7 ms·

Which raises a follow-up question: Why on Earth do Americans elect judges and prosecutors?

by rahidz 7y ago

rndgermandude 7y ago
Exactly. And they also elect sheriffs.
wil421 7y ago
Not all judges are elected, some are appointed. Same with prosecutors, it’s usually only the top one that’s elected. It gives you an opportunity to select the type of community you want to live in. Some elections are partisan and some non-partisan. If you’re in an liberal county you have the option to select a liberal candidate and vice versa. I doubt a very liberal or conservative community would want to be stuck with someone with opposing views.
- Beldin 7y ago
  > It [elections] gives you an opportunity to select the type of community you want to live in. I'm curious: how does that work out in practice? Do folks in the USA typically live in the type of communities they'd like to live in?
  - wil421 7y ago
    I’d like to think so but it’s a gradual shift. The county I live and grew up in was very conservative 10+ years ago, lately it’s been more liberal (but not as liberal at the state level). If you would’ve told me in the early 2000s the county would vote Democrat in the 2016 elections I wouldn’t have believed you. People have told me they want to move out of my county because it’s becoming too liberal, whether they actually do it or not is up for debate. Mostly cranky old people, family included. The West has historically been a tough of crime (old Wild West) place. Here’s an interesting Sheriff from Phoenix, Arizona. Joe Arpaio[1]. His tough on crime and immigration stance that made his career was also his down fall. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
- consp 7y ago
  The point that a partisan attitude matters in a legal system is horrific to me. Laws should not be interpreted in personal bias, especially not by a, supposedly, impartial arbiter. While true that almost anyone will have some bias, it should (in my view) never be considered in the entirety of the system let alone as a starting point for the highest judge. > I doubt a very liberal or conservative community would want to be stuck with someone with opposing views. A conservative with a liberal judge would want the judge to be impartial to their view on politics.
  - wil421 7y ago
    Would you rather the laws and justice be determined by Religious views? Like they are in ultra-conservative Middle East or Europe in the not too distant past? Or determined by a monarch with absolute authority? You’re being naive if you think politics don’t shape laws or justice.
    - sobani 7y ago
      What makes you think you'd be allowed to elect your judges in a country with a monarch with absolute authority or that you would be allowed to elect a gay judge in a ultra-conservative country? As for politics in justice, I'd like to think serious questions would be asked in my country if it came to light judges let their political believes affect their decisions.
- dmurray 7y ago
  Wouldn't that happen just as much with appointed judges? You vote for a liberal/conservative councillor or mayor or state rep or governor, they appoint a judge who has suitable views, but who may not be charismatic enough to win an election.
  - wil421 7y ago
    I wish I knew enough about appointments to provide an insightful comment.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
A sheriff/judge/prosecutor who has to enough of what the local populace wants to see to get reelected may very well serve the interest of justice better than a sheriff/judge/prosecutor who is beholden to organizational politics and political politics of the bureaucracy above them. This is very important in rural counties in states that are controlled by a couple urban areas and urban counties in states where more rural politics dominate state government because it allows them to have outcomes that are more just as the inhabitants of the county see it, even if they may seem less just from the perspective of the hypothetical average person in the state. Direct election of these officials basically provides a minority protection for counties that are in the minority in their state. Make no mistake, both local voters and state bureaucracy are more than capable of incentivizing non-just outcomes but putting that power with the local voters is more consistent with American values which generally prefer to have the most local level of government that can do something be the level of government that does the thing. TL;DR if you take the view that justice is relative to the wishes of the local community then having these officials elected by the local community makes perfect sense.
Clubber 7y ago
Electing judges was considered a reform. It also varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Obviously Supreme Court justices are appointed.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  The appointment of supreme court justices in the United States looks to outsiders as though political operators do their best to stack the deck in their favor in case they ever need a get-out-of-jail-free card.
  - Clubber 7y ago
    I can see that, sure. Which is better, electing or appointing judges? It doesn't seem clear cut to me that there is a good answer with those options. As an aside, in the US, in some jurisdictions including federal, being a lawyer isn't a requirement for judgeship. https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/federal-judge/ https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/federal-judge/
  - zeveb 7y ago
    I don't think it's that — it's that the Supreme Court has become the unchallengeable super-legislature, and thus both sides of any issue desperately want to get their guys onto the court, so that they can get the laws they wish to pass. It's a weird sort of legislature, though. It doesn't have the ability to originate laws itself: third parties have to propose laws to it. And those proposals have to be in the form of arguments that the actual laws passed by the legislative branch are unconstitutional. Once a party has managed to phrase his proposed law in that fashion, though, the Supreme Court is practically capable of passing any law, repealing any law, revoking any provision of the Constitution and amending the Constitution in any way it wants. It's an odd system.
  - mlindner 7y ago
    That didn't use to be the case. In the last few years the supreme court appointment system has become way more political than it ever used to be. I'd argue it means that there is becoming more and more disagreement in the general public on what laws even mean. This causes politics to be inserted into the legal system because the "meaning of laws" itself has become politicized. Why this change has happened is a good question.
dylan604 7y ago
It's an attempt to avoid cronyism or an inherited/bequeathed type of situation. If the public doesn't like how the judge/prosecutor or any gov't position is working out, then they get the chance to replace them. For the people, by the people. Lobbying/special interest has pretty much ruined that though.

Which raises a follow-up question: Why on Earth do Americans elect judges and prosecutors?

by rahidz 7y ago

Which raises a follow-up question: Why on Earth do Americans elect judges and prosecutors?

rndgermandude 7y ago

Exactly. And they also elect sheriffs.

wil421 7y ago

Not all judges are elected, some are appointed. Same with prosecutors, it’s usually only the top one that’s elected. It gives you an opportunity to select the type of community you want to live in. Some elections are partisan and some non-partisan. If you’re in an liberal county you have the option to select a liberal candidate and vice versa. I doubt a very liberal or conservative community would want to be stuck with someone with opposing views.

Beldin 7y ago
> It [elections] gives you an opportunity to select the type of community you want to live in. I'm curious: how does that work out in practice? Do folks in the USA typically live in the type of communities they'd like to live in?
- wil421 7y ago
  I’d like to think so but it’s a gradual shift. The county I live and grew up in was very conservative 10+ years ago, lately it’s been more liberal (but not as liberal at the state level). If you would’ve told me in the early 2000s the county would vote Democrat in the 2016 elections I wouldn’t have believed you. People have told me they want to move out of my county because it’s becoming too liberal, whether they actually do it or not is up for debate. Mostly cranky old people, family included. The West has historically been a tough of crime (old Wild West) place. Here’s an interesting Sheriff from Phoenix, Arizona. Joe Arpaio[1]. His tough on crime and immigration stance that made his career was also his down fall. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
consp 7y ago
The point that a partisan attitude matters in a legal system is horrific to me. Laws should not be interpreted in personal bias, especially not by a, supposedly, impartial arbiter. While true that almost anyone will have some bias, it should (in my view) never be considered in the entirety of the system let alone as a starting point for the highest judge. > I doubt a very liberal or conservative community would want to be stuck with someone with opposing views. A conservative with a liberal judge would want the judge to be impartial to their view on politics.
- wil421 7y ago
  Would you rather the laws and justice be determined by Religious views? Like they are in ultra-conservative Middle East or Europe in the not too distant past? Or determined by a monarch with absolute authority? You’re being naive if you think politics don’t shape laws or justice.
  - sobani 7y ago
    What makes you think you'd be allowed to elect your judges in a country with a monarch with absolute authority or that you would be allowed to elect a gay judge in a ultra-conservative country? As for politics in justice, I'd like to think serious questions would be asked in my country if it came to light judges let their political believes affect their decisions.
dmurray 7y ago
Wouldn't that happen just as much with appointed judges? You vote for a liberal/conservative councillor or mayor or state rep or governor, they appoint a judge who has suitable views, but who may not be charismatic enough to win an election.
- wil421 7y ago
  I wish I knew enough about appointments to provide an insightful comment.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

A sheriff/judge/prosecutor who has to enough of what the local populace wants to see to get reelected may very well serve the interest of justice better than a sheriff/judge/prosecutor who is beholden to organizational politics and political politics of the bureaucracy above them. This is very important in rural counties in states that are controlled by a couple urban areas and urban counties in states where more rural politics dominate state government because it allows them to have outcomes that are more just as the inhabitants of the county see it, even if they may seem less just from the perspective of the hypothetical average person in the state. Direct election of these officials basically provides a minority protection for counties that are in the minority in their state. Make no mistake, both local voters and state bureaucracy are more than capable of incentivizing non-just outcomes but putting that power with the local voters is more consistent with American values which generally prefer to have the most local level of government that can do something be the level of government that does the thing. TL;DR if you take the view that justice is relative to the wishes of the local community then having these officials elected by the local community makes perfect sense.

Clubber 7y ago

Electing judges was considered a reform. It also varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Obviously Supreme Court justices are appointed.

jacquesm 7y ago
The appointment of supreme court justices in the United States looks to outsiders as though political operators do their best to stack the deck in their favor in case they ever need a get-out-of-jail-free card.
- Clubber 7y ago
  I can see that, sure. Which is better, electing or appointing judges? It doesn't seem clear cut to me that there is a good answer with those options. As an aside, in the US, in some jurisdictions including federal, being a lawyer isn't a requirement for judgeship. https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/federal-judge/ https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/federal-judge/
- zeveb 7y ago
  I don't think it's that — it's that the Supreme Court has become the unchallengeable super-legislature, and thus both sides of any issue desperately want to get their guys onto the court, so that they can get the laws they wish to pass. It's a weird sort of legislature, though. It doesn't have the ability to originate laws itself: third parties have to propose laws to it. And those proposals have to be in the form of arguments that the actual laws passed by the legislative branch are unconstitutional. Once a party has managed to phrase his proposed law in that fashion, though, the Supreme Court is practically capable of passing any law, repealing any law, revoking any provision of the Constitution and amending the Constitution in any way it wants. It's an odd system.
- mlindner 7y ago
  That didn't use to be the case. In the last few years the supreme court appointment system has become way more political than it ever used to be. I'd argue it means that there is becoming more and more disagreement in the general public on what laws even mean. This causes politics to be inserted into the legal system because the "meaning of laws" itself has become politicized. Why this change has happened is a good question.

dylan604 7y ago

It's an attempt to avoid cronyism or an inherited/bequeathed type of situation. If the public doesn't like how the judge/prosecutor or any gov't position is working out, then they get the chance to replace them. For the people, by the people. Lobbying/special interest has pretty much ruined that though.