The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Selection Methods

You want your people to be excited about their government and if they are forced to vote they will no longer want to be a part. Inspire them, encourage them, and show them how special their government is, and how excited they should be that they actually can have a part! When the citizens are happy, Xlandia can be happy. And that, is our words of advice. Make note that we have taken into consideration every single aspect, and it all boils down to the your citizens. Our suggestions are what we feel, is best for the citizens, and that will help you go far! Good

The Supreme Court is an extremely important part of government. As such, we need healthy judges that are on top of their mental game. Therefore, term limits are necessary because newer judges can have a different point of view, mental health will be reduced, and the majority of Americans support term limits.

The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications. Appointing the judges on the other hand would only benefit that particular party affiliation. The outcome of judges being appointed would ultimately bring more harm than good. The plus for appointments would

What is actually happening is allowing Supreme Court justices to serve for life. An article stated that “by making new appointments less frequent, longer tenure has diminished the abilities of presidents and senators to provide the only form of democratic accountability that is consistent with judicial independence,” (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). William Douglas, who has set record for Supreme Court tenure (almost 37 years) who has cast the deciding vote, along with Hugo Black who retired at the age of 85 and Thurgood Marshall who retired at the age of 83. “ I’m getting old and falling apart,” Marshall said on his last day (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). That’s why it is better to bring fresh perspectives, and especially those people who understand the

The jury system originated in England hundreds of years ago. The colonists brought the jury system from England to the United States. In 1733, John Zenger, a printer, printed a newspaper critical for the British Government. His attorney convinced the jury to be in favor for Zenger because his criticisms were true. After this trial, it gave ordinary citizens the freedom of speech and the power to go against the king. The Founding Fathers wanted the people of the United States to be in a democracy or self-government and established the jury system into the constitution. It is expensive and is a long process to start a jury trial. Also, jurors are not as professional as judges and can not determine a fair verdict. The Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) effect might also affect the verdict of the jury. The American jury system should not be used because of it not being cost-effective, the lack of experience of the jury, which leads to justice not being served, and the CSI effect impacting the

The Judicial Branch is so small. It doesn’t have as many parts to it as the Executive and Legislative Branches. They also don’t do as much as the other branches, because while the Legislative Branch creates Laws and the Executive Branch controls most of the federal organizations the Judicial Branch just hears different cases that appeal through the lower courts. One Example of this is in document B where is says,” The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the

Our establishing fathers added to the technique, the detachment of forces, to forestall misuse of power among the three branches and to ensure the opportunity of all. Every branch has its particular force- executive power belongs to the president, authoritative force exists within Congress, and the legal authority rests with the Supreme Court. The significance of the partition of powers was to make an administration that would not become domineering. Rather, it was deliberately intended to advance freedom and equitably speak to the will of the individuals. Another significant highlight of the division of forces is the guideline of giving each of the branches an extraordinarily diverse voting public. Today in the United States, many people ask

I find myself writing you asking for guidance within the walls of the 12th Justice System.

Like the Electoral College, several of the plans made by the Founding Fathers have lost some of their practicality. What worked in the past does not always work in the future, and this is the case for the jury system. The sole reason it was created was to ensure that each citizen was guaranteed a fair trial, which was a main concern due to Britain’s monarchy. In modern times, however, the judicial branch of the United States could easily give every citizen a fair trial with only a judge presiding over the case. It is clear that bench trials are superior to trials by jury because the citizens on juries are unqualified or biased, its benefits do not outweigh its burdens, and its claim to encourage civic duty is false.

In the state of Texas there are two courts of final appeal. The highest court for civil matters is the nine member Texas Supreme Court. The nine member Texas Court Criminal Appeals is for criminal matters. The number and variety of courts are confusing to the average citizen. The judges in these courts have only general qualifications who need not be lawyers and these judges are selected in a partisan election, which is a general election where the candidates are nominated by the political parties and their respective party labels appear on the ballot. The one thing that I would change about the judicial branch would be the way county judges and justice of the peace are selected. Since they are selected in partisan election this plays a big factor in their qualifications. This form of electing a judge is the same as a popularity race. The judges that are being nominated by a certain party will contribute more for their campaign and it is easy for special interest groups to spend more money to influence the courts to elect their nominee. If we get away with partisan election and just have the judges run in an election to it would lead to less scandal and favoring one party over the other, as one party might decide one way than the other in a court case

The criminal justice system faces multiple accusations for not standing up to the “innocent until proven guilty” standards. While the legal system has fought to keep this statement true, the challenges still exist. One of these is a proper trial that is both unbiased and without error. The setting for a proper trial includes an impartial jury selection to follow the proper procedures of the courtroom. Selection of the jury is an important task and serving on a jury is considered by the United States as the civic duty of the community.

Jerry Kang’s Ted Talk and his article “Implicit Bias in the Courtroom” link implicit and explicit bias to attitudes and behaviors. Implicit bias was the primary focus for both, and in his study he was able to measure implicit bases and how if effects behavior by using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). He argues that implicit bias seems to predict to some degree our attitudes and behavior towards other people. In his article, he explains two situation, criminal and civil employment, cases within a courtroom where bias leading up to sentencing, plea deals, hiring, and verdict are all impacted by the implicit bias of the judge and the jury. To begin his argument he demonstrates how police encounters, charging and plea deals, trials, and sentencing are all affected by implicit bias. Police encounters are affected by implicit bias because the associations

Lastly, the downside of elections is the fear that judges would vote with reelection in mind instead of the law. The elevation to an almost celebrity status is a lot of pressure. There are many expectations and people to please, including campaign contributors. This may cause a judge to render a decision based on obligation instead of holding true to their beliefs. This pressure is not easily felt as intensely by appointed judges, especially those with lengthy terms.

This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial.

Furthermore, another disadvantage of the doctrine of the judicial precedents is injustice. The harsh rules of judicial precedents might create injustice in individual cases. Indeed, law is created basing itself on past experiences, but we should take into consideration that we are unable to build more experiences if the first case is binding. The doctrine of the judicial precedents restricts the development of the law. Since we live in a dynamic world and things are always changing, it is quite of a disadvantage to stick with a law on the experience of yesterday. Lord Denning (Maduka 2010 cited Denning 1979), the most famous English lawyer of the 20th century known as the ‘people’s judge’ argued