Should Prosecutors Become Judges?

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I know it's fairly common, but should it be? If you've spent some number of years advocating for the Government, can you effectively become as neutral as a Judge should be?

Gov. Newsom appoints Contra Costa prosecutor who handled deputy's fatal shooting trial to the bench

Mercury News on MSN.com|32 minutes ago
Just three weeks after she helped secure a six-year prison term for a now former Contra Costa deputy convicted of assault in a fatal shooting, longtime prosecutor Colleen Gleason has been made a superior court judge.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Ultimately it's based on record. There is no reason why a prosecutor can't make an effective and fair judge any more or less than a defense attorney.

 

[ivwshane]

I’m ready for people who aren’t in the legal industry to be Supreme Court judges. How about some good old fashioned logical thinkers who possess the power of foresight.

 

[BoomerD]

I’m ready for people who aren’t in the legal industry to be Supreme Court judges. How about some good old fashioned logical thinkers who possess the power of foresight.

yeah, it's kind of funny that there are technically no qualifications to be a federal judge...or Supreme Court justice.

 

[zinfamous]

Why not? Just remove all this nonsense about electing DAs and judges at any level.

 

[K1052]

Sure. At the same time people who have been public defenders should also be elevated to the judiciary.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure. At the same time people who have been public defenders should also be elevated to the judiciary.

Exactly. Nothing wrong with a prosecutor becoming a judge. What IS problematic is the ratio at which prosecutors become judges vs. defense attorneys.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I would prefer Judges be free thinkers, unbiased, impartial. educated in law as mediators or arbitrators. Maybe law professors or educators. Less interested in those who were advocates for one side unless they have near equal time as an advocate for the other side.

And I believe Judges should be elected rather than appointed.

 

[fskimospy]

I would prefer Judges be free thinkers, unbiased, impartial. educated in law as mediators or arbitrators. Maybe law professors or educators. Less interested in those who were advocates for one side unless they have near equal time as an advocate for the other side.

And I believe Judges should be elected rather than appointed.

That would mean the judges overseeing criminal cases wouldn't have experience in criminal cases. Seems like a bad idea.

Also the idea that law professors are unbiased is... uhmm... not true.

 

[hal2kilo]

I’m ready for people who aren’t in the legal industry to be Supreme Court judges. How about some good old fashioned logical thinkers who possess the power of foresight.

I'm sure that feels good, but no.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

How is this even a question when judges can be elected? You might be looking in the wrong place for your judicial concerns.

 

[Sunburn74]

And I believe Judges should be elected rather than appointed.

This seems like a terrible idea.
The reality is you need judges to select other judges and have a system where it's relatively easy for other judges to recall judges. You don't want the public recalling people because the public is full of idiots as we know. You want other judges who know the ins and outs of the field to be able to say "you know, that guy over there isnt right and needs to get pulled". I'm advocating for something like a medical board which most states have. Medical boards can swiftly end a doctor's career if there is sufficient evidence of questionable activity. Maybe we should have some major judge organization that reviews complaints about judges and makes sure everything is on the up and up. For example there should be someone who can look at the justice Thomas situation and his ethical violations and could do something but currently there really isn't.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I’m ready for people who aren’t in the legal industry to be Supreme Court judges in political positions at all. How about some good old fashioned logical thinkers who possess the power of foresight.

- There.

Law needs to look at all sides of life if its expected to govern life.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm sure that feels good, but no.

Why?

 

[hal2kilo]

Why?

I think all the range of actual members of the Bar lawyers should be considered. I see a lot of law professors are used for interviews on TV, although I usually agree with most of what they say, many have no practical experience. Just the way I see it.

 

[ivwshane]

I think all the range of actual members of the Bar lawyers should be considered. I see a lot of law professors are used for interviews on TV, although I usually agree with most of what they say, many have no practical experience. Just the way I see it.

Yeah but why only lawyers? Do they possess some super power of judgement that only they have compared to other people? Why not teachers? Doctors? Veterans?

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah but why only lawyers? Do they possess some super power of judgement that only they have compared to other people? Why not teachers? Doctors? Veterans?

Maybe I'm just prejudiced. My grandfather who I loved dearly was a lawyer. My ex father in law was also a lawyer.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Yeah but why only lawyers? Do they possess some super power of judgement that only they have compared to other people? Why not teachers? Doctors? Veterans?

There's tons of nuance and case history to legal rulings, given how our system is supposed to build upon precedent most of the time.

That being said, I think non-lawyers would be more likely to offer "spirit of the law" interpretations and applications, which are usually more practical than the explicit letter of the law itself.

So I could certainly see a non-lawyer being beneficial on the bench

 

[imported_tajmahal]

How is this even a question when judges can be elected? You might be looking in the wrong place for your judicial concerns.

Good God.

State-by-State Summary of Judicial Selection – Courts

courts.uslegal.com

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

That being said, I think non-lawyers would be more likely to offer "spirit of the law" interpretations and applications, which are usually more practical than the explicit letter of the law itself.

An extremely simplified example ....

The letter of the law says you must come to a complete stop at a stop sign. People have been found responsible if there is video that wheels did not stop turning.

The spirit/intent of the law is to keep vehicles from colliding.

If you slow, exercise due caution to make sure no traffic is approaching but roll the intersection, you have complied with the spirit/intent of the law, but not the letter of the law.

If I were on the bench, I would clear any and all such drivers.

 

[Fenixgoon]

An extremely simplified example ....

The letter of the law says you must come to a complete stop at a stop sign. People have been found responsible if there is video that wheels did not stop turning.

The spirit/intent of the law is to keep vehicles from colliding.

If you slow, exercise due caution to make sure no traffic is approaching but roll the intersection, you have complied with the spirit/intent of the law, but not the letter of the law.

If I were on the bench, I would clear any and all such drivers.

Right, but let's flip that around on say... OSHA regulations, where the law is intentionally open-ended to give OSHA flexibility to regulate workplace hazards as necessary, as opposed to requiring that the law clearly enumerate each specific hazard it intends OSHA to regulate in the first place.
Because what constitutes an airborne hazard changes with time and our understanding of health effects on the human body

 

[MtnMan]

Why not? Just remove all this nonsense about electing DAs and judges at any level.

So you don't see the problem with someone like Trump appointing judges? What could possibly go wrong?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Our legal system -- our law -- has origins going back a couple thousand years. Property rights or property law derives from Roman law. After that, our law is based on British common law. Law libraries are filled with tomes that discuss just about every case that was ever argued if such cases established important precedents. Precedent is a feature that cannot easily be erased.

Most lawyers had to attend law school to acquire their expertise, yet one only needs to pass the bar exam as a basis for practicing law. While there are some examples of lawyers who had studied for the bar on their own, I seriously doubt that such accomplishments are nothing less than exceptions and generally not the rule.

So I simply cannot understand how one would advocate that judges should be non-lawyers. It would be similar to preferring that brain surgeons only require experience as veterinarians -- or for that matter -- dog-catchers.

 

[ivwshane]

Our legal system -- our law -- has origins going back a couple thousand years. Property rights or property law derives from Roman law. After that, our law is based on British common law. Law libraries are filled with tomes that discuss just about every case that was ever argued if such cases established important precedents. Precedent is a feature that cannot easily be erased.

Most lawyers had to attend law school to acquire their expertise, yet one only needs to pass the bar exam as a basis for practicing law. While there are some examples of lawyers who had studied for the bar on their own, I seriously doubt that such accomplishments are nothing less than exceptions and generally not the rule.

So I simply cannot understand how one would advocate that judges should be non-lawyers. It would be similar to preferring that brain surgeons only require experience as veterinarians -- or for that matter -- dog-catchers.

Then you’ve completely ignored the rulings and logic used by current Supreme Court justices and their frequent violation of precedent.
These “brain surgeons” not only keep botching the surgery, they actually seem intent on killing the patient despite being “experts”.