recent past. One judge was accused of sleeping on the bench and treating her staff like servants, while another admitted to various sexual improprieties. Because of this Nevada voted on moving to the Merit Plan in 2010 but it was rejected by voters by 57%. Nevada has also recently proposed an Intermediate Court of Appeals Amendment which may appear on the ballot in 2014. The measure would establish an intermediate court of appeals in the state. A similar measure was on the ballot in 2010, where it was rejected by voters. Those for the amendment say it would alleviate the backlog of the Supreme Court, those against it say it would increase cost on taxpayers and increase litigation costs.
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
These judges are to judge the people righteously. Justice should be ultimate and should not be changed or distorted. The judges are also to not take bribes from anyone or be partial. This they should do because bribing shows perversion of the righteousness, which should not be something that characterizes the judges. The main objective of these judges should be to only pursue justice in order to be able to “live and possess the land which the Lord” is giving them (NASB Deut.