Courts , police and legal systems in usa and elsewhere

[jbeardo1]

Hey folks.

This always had me curious.
whats the deal with judges etc and a lot of the legal or judicial setup in the USA being either political appointments or elected positions. Same with police and sherrifs.

Here in ireland it seems theres a slightly more understandable seperation between policing politics and judiciary.

Love to hear thoughts and explainers from different parts of the world

 

[Bray123]

In the UK and most of the developed world it would be impossible to be both a Judge and a member of a political party. In the UK it is illegal for a cop to be a member of a political party or even to display a political sign on their lawn. It would be illegal for any politician to accept a bribe whether or not it could be proved what the quid pro quo was.

The US is a rare example of a country where political bribes are expected and nobody expects their politicians to do anything without plenty of cash incoming. And then the politicians have the cheek to criticize places like Afghan where there is a very strong ethos of honor and keeping your word no matter what the consequences.

 

[jaF0]

Sheriffs are elected. Police Chiefs/Commissioners generally are not, though there are exceptions.

The concept is that an elected office holder is supposed to be selected by the people to serve the people and subject to removal each term. Sometimes that happens. Too often though, the incumbent becomes entrenched in office though favoritism and cronyism, if not outright corruption.

I would normally say that the answer is term limits. But even that can be played. In the county I live now, the Sheriff and County Executive used to be under Term Limits They traded offices for quite some time. Sheriff would serve two years, then run for Exec, while the Exec did just the opposite. At some point Term Limits were abolished.


I practice my own version. I never vote for anyone (even if I know them personally) that is in their second term.

 

[jbeardo1]

I get ga.

Here it is similar to the UK. With the whole seperation of politics and judges.

It se a bit risky to me to leave stuff like law etc. In a voting system where there are really only red or blue as options. It would definiteky encourage the kind of entrenchment and back scratching that poitical affiliations and appointments could create

Is there appetite for change in the system in the usa or are there too many vested interests at this stage

 

[Comshaw]

I get ga.

Here it is similar to the UK. With the whole seperation of politics and judges.

It se a bit risky to me to leave stuff like law etc. In a voting system where there are really only red or blue as options. It would definiteky encourage the kind of entrenchment and back scratching that poitical affiliations and appointments could create

Is there appetite for change in the system in the usa or are there too many vested interests at this stage

There are inherent problems with both systems. Even though every elected judge position in the U.S. is nonpartisan everyone knows they lean politically one way or the other. So the election of judges can be fraught with corruption. "Can be" being the operative term. While I believe almost all judges follow the law (there are exceptions), an elected judge can also reflect the desires of the people to have that judge adjudicate the law either more or less strictly, per the desire of the people.

But let's look at selection of judges instead of electing them. Who does the selection? Are they completely unbias in their evaluation? I doubt that. So in essence you have a judge selected by a cadre who may (or may not, who knows for sure) have ulterior motives for that selection. To verify that all you have to do is look at the process for selection of the Supreme Court judges here in the states.

Is one better than the other? Not that I can see. Election of judges is problematic, but so is selection. IF selection was done on a basis of adherence to the law, and unbias rulings, selection of judges would be the best way. But I can guarantee that isn't the case and never will be because we are dealing with a flawed and biased bunch of selectors, human beings. One is as good as the other.




Comshaw

 

[jaF0]

This is very rare, but not unheard of.


Georgia appeals judge should be removed from bench, state Supreme Court rules

The Georgia Supreme Court has decided a state appeals judge accused of ethical misconduct should be removed from the bench.

 

[ll74]

What has recently annoyed the fuck out of me is the constant barrage of media coverage specifically around who appointed a judge. Now no judge can make a ruling without being seen through a purely political lens. That should not be the case.