3 ms·
I've never understood why USAians decided it's a good idea to elect judges (or sheriffs, or DAs). Nor do I understand why it's considered OK for jurors to talk
by denton-scratch 5y ago
I've never understood why USAians decided it's a good idea to elect judges (or sheriffs, or DAs). Nor do I understand why it's considered OK for jurors to talk to the press after the case. From my perspective, the US judicial/LE system seems like a crapshoot.
- twiddling 5y agoCounty Coroners are elected in many places as well, which is bonkers in my mind
- thehappypm 5y agoWould you rather them be appointed? Who would appoint them?
- denton-scratch 5y agoWell, that's a good question. what seems silly about electing these officials, is that it shouldn't be a popularity contest. It should be a matter of competence, and compliance with rules. What good are laws whose effects depends on the mood of voters or the whims of the enforcer? It's not great to have lawyers appoint other lawyers. You end up with an in-group. But that kind of system does seem to give you law whose effects are fairly predictable, at least. But you have to explain how the topmost lawyers get appointed, the ones who appoint other lawyers. The US Supreme Court seems to be nominated by the Pres, and then confirmed by the Senate, which is full of lawyers. So the USSC seems to be appointed, by their juniors. Hmmm. I wondered how UKSC justices are appointed; it's rather good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom#Appointment_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki... A commission is formed, consisting of the president of the court, another senior judge who is not on the UKSC, and a member of the Judicial Appointments Commission. At least one of them must not be a lawyer. The commission is set up by the Minister of Justice, who apparently can overrule them. The PM and the Queen both have a final veto.