I dislike election time for more reasons than just the annoying commercials. In our state, judges are elected. Here, magistrates handle misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings, and set bail for all cases. They are not required to be lawyers (or have any more education than a high-school diploma or GED). They run in open elections every 4 years. As a result, as the election gets closer, there is no longer any point to actually having the probable cause hearing, or arguing to lower a client's bail, which usually is set sky-high to begin with or denied altogether.
The district court judges (the courts of general jurisdiction) are a little better. They, at least, are required to have law licenses. They are determined by an odd mixture of appointment and election. They are initially appointed by a selection committee, which gives a list to the governor's office, and the governor appoints who he wants. The first election cycle thereafter, the judge runs in open elections, and for "retention" (a yes or no vote) every 4 years afterwards. I guess this system was set up in the hopes of getting the best of both worlds in terms of election vs. appointment. However, it's still extremely political. The reporters tend to show up more in court as Election Day approaches, and no judge wants to see his name in the paper next to a story about releasing criminals or rampant crime.
I so dislike politics! I would think there would be some way judges could just look at case and the law, and make his decisions only based on those things, without thinking about what the paper would say, or what the public thinks. When has the public ever understood the law? It's arcane and picky, with all kinds of nuances that escape the understanding of anyone not trained in it. This is why one must be licensed before practicing.
But, alas, if judges were not elected, they would have to be appointed. This would mean we could never get rid of a bad judge, and they would never be answerable to anyone except their political cronies. So, I will wait out this storm, and, come November 8, many judges will find Motions to Review Conditions of Release on their desks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
''I would think there would be some way judges could just look at case and the law, and make his decisions only based on those things, without thinking about what the paper would say, or what the public thinks.''
I know I have little training in law, but isn't that the definition of a judge's job?
Yes, it is their job. However, if they like their job and want to remain judges, they must continue to be either elected or retained. This requires at least some public support. This is the crux of the problem with electing judges.
You could make the same observations about the election of prosecutors. While our charge is to "do justice", the hue and cry is for a pound of flesh. Most of us spend more time struggling with charging decisions and disposition recommendations than doing anything John Q would understand - yet our actions are picked apart by them once every four years. Is is any wonder that very few good attorneys are willing to make a career out of prosecution?
I think you are right. In our jurisdiction the actual elected DA has no actual caseload, so it is somewhat better. (He will occassionaly enter his appearance on a high-profile case, but let an underling actually handle it.) He allows a fair amount of license to the assistants and deputies in how they handle their cases. I understand electing prosecutors a little better than electing judges, since the prosecutor is supposed to represent "The State" (or the People, or the County, or whatever.) But I can definitely understand the problem of trying to explain to the public why you had to dismiss a case on a bad search, when the guy was "so obviously" guilty. And, yes, I do celebrate the cases I have with prosecutors who both know what they are doing, and have the moral fiber to do the right thing. (Even if I don't necessarily agree with them on what the "right thing" might actually be.)
Hi Ruth,
I just wanted to tell you that I'm enjoying reading your blog! My screenname is a misnomer, as I'm still in law school, but I was looking through blogger for PD journals (since that's what I want to be) and found yours. Thanks for affirming many of my suspicions - and hopes - about the nature of your work. Best wishes!
-MaryAnne
Post a Comment