Judges and Magistrates in Criminal Justice

Judges: Appointed v. Elected 

In many states in the United States, citizens decide the fate of judicial candidates, through elections, from the local level up to their state supreme courts. Once their fate has been determined, the elected judicial candidates are required to address matters with significant implications for democracy and economy. Some of the cases that can fall under the jurisdiction of state courts in the United States include tort cases, contract disputes and zoning regulation. In the United States, most judges are elected, and this provides too much opportunity for influence and conflicts of interest. With the stakes, this high, are elections the rights way to guarantee that the judicial candidates elected can decide cases objectively, insulated from political pressure? In my opinion, judges should be independent and should not have to run for elections. 

There are numerous cases which questioned the process of either electing or appointing judges. A notable example is the case of Caperton v. Massey. This is the case that drew the issues of whether judges should be elected or appointed. Currently, in the United States, state judges are elected while the U.S. President appoints federal judges. This issue has led to debates, but it clear that there are myriads disadvantage related to the process of election. 

Judges rightfully deserve praise for the service they provide to the public as well as for their commitment to the pursuit of justice. However, the application of direct democracy to the court system can result in some degree of majority rule in the courts (Gustitis, 2013). This is not a good thing in the court system because judicial rulings must not be influenced by public opinion. The laws enacted that call for judicial election put judges in real blind. This is because it makes them raise contributions and seek approval from voters. This can lead to campaigns and interest groups engaging in mudslinging, which can, in turn, lead to the election of a judge who weighs decisions on a political balance. Additionally, sometimes, judges are elected based purely on their party affiliation, and this encourages political advocacy (Gustitis, 2013). 

To safeguard neutrality on the bench and ensure unbiased and fair rulings in our courts, states should move from electing to appointing judges. This is because the appointment process makes sure that biasness or political pressures do not affect the selection of judicial candidates. Judicial candidates should be appointed through nonpartisan commissions that select judges based on merit as this is more feasible than electing judges. There are some countries which appoint judges. For instance, in Australia, judges are appointed by the Governor-General in Council after Cabinet makes the decision on judicial candidates to be appointed (Spry, 2000). 

However, the committee selected to appoint judges may be affected by graft as some judicial candidates or political figures may try to bribe the committee to act in their favour. Therefore, measures should be put in place to prevent this Act from happening and disciplining committee member that will be involved in graft. The government should indulge in the process of establishing a new committee that will help against graft and corruption. To add to this, the jurisdiction and authority of the commission should be clearly defined. 

Judges, the Constitution, and Judicial Misconduct 

The judicial system is very complicated, and judges often commit follies when carrying out their duties. Judges sometimes intentionally violate the constitution. Judicial misconduct comes in many forms, which may include improper demeanour, conflict of interest, and failure to execute judicial duties properly and in a timely fashion (Sachar, N.d). Judicial conduct outside of the courtroom can also be at issue. However, in the United States, the appellate process addresses such cases of judicial misconduct, but it is not the only process that is used to discipline judges who commit judicial misconduct both in courtrooms and outside courtrooms. 

The “Judicial Council Reform and Judicial Conduct Disability Act of 1980" allows individuals to submit a complaint regarding judicial misconduct (Hellman, 2007). If an individual believes a judge has violated the constitution or a judge has committed misconduct, the individual should file a Judicial Conduct against the judge (United States Courts, 2016). The complaint should then be submitted to the appropriate court office, which then is considered by the chief justice of the circuit where you filed the complaint. The chief judge will then take action and dismiss or conclude the complaint. However, the Act is not sufficient to bring about punitive measures against judges who commit misconduct. In order to ensure that judges who commit judicial misconduct are punished, the legislation should enact laws that let people file complaints against federal judges who decide the cases of judicial misconduct. 

Putting Political and Financial Pressures on Judges 

If justice is to remain impartial, judges must be independent of popular opinion and political and financial pressure. Judges must be averted from getting influenced financially and politically in order to ensure that the judiciary functions properly. Judicial elections are more susceptible to political and financial pressures. Judges tend to be cognizant of the way political winds are blowing, and these political pressures do a disservice. Therefore, judges should not be put in political and financial pressures. If judges are independent of political and financial pressure, justice will remain impartial. 

Pertaining to Re-election, should Judges be held to a Higher Standard than other Candidates for any Political Office? 

In the traditional sense, Judicial candidates should be held to a higher standard than other candidates for any political office. Political candidates are expected to represent the interests of their citizens or the people they serve. They are expected to be partisan as well as favour a political party and certain interests groups. In order to qualify for election in the vacant positions in political office, voters expect political candidates to declare their positions on controversial public policy issues. Judges should not do any of these things since they represent the law and constituents. Judges should not base their decisions on popular opinion or special interest. In other words, judges are required to base their decisions on the informed and good faith of the law and the constitution. Because of the unique role judges play and what is expected of them, Judges should be held to higher standards than other candidates for any public office. 

Conclusion 

Judges should be appointed by committees and not elected. Since the appointing committee is susceptible to graft, stringent measures should be adopted to deal with graft among the appointment committee, and the appointment process can be more effective than the election process. Moreover, some many policies and acts have been implemented to address judicial misconduct. Lastly, pertaining to re-election, judges should be held to a higher standard than other candidates for any public office. 

References 

Gustitis, S. (2013). Judges: Appointed v. Elected. [Online]. Retrieved from: https://www.gustitislaw.com/judges-appointed-v-elected/ . Accessed 4 th September 2019. 

Hellman, A. (2007). Judges judging judges: The federal judicial misconduct statutes and the Breyer committee report. The Justice System Journal, Vol. 28 (3); 426-435. 

Sachar, D. (N.d). Judicial misconduct and public confidence in the rule of law. [Online]. Retrieved from: https://www.unodc.org/dohadeclaration/en/news/2019/08/judicial-misconduct-and-public-confidence-in-the-rule-of-law.html . Accessed 4 th September 2019. 

Spry, M. (2000). Executive and high court appointment. [Online]. Retrieved from: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0001/01RP07 . Accessed 4 th September 2019. 

United States Courts. (2016). FAQs: Filling a judicial conduct or disability complain against a federal judge. [Online]. Retrieved from: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-conduct-disability/faqs-filing-judicial-conduct-or-disability-complaint . Accessed 4 th September 2019.