Perhaps I need a series, though I've mentioned plenty before. Here we are, then -
Things I Find Strange and Foreign No. 1 - the extent to which the legal and judicial system in this country is intertwined with the political system. We see it in the fuss over confirmation of Supreme Court judges, but it goes down to the level of state politics too. In Colorado, there is some kind of a merit-based selection that goes on, but the electorate can vote to retain or remove judges at certain intervals. It happens during general elections like this upcoming one - in fact, there are so many things happening at once in this election that I wonder how many people really understand enough about the issues to make informed decisions. The ballot papers must be thick booklets. I wonder if they give you a seat in the polling booth? It seems you'd be there quite a while.
Anyway, as far as I can see, some judicial commission makes recommendations on the retention of judges in Colorado, and then the public votes on it. I've seen signs up in yards pressing for the removal of a couple of them recently, and I faintly remember reading why at some point, but I've forgotten. In essence, I don't think it's a bad idea to be able to get rid of poorly performing judges (as also to be able to get rid of ineffectual university professors, though the tenure system here prevents that happening at the senior levels), but wonder how qualified the general public is to make such decisions, and how far they can make the decisions based on competence in the courtroom rather than on some perception of political leaning. Wouldn't those working within the system be somewhat better placed to make a fair judgement?
What I find stranger, though, is the way that the legal profession seems often a springboard into politics. Our current Governor, Bill Ritter (Democrat), was District Attorney for Denver before he became governor. Ken Buck, our Republican nominee for the senate, is DA for Weld County, Colorado. Over in New York State, the Democratic candidate for governor is Andrew Cuomo, the Attorney General. Now, I am somewhat hazy on the way that Procurators Fiscal are appointed in Scotland, Attorneys General appointed in England, and where U.K. judges spring from, but it seems to me that the political link is at least much weaker. It would alarm me to be in a court room knowing that the person prosecuting me or the person judging me might be using my case simply to shore up their political credentials for some future election.
Which brings me to Things I Find Strange and Foreign No. 2 - sentencing in U.S. courts, where people seem to get wildly different sentences depending on state and on individual judge, and where sentences of "190 years," "320 years" or some such figure seem quite common. It's impossible! Why have sentences that are longer than the possible life of the criminal? What sense does that make? Shouldn't they be forced to keep the rotting bodies in a cell for the duration of the sentence?
Things I Find Strange and Foreign No. 1 - the extent to which the legal and judicial system in this country is intertwined with the political system. We see it in the fuss over confirmation of Supreme Court judges, but it goes down to the level of state politics too. In Colorado, there is some kind of a merit-based selection that goes on, but the electorate can vote to retain or remove judges at certain intervals. It happens during general elections like this upcoming one - in fact, there are so many things happening at once in this election that I wonder how many people really understand enough about the issues to make informed decisions. The ballot papers must be thick booklets. I wonder if they give you a seat in the polling booth? It seems you'd be there quite a while.
Anyway, as far as I can see, some judicial commission makes recommendations on the retention of judges in Colorado, and then the public votes on it. I've seen signs up in yards pressing for the removal of a couple of them recently, and I faintly remember reading why at some point, but I've forgotten. In essence, I don't think it's a bad idea to be able to get rid of poorly performing judges (as also to be able to get rid of ineffectual university professors, though the tenure system here prevents that happening at the senior levels), but wonder how qualified the general public is to make such decisions, and how far they can make the decisions based on competence in the courtroom rather than on some perception of political leaning. Wouldn't those working within the system be somewhat better placed to make a fair judgement?
What I find stranger, though, is the way that the legal profession seems often a springboard into politics. Our current Governor, Bill Ritter (Democrat), was District Attorney for Denver before he became governor. Ken Buck, our Republican nominee for the senate, is DA for Weld County, Colorado. Over in New York State, the Democratic candidate for governor is Andrew Cuomo, the Attorney General. Now, I am somewhat hazy on the way that Procurators Fiscal are appointed in Scotland, Attorneys General appointed in England, and where U.K. judges spring from, but it seems to me that the political link is at least much weaker. It would alarm me to be in a court room knowing that the person prosecuting me or the person judging me might be using my case simply to shore up their political credentials for some future election.
Which brings me to Things I Find Strange and Foreign No. 2 - sentencing in U.S. courts, where people seem to get wildly different sentences depending on state and on individual judge, and where sentences of "190 years," "320 years" or some such figure seem quite common. It's impossible! Why have sentences that are longer than the possible life of the criminal? What sense does that make? Shouldn't they be forced to keep the rotting bodies in a cell for the duration of the sentence?
