Growing up in Tennessee, the practice of electing low-level judicial positions like prosecutors and local judges always seemed like a bad idea. Incompetent or c

Growing up in Tennessee, the practice of electing low-level judicial positions like prosecutors and local judges always seemed like a bad idea. Incompetent or corrupt judges who apply the law in bad or farcical ways create real harm and grief[0][1]. Appointments don't prevent incompetence or corruption, but at least it uncouples local popularity or a lack of voter knowledge from deciding who ought to have the authority to apply the law. It seems like vetting experienced lawyers who have a real understanding of not only what the law is, but also how it should be applied, as happens in the UK[2] can't help but produce a more legally sound criminal justice system at the very least. But then, I suppose it depends on your priorities. If holding judges accountable to the electorate's sense of justice is a higher priority than holding them accountable to what the law actually is, then this is a fine system. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/12/tennessee-judge-messiah-martin https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/12/tennessee-judg... [1]: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/crime-courts/dcs-campbell-judge-took-children-from-their-homes-without-legal-grounds-2a7cd13e-fd20-604d-e053-0100-367048301.html http://www.knoxnews.com/news/crime-courts/dcs-campbell-judge... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commissi...