Definitely not. If you look at the damage done to justice in the USA anywhere you elect judges, you have campaigns in some places based on who would be the "toughest' on crime, without any consideration of the real impacts of decisions, or any regard for rehabilitation. Elected judges = mob rule. Might as well just hand over defendants to an angry mob and save the cost of trials.
We have a system where judges are appointed by the politicians. In the case of the supreme court they are chosen by the PM.
I recall in a recent campaign that Liberals feared that Harper (should he become PM at that time) could appoint judges that would trample on the rights of women and minorities etc.
Now, my personal view is that these Libs were full of it. They didn't believe what they said but were nonetheless afraid of losing power.
Not a single Liberal at that time challenged their party's position on such a frightening prospect.
Can any Liberal today believe that the status quo is acceptable?
This stunning hypocrisy is one of the reasons (and far from the biggest one) that the Libs are a third party. They lost credibility with such nonsense.
My bigger beef is that in a system where judges are appointed the lawyers that aspire to be judges must "grease the wheel". They must join a political party, and join the right one, then they must schmooze with the right candidates to get on the list.
Being a judge should not be a popularity contest. Criticize the current process all you want; if electable, the schmoozing will only get worse. Way worse.
To affect judges' rulings, change the law, not the judges.
5 comments:
Definitely not. If you look at the damage done to justice in the USA anywhere you elect judges, you have campaigns in some places based on who would be the "toughest' on crime, without any consideration of the real impacts of decisions, or any regard for rehabilitation. Elected judges = mob rule. Might as well just hand over defendants to an angry mob and save the cost of trials.
As opposed to the alternative?
We have a system where judges are appointed by the politicians. In the case of the supreme court they are chosen by the PM.
I recall in a recent campaign that Liberals feared that Harper (should he become PM at that time) could appoint judges that would trample on the rights of women and minorities etc.
Now, my personal view is that these Libs were full of it. They didn't believe what they said but were nonetheless afraid of losing power.
Not a single Liberal at that time challenged their party's position on such a frightening prospect.
Can any Liberal today believe that the status quo is acceptable?
This stunning hypocrisy is one of the reasons (and far from the biggest one) that the Libs are a third party. They lost credibility with such nonsense.
My bigger beef is that in a system where judges are appointed the lawyers that aspire to be judges must "grease the wheel". They must join a political party, and join the right one, then they must schmooze with the right candidates to get on the list.
The stats don't lie.
It's a risk for sure. As for Liberal judges I doubt we'll see too many of them for a while!!!
Being a judge should not be a popularity contest. Criticize the current process all you want; if electable, the schmoozing will only get worse. Way worse.
To affect judges' rulings, change the law, not the judges.
Judges no, the judiciary is/should be based on the prinicple of neutrality. Prosecutors are a different story. Wouldn't mind seeing them elected
Post a Comment