Judges should be appointed - not elected

[shadows]

Judges should not be allows to sit on the bench who have been trained as lawyers because of their mind set by the law professor in the  classes.  It should be the duty of the lawyers to explain a layman who sits in judgment of other laymen.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

Judges should not be allows to sit on the bench who have been trained as lawyers because of their mind set by the law professor in the  classes.  It should be the duty of the lawyers to explain a layman who sits in judgment of other laymen.

Sounds good in theory but it would never work in the real world. There is a lot of case law and legal principles that go into presiding over a case. If you put a layman in there, both sides are going to have to argue every minuscule point. Trials would take about seventy times as long.

[rwarn17588]

Also, it is the duty of a judge to decide what is lawful evidence and to ensure proper procedures during a trial.

If you had a layman presiding, every case would be appealled. That's no way to run a judicial system.

[shadows]

Case law should never prevail over the citizen rights of the intent of the founders in the adoption of the English law.  Although in the beginning it was incorporated as a starting point to establish a judicial system that was acceptable in the formation of the states.   I believe the backward country of China, with its thousands of years of knowledge,  requires 3 judges in their courts but 2 must be laymen.  

Under our system it has been suggested that juries be made up of lawyers because the common citizen does not have access the judges chambers where most cases are tried before going into the courtroom.

If therefore the judge is well versed in the law and the case findings; what is the need for the lawyer to explain them to him?

Under the English law the king appointed the judges so let the president appoint our judges for life.

Do you think that will fly?        

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

Case law should never prevail over the citizen rights...

It doesn't.

quote:...of the intent of the founders in the adoption of the English law.

Well, in the first place, I'm not into ancestor worship so the only "intent" of the "founding fathers" that I give a rat's donkey about is their obvious intent that the law be allowed to evolve (within the framework of the Constitution) along with society.

quote:
Although in the beginning it was incorporated as a starting point to establish a judicial system that was acceptable in the formation of the states.

It goes back a lot further than that. It wasn't, as you claim a "starting point." It was patterned after the English judicial system that relies COMPLETELY on case law. (The UK doesn't have a constitution.)

quote:
I believe the backward country of China, with its thousands of years of knowledge,  requires 3 judges in their courts but 2 must be laymen.

They also execute people for criticizing the government (i.e. the COURTS). Ya really think we should follow their lead?

quote:
Under our system it has been suggested that juries be made up of lawyers because the common citizen does not have access the judges chambers where most cases are tried before going into the courtroom.

I get the impression you don't have a real deep understanding of the judicial system. Cases are not tried in the judges' chambers. How ridiculous. They're tried in open court. Ya know WHY? Because the people that make the only important decision HEAR the case in open court.

quote:
If therefore the judge is well versed in the law and the case findings; what is the need for the lawyer to explain them to him?

Oh oh. It's worse than I thought. Lemme explain something to you. The lawyers don't EXPLAIN ANYTHING to the judge. They make a point and try to support it while the other side tries to refute it. Now if you have lay people hearing the cases, it won't be the most complex points of a case that are heard and argued. It will be EVERY last little DETAIL. An average  case of simple burglary charge would take approximately 170 years to try. Ya think we've got backlog NOW? The entire judicial system would come to a screeching halt while every little detail was argued.

quote:
Under the English law the king appointed the judges so let the president appoint our judges for life.

Uhhhhhhh...with the advice and consent of the Senate, the president DOES appoint federal judges for life.

quote:
Do you think that will fly?        

Do I think what will fly? The president appointing judges for life? Yeah, I'd say it's been flying pretty well for a couple of centuries.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by snopes

Conan, I'm reading The Innocent Man by Grisham. An excellent read and I'm about halfway through the book. The corruption of the legal system in Ada is not only mind-boggling, but the ineptness of some of the lawyers for the defense as well. My opinion thus far is that I hope that Peterson (the DA) gets his a__S handed to him on a silver platter by the attention this book should bring. I can't believe that he is still in office after all of this. I'm actually considering writing him a letter condemning his sorry butt and the rest of the people involved. Like I said, I have relatives in Ada and some of them actually know this clown. I called one of them Wednesday night and they said he is really worried about the attention this book will bring.

These are comments from other members of the congregation at the church he attends. CHURCH! What does he go there for? To wash the filth off after a week of God knows what?

The detectives and DA down there oughta go to prison for about 20 years and see how the shoe fits on the other foot.

I absolutely HATE corruption at any level and the crap that took place down there literally takes the cake.

My mother gave me Dennis Fritz's book for my birthday over the weekend.  I'm anxious to start reading it, though I'm already reading two other books.  I might just have to read this first and get back to the others afterwards []

The lead investigator in that case died on June 30 this year, just a few days after giving testimony in the Glen Gore case.  I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during that trial.  Oh, and one of the reasons Glen Gore got re-tried was (if I understood this right) because the jury was not told that two other men had already been "convicted" of raping and murdering Debbie Carter.

[snopes]

I finished "The Innocent Man" over the Thanksgiving holiday. Great read and I highly recommend the book. Conan, you mentioned Dennis Fritz's book, what book is that?

[Conan71]

Snopes, it's "Journey Toward Justice", it's being cross-marketed along with "Dreams of Ada" (1987 book about the Ward and Fontenot case) and "The Innocent Man".

They've got a special on Amazon right now for the first two titles I mentioned:

http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Toward-Justice-Dennis-Fritz/dp/1931643954

I had stocked up on about six new books the week before Thanksgiving and I got about five more books over the weekend for my birthday, so I think I might wait awhile to buy "Dreams of Ada".

[snopes]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Snopes, it's "Journey Toward Justice", it's being cross-marketed along with "Dreams of Ada" (1987 book about the Ward and Fontenot case) and "The Innocent Man".

They've got a special on Amazon right now for the first two titles I mentioned:

http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Toward-Justice-Dennis-Fritz/dp/1931643954

I had stocked up on about six new books the week before Thanksgiving and I got about five more books over the weekend for my birthday, so I think I might wait awhile to buy "Dreams of Ada".

Thanks Conan I'll check those out!

[shadows]

Your point is well made when you state "within the frame work of the constitution" where as for personal purposes our constitution has been rewritten on latex rubber so it can be stretched to cover personal items.  
The point is well made as English case law established can be quoted in the courts of USA even today.

Our constitution written on latex rubber can be stretched even to cover personal items of our rulers.
 
This law of the land was patterned from the laws of Athens's,  Rome, The Church, and England by a group of people including laymen, selected by the states, with instructions not to surrender the state rights.   The promise that the states could withdraw from the union was the cause of the civil war.

The authors placed it in the corner of the building for some three years before adding the people bill of rights because Franklin ( a copper smith) had said "I smell a rat and went home in the beginning.  After the ten amendments were added the state reprehensive submitted it to their state governments.   It was not until Justice Cardozo in his opinion rules that by assorption the constitution applies to all states (1937) that was a complete takeover of the states rights if need to be.  

China may execute critics but in the USA we have evolved to where we will not only execute men, women and children as well as governments at will in undeclared wars.

The Justice of Peace courts were neighborhood courts, designed for laymen and were accessible to the common citizen but we were reaching a million lawyers licensed or one half of the worlds license lawyers so we voted to elinaminate this peoples court and turn all justice over to the lawyers.   The saying was a court of "find for the Plaintiff"

Yes it is worse than the laymen without recourse can think as he builds a fire under the mythical bird to reduce it to ashes and thinks the Phoenix will rise again from the ashes.

[Trams]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

 . . . . . . The saying was a court of "find for the Plaintiff"


Yes it is worse than the laymen without recourse can think as he builds a fire under the mythical bird to reduce it to ashes and thinks the Phoenix will rise again from the ashes.

I'm pretty sure you have not adequately explained your point of view.  For us readers, your point is surely difficult to understand, as you weave between English law and the rising Phoenix.  

Judicial appointment is probably a good procedure.  If you are a litigant, I assure you that you want an impartial arbiter presiding over your case.  You don't want a judge who has a political allegience to a particular point of view or to certain political parties or certain politicians.  I am not so naive as to believe that personal views and predilections do not affect appointed judge's decisions ... but the potential is much less likely, and the appearance of impropriety is diminished.

Lawyers, however much disdained, have an important role to play in that system.  They are advocates within this adversary system -- a system that believes that disputes are best resolved (and "truth" sometimes elicited) when opposing parties advocate their legal and factual position before a neutral arbiter.  In the case of legal questions, that arbiter is a judge.  In the case of factual questions, that arbiter is a jury.  

Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.

Alas, this is getting too theoretical.    

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by Trams


Alas, this is getting too theoretical.    

I thought you summed it up in pretty real world terms.

[shadows]

We are entering into the computer age.   At ones fingertips are thousands of findings of past judges.   In the computer is the knowledge of a thousand lawyers and judges ready for instant recall in printed form.  If we are to use the past decisions of pass finding then they can be fed in this monster and get almost an instant decision and percentages of such findings.  The kitten has grown into a lion to where it roars when some want to put a chain around its neck to let the human element have a place in their justice.  We are having a hard time in separating democracy from dictatorship as we force on others doctorial powers in the name of justice.    We have increase the life span by machines but we have not been able to expand the mental capacity of the human brain by adding memory cards.  The time will come soon where local courts with local elected judges will be the cry of the citizen as they look at the corruption that political patriotism produces in appointing judges.

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

We are entering into the computer age.   At ones fingertips are thousands of findings of past judges.   In the computer is the knowledge of a thousand lawyers and judges ready for instant recall in printed form.  If we are to use the past decisions of pass finding then they can be fed in this monster and get almost an instant decision and percentages of such findings.  The kitten has grown into a lion to where it roars when some want to put a chain around its neck to let the human element have a place in their justice.  We are having a hard time in separating democracy from dictatorship as we force on others doctorial powers in the name of justice.    We have increase the life span by machines but we have not been able to expand the mental capacity of the human brain by adding memory cards.  The time will come soon where local courts with local elected judges will be the cry of the citizen as they look at the corruption that political patriotism produces in appointing judges.

By that logic, we could appoint lay doctors too, couldn't we? Ya get sick, go to the quasi-doctor and he just enters your symptoms into the computer and prescribes whatever the computer recommends.

Or is that what you meant by "doctorial powers"? []

[rwarn17588]

Shadows, I sort of know what you're getting at (scary, I know) -- with the Internet, we have access to tons of information. If nothing else, you can assist your lawyer by citing case law from the Internet.

That does not mean I advocate citizen lawyering -- not by a long shot. Being an attorney is essentially a trade, not unlike a plumber, electrician, or carpenter. In all these vocations, you get some schooling (vo-ed or law school), then have an apprenticeship before they turn you out in the real world.

With the Internet, I suppose I could look up enough informantion to replace the water pipes under my kitchen sink. But since I'm inexperienced, the likelihood I'll screw something up is pretty high. That's why you call an experienced tradesman to do it for you.

A citizen acting as his own attorney is so fraught with peril I can't see anyone who's in his right mind would do it. I see no point in clogging up the courts with citizen-lawyers who are learning on the fly and making court cases proceed at a snail's pace.

If a lawyer is accused of a crime, you know what happens? He calls another lawyer. You know why? Because another lawyer who has some distance from the case can think of angles that the accused lawyer may have overlooked.