5 ms·

>Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor. Pharmacists are hardly uneduc

>Over the years, their numbers have included construction workers, insurance agents, pharmacists — even an underwear distributor. Pharmacists are hardly uneducated buffoons. And, what are we to make of 'underwear distributor'? Is there a correlation between a business person's judgment and the items they sell? I doubt it. I can guarantee that the blueprints a construction worker uses, the policies an insurance agent sells, and the manuals a pharmacist is versed in are all much more complex than the laws governing the cases that come before these low-level courts.

thawaway1837 7y ago
The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. No matter their expertise I wouldn’t want the construction worker working as my pharmacist without any training. Yet we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law.
- elcaminocomplex 7y ago
  > The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. Sounds a lot like 1/12th of a jury.
  - thawaway1837 7y ago
    Every jury trial has a legally trained (hopefully) judge to assist the jury with the legal aspects of the case. Jury trials also have jury selection processes that allow lawyers from both sides to eliminate any poorly qualified jurors.
    - elcaminocomplex 7y ago
      Judges have minimal training in the procedures of the court. Some are attorneys which gives them more familiarity with law and process, but as far as I know that’s not a requirement. The jury selection process has nothing to do with qualifications of jurors. The prosecutors are primarily trying to eliminate people they think will be sympathetic and the defense is primarily looking to eliminate people they think might biased against their client.
      - thawaway1837 7y ago
        The lack of legal training is exactly the issue at hand. Juror selection isn’t about qualifications. However, it does give both sides an opportunity to eliminate vested or deeply unqualified interests that may be biased against them. With a judge you have no such option.
        slowmovintarget 7y ago
        Except for appeal. If a judge gets overturned enough on appeal, they can rightly be said to be unreliable. Which means, if they're elected to the position, their opponent can site how many times they got overturned as a legitimate reason to think they're bad at their job. All of this functions well... unless the electorate is uneducated or misled, and apathetic. That's the real problem in this case. People are winning popularity contests, because the only thing middle and high school taught most of the electorate was that you should be popular. It isn't true everywhere. Reputation and reputation systems can and do function well. But they require a functional press, and an interested public.
- lisper 7y ago
  > we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law Yes, that's what democracy is, for better or worse: the power of the state is ultimately vested in the people, regardless of training, background, gender, skin color, etc. etc. Restricting power to those who are trained in law, or any other narrowly defined group, is called oligarchy. It generally has good outcomes for the oligarchs and those who are close to them, not so much for everyone else.
  - tomnipotent 7y ago
    > Yes, that's what democracy is No, it's not. It's perfectly reasonable in our democracy to expect judges to be trained in law in order to effectively do their jobs. Might as well let any random of the street be a doctor without training if that wasn't the case. Non-legally trained people still participate through the jury system, and more importantly in the House where laws are created in the first place.
    - lisper 7y ago
      > It's perfectly reasonable in our democracy to expect judges to be trained in law in order to effectively do their jobs. Manifestly not. If it were reasonable to expect this, then the founders would have written it into the Constitution, or the People would have changed the law in order to require it. The former didn't happen, and the latter hasn't happened. It may seem reasonable to you, but the whole point of democracy is that the law is not based on what seems reasonable to one person, only on what seems reasonable to the majority. And in this case, requiring judges be lawyers clearly doesn't seem reasonable to the majority, or things would be different.
      - detaro 7y ago
        No, it does not mean that it seems unreasonable to the majority. Just that it isn't important enough to the majority to effectively influence policy. Laws do not perfectly mirror what the overall population thinks would be best.
      - 7y ago
7952 7y ago
I think the point is rather that they are not lawyers. I have no idea how comparatively complex the law is. But that is hardly a justification for having less training. The potential for harm is the most important factor. That is why you have highly trained engineers or architects (for example). Because mistakes can destroy lives. I think the same should apply to judgeships
danielisaac 7y ago
> ...are all much more complex than the laws governing the cases that come before these low-level courts. The law is hardly a set of statutes. It's comprised of thousands of judicial opinions interpreting the code and articulating specific doctrines. Court made law is especially important in criminal law. It has nothing in common with reading a construction blueprint. It's honestly horrifying that there are people with legal authority that have no training applying the law.
- lurquer 7y ago
  Criminal law is literally a set of statutes. Small claims court (the name varies depending on the state, but we're talking about 'Judge Judy' type courts here) is for the quick resolution of minor disputes. In most states, the formal rules of evidence don't apply. And, in nearly all the states, one can appeal de novo the court's judgment to a 'real' court. My state recently implemented a requirement that these lower court judges have law degrees. The quality of the court ha suffered... instead of a retired businessperson who has an interest in his community, we end up with incompetent lawyers who can't make a living in private practice. Or, worse, some person straight out of lawschool with zero legal or life experience.
  - danielisaac 7y ago
    > Criminal law is literally a set of statutes. Simply untrue in common law countries (e.g. the US). Criminal law is absolutely driven by judicial opinions and statutory interpretation. > In most states, the formal rules of evidence don't apply. This isn't about evidence. It's about interpreting many doctrines that vary wildly between states. A single statute (re: defenses, attempt, conspiracy, the requisite mens rea to hold someone liable) can yield totally different interpretations.
    - lurquer 7y ago
      You are clearly not a lawyer. Stay within your own lane. South Carolina magistrates handle minor criminal cases where the fine can't exceed $350 or 30 days in jail. Their jurisdiction in civil cases extends to matters involving less that $7500. As noted, if you disagree with the judgment, you get a brand new trial before the elected circuit court judge. There are no convoluted legal mysteries involving whether a tenant had paid rent (the majority of cases) or whether someone was speeding. All of the legal defenses and the like you mention can be raised by the litigant; they have every right to have an attorney. It's not the judge's job to defend the accused. The point of these courts is to have a quick way to resolve minor disputes in a forum where the litigant can feel comfortable representing themselves if they wish. If you want a 'real' court, you have every right to one.

thawaway1837 7y ago

The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. No matter their expertise I wouldn’t want the construction worker working as my pharmacist without any training. Yet we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law.

elcaminocomplex 7y ago
> The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. Sounds a lot like 1/12th of a jury.
- thawaway1837 7y ago
  Every jury trial has a legally trained (hopefully) judge to assist the jury with the legal aspects of the case. Jury trials also have jury selection processes that allow lawyers from both sides to eliminate any poorly qualified jurors.
  - elcaminocomplex 7y ago
    Judges have minimal training in the procedures of the court. Some are attorneys which gives them more familiarity with law and process, but as far as I know that’s not a requirement. The jury selection process has nothing to do with qualifications of jurors. The prosecutors are primarily trying to eliminate people they think will be sympathetic and the defense is primarily looking to eliminate people they think might biased against their client.
    - thawaway1837 7y ago
      The lack of legal training is exactly the issue at hand. Juror selection isn’t about qualifications. However, it does give both sides an opportunity to eliminate vested or deeply unqualified interests that may be biased against them. With a judge you have no such option.
      - slowmovintarget 7y ago
        Except for appeal. If a judge gets overturned enough on appeal, they can rightly be said to be unreliable. Which means, if they're elected to the position, their opponent can site how many times they got overturned as a legitimate reason to think they're bad at their job. All of this functions well... unless the electorate is uneducated or misled, and apathetic. That's the real problem in this case. People are winning popularity contests, because the only thing middle and high school taught most of the electorate was that you should be popular. It isn't true everywhere. Reputation and reputation systems can and do function well. But they require a functional press, and an interested public.
lisper 7y ago
> we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law Yes, that's what democracy is, for better or worse: the power of the state is ultimately vested in the people, regardless of training, background, gender, skin color, etc. etc. Restricting power to those who are trained in law, or any other narrowly defined group, is called oligarchy. It generally has good outcomes for the oligarchs and those who are close to them, not so much for everyone else.
- tomnipotent 7y ago
  > Yes, that's what democracy is No, it's not. It's perfectly reasonable in our democracy to expect judges to be trained in law in order to effectively do their jobs. Might as well let any random of the street be a doctor without training if that wasn't the case. Non-legally trained people still participate through the jury system, and more importantly in the House where laws are created in the first place.
  - lisper 7y ago
    > It's perfectly reasonable in our democracy to expect judges to be trained in law in order to effectively do their jobs. Manifestly not. If it were reasonable to expect this, then the founders would have written it into the Constitution, or the People would have changed the law in order to require it. The former didn't happen, and the latter hasn't happened. It may seem reasonable to you, but the whole point of democracy is that the law is not based on what seems reasonable to one person, only on what seems reasonable to the majority. And in this case, requiring judges be lawyers clearly doesn't seem reasonable to the majority, or things would be different.
    - detaro 7y ago
      No, it does not mean that it seems unreasonable to the majority. Just that it isn't important enough to the majority to effectively influence policy. Laws do not perfectly mirror what the overall population thinks would be best.
    - 7y ago

7952 7y ago

I think the point is rather that they are not lawyers. I have no idea how comparatively complex the law is. But that is hardly a justification for having less training. The potential for harm is the most important factor. That is why you have highly trained engineers or architects (for example). Because mistakes can destroy lives. I think the same should apply to judgeships

danielisaac 7y ago

> ...are all much more complex than the laws governing the cases that come before these low-level courts. The law is hardly a set of statutes. It's comprised of thousands of judicial opinions interpreting the code and articulating specific doctrines. Court made law is especially important in criminal law. It has nothing in common with reading a construction blueprint. It's honestly horrifying that there are people with legal authority that have no training applying the law.

lurquer 7y ago
Criminal law is literally a set of statutes. Small claims court (the name varies depending on the state, but we're talking about 'Judge Judy' type courts here) is for the quick resolution of minor disputes. In most states, the formal rules of evidence don't apply. And, in nearly all the states, one can appeal de novo the court's judgment to a 'real' court. My state recently implemented a requirement that these lower court judges have law degrees. The quality of the court ha suffered... instead of a retired businessperson who has an interest in his community, we end up with incompetent lawyers who can't make a living in private practice. Or, worse, some person straight out of lawschool with zero legal or life experience.
- danielisaac 7y ago
  > Criminal law is literally a set of statutes. Simply untrue in common law countries (e.g. the US). Criminal law is absolutely driven by judicial opinions and statutory interpretation. > In most states, the formal rules of evidence don't apply. This isn't about evidence. It's about interpreting many doctrines that vary wildly between states. A single statute (re: defenses, attempt, conspiracy, the requisite mens rea to hold someone liable) can yield totally different interpretations.
  - lurquer 7y ago
    You are clearly not a lawyer. Stay within your own lane. South Carolina magistrates handle minor criminal cases where the fine can't exceed $350 or 30 days in jail. Their jurisdiction in civil cases extends to matters involving less that $7500. As noted, if you disagree with the judgment, you get a brand new trial before the elected circuit court judge. There are no convoluted legal mysteries involving whether a tenant had paid rent (the majority of cases) or whether someone was speeding. All of the legal defenses and the like you mention can be raised by the litigant; they have every right to have an attorney. It's not the judge's job to defend the accused. The point of these courts is to have a quick way to resolve minor disputes in a forum where the litigant can feel comfortable representing themselves if they wish. If you want a 'real' court, you have every right to one.