The Appointment of Judges
Judges can be split into two categories; superior and inferior.
Although each judge has a different role in their own court all
appointment of judges goes through the Lord Chancellor, currently Lord
Falconer. But whether the appointment of judges is a fair process or
not is a topic of interest and certain biases have been shown to
exist.
For superior judges (Law Lords, Lord Justices of Appeal and Puisne
Judges) it is the Lord Chancellor that actually selects them and does
the appointing. However this has been shown to be an unfair process.
There is an ‘Old Boys Network’ which basically means that if you are a
friend of, or are known to the Lord Chancellor you have a higher
chance of being selected as a judge. Obviously this is extremely
unfair, as it has nothing to do with people’s ability and is all to do
with who the Lord Chancellor knows and likes. This could mean that
someone could become a judge who is not as worthy or will be as good
at the job as another person who the Lord Chancellor doesn’t know.
Another problem with the Lord Chancellor selecting who becomes a judge
could be due to him having a political bias. The Lord Chancellor is
appointed by the Prime Minister, so is likely to favour people who are
supporters of the Prime Ministers party, so in the case of today this
would be people supporting the Labour Party.
The process of appointing superior judges is extremely secretive so it
is very easy for him to appoint the people he prefers without it
becoming public knowledge that he knew them previously.
When appointing inferior judges the vacancies are advertised. Although
out of the people that apply it is up to the Lord Chancellor to have
the final say.
Another issue to do with the appointment of judges is how sexist and
racist it appears to be as there is a higher percentage of men than
women as judges, and a much higher percentage of white people than
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).
...te Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs suggested a resigning age for all elected judges. This suggestion was focused around an apparent need to keep up fiery and element courts in opening up boulevards for 'capable legitimate professionals' to attain legal positions. It is likewise focused around developing group faith in a necessary resigning age for judges and to dodge 'the sad need' of uprooting a judge made unfit for office by declining health.
The courtroom is a ritualised space, involving costume, language, spatial organisation and so on, and courts, therefore, constitute performative exercises of power. Discuss some of the ways in which courts demonstrate power and/or power relations.
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
When trying to describe Dan Locallo as a compassionate judge one could use the Tony Cameron, the Larry Bates and the Frank Caruso Jr. criminal cases. Tony Cameron has been in jail for only five months. He was arrested for armed robbery in August of 1997. Cameron has an inner conflict that he keeps fighting-whether or not he wants to plead guilty or not guilty (Courtroom 302, 26). Tony Cameron realizes that if he wants to present his case to the judge he better make it a good one. Most offenders that visit the courthouse feel like...
There is a proverb that says, “Don’t fix what isn’t broke.” This statement is very likely as true as it is old. But what happens when something is dysfunctional? The ‘something’ in question is the coveted seat of the Supreme Court Justice, which many should know is not a position that is obtained from the amazingly widespread routine of elections. Not to let out any spoilers if you were not aware, the President is the nominator of Justices to these associate positions and the Senate is the deciding group with a majority vote. I agree with the practice, currently instated because of our Constitution, but can see how some people worry over its effectiveness. There has been one case where a standing Supreme Court Justice has been impeached. This was the allegation of Justice Samuel Chase (Carliner), who served until his death due to his verdict of not guilty in 1805. As opposed to the customary impeachment of the President and select other political leaders, the impeachment of a Justice signifies nothing more than the investigation of accused actions of said Justice. The Justice shall serve for life, given that they remain in “good behavior” in accordance to the Constitution. Gathering from the history of the Supreme Court and its respective Justices, one impeachment, ending without dismissal, in the 221 years of activity is admirable. It would be fair to say that there could be confusion if somebody were to ask you what grounds for the impeachment of a Justice are had you no copy of the Constitution. Nobody has lived long enough to witness the impeachment of one, and what would be the point considering Justice Samuel Chase still served to his death. The near perfection of the terms served of every Justice is not the only reason that...
The federal government consist of three branches for each one has a specific role that protects and serves each person in the United States. The Constitution established these branches to enhance a stronger federal government as well as to make sure the states worked as one instead as individuals. The method in which it is used goes by Judicial, Legislative, and Executive, these branches go from creating the laws, to implementing laws, to finally interpreting the law. It became known as checks and balances, so that no branch would over power another. Once creating these boundaries, the government became more unified and therefore able to control the country much more formally through the courts. To see the beginning of the never ending, the
The book of Judges is the sequel to Joshua. It is the seventh book of the Old Testament. It recounts stories and events from the death of the hebrew leader and prophet Joshua to the birth of the hebrew Samuel. That is roughly, from the end of the Israelite conquest of Canan in the 13th Century B.C to the begining of the monarchy in the 11 th century B.C. It tells about the hebrews from Joshua’s Death to the time of Samuel. It was written in about 550 BC, on tablets named the Ras Shamra tablets. The Ras Shamra tablets where later discovered in the early 20th Century, even though the stories and acountings of the judges where already known and written. The book of Judges belongs to a specific historical tradition which is called the Deuteronomic history. The author of the book of Judges, was in exile in Babylonia. While in exile he was deeply concerned with foreign domination. So he wrote many of his stories on the migration of the tribe of Dan to the North and the sins of the Benjamites. The author emphasized that Israel was being influenced by foreign powers and the loss of freedom and prosperity. Recurring throughout the book is the stereotyped formula: "The people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the lord." Then after each period or subjection the author introduces another formula: " But when the people of Israel cried the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for the people. Through-out the book, the book of judges tells about prophets, rulers and influencial people such as: Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Gideon, Tilian and Samson. There are also many more minor people.
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.
must live within the area of the court they wish to work in or within
A judge loses this power consider motive because all criminals of the same crime are viewed as equal. By restricting a judge’s discretion, it creates injustice within the courts. Actions are based on their motives and a judge should have the ability to consider it when making a decision that can greatly impact another individual’s life. Therefore, truth in sentencing and the equal justice perspective need the discretion of a judge to justly establish a fair sentence that accounts for all aspects of the individual and their
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...
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.
It also protects individuals in court from biased decisions due to judges fearing the sack. This allows judges to make decisions that no-one else wants to make such as not allowing doctors to revive a sick baby again or long term prison sentencing. All this is especially important in the English legal system as we have no true separation of powers, with The Lord Chancellor having a role in the executive, legislature and judiciary. It is thus vitally important that our judges can make decisions for the right reasons without fear of losing their job. The most insecure appointment is of course that of The Lord Chancellor, which is dependent on which party wins an election and surviving Cabinet reshuffles.
Judges and Their Roles The Lord Chancellor plays a crucial role in the appointment of all judges. The selection and appointment procedure for district judges, recorders and circuit judges is broadly the same. Suitably qualified candidates apply to the Judicial Appointments Department of the Lord Chancellor’s Department (LCD) in response to an advertisement. References are taken up, and wider ‘secret surroundings’ are carried out by officials within the LCD.