09-25-2006, 11:32 PM
Hi
I read today an article in the New York Times that discussed some serious problems with elected justices of the peace and the ways in which they can and do behave in settling criminal cases.
The article is here for those who are registered (or are willing to register) with the NYT.
This got me wondering:
If I understand my history, the practice of electing judges in the U.S. of A. arose from a general anathema of the cronyism that marked British rule and a desire for the people to make their own choices as to who would best represent them. It may also have reflected a lack of actual legal training among the population in an expanding society, to boot. But I am wondering if that is a useful thing in today's world.
Canada certainly had the same starting position, wherein judges were selected by the ruling elite and were doubtless chosen for their 'attitude' as much as, if not more than, their legal expertise. Today, that has evolved into a process wherein applicants for the job must pass a variety of hurdles and then be short-listed by a judicial appointments advisory committee before they can be appointed by the Attorney General. In other words, there is a process that ensures that judges do have competence in the law before they can hear criminal cases, something that the general electorate is not qualified to assess.
South of the border, has the process evolved at all? Is this a case where the passage of time and a more complex world has made the process an anachronism? Or am I missing some elements of the equation?
I read today an article in the New York Times that discussed some serious problems with elected justices of the peace and the ways in which they can and do behave in settling criminal cases.
The article is here for those who are registered (or are willing to register) with the NYT.
This got me wondering:
If I understand my history, the practice of electing judges in the U.S. of A. arose from a general anathema of the cronyism that marked British rule and a desire for the people to make their own choices as to who would best represent them. It may also have reflected a lack of actual legal training among the population in an expanding society, to boot. But I am wondering if that is a useful thing in today's world.
Canada certainly had the same starting position, wherein judges were selected by the ruling elite and were doubtless chosen for their 'attitude' as much as, if not more than, their legal expertise. Today, that has evolved into a process wherein applicants for the job must pass a variety of hurdles and then be short-listed by a judicial appointments advisory committee before they can be appointed by the Attorney General. In other words, there is a process that ensures that judges do have competence in the law before they can hear criminal cases, something that the general electorate is not qualified to assess.
South of the border, has the process evolved at all? Is this a case where the passage of time and a more complex world has made the process an anachronism? Or am I missing some elements of the equation?
And you may call it righteousness
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.
From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.
From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake