Should DAs and judges be elected?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. The Duke rape case is a classic example of why not.

[Joe Republic]

Hell no.  The point of the judiciary is that it is supposed to be set above the changing winds of the populace.  Not only that, judges are also supposed to be non-ideological (in the political philosophical sense, not the legal one o/c), and certainly non-partisan.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

NO

[Gabu]

No.  The idea of a judge having to worry about public opinion, and worse, being a member of a political party, is a very strange one to me.

[TheresNoMoney]

No.

[??????????]

Hell no.  The point of the judiciary is that it is supposed to be set above the changing winds of the populace.  Not only that, judges are also supposed to be non-ideological (in the political philosophical sense, not the legal one o/c), and certainly non-partisan.

^^^^^

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

NO!

[freedomburns]

Damn, I'm the only one who voted yes?!

Well, I had decided to post that I wasn't really sure that this was a good idea.  Maybe for certain Municipal and Commissioner positions it could work well. 

I guess it just seems like a good idea to me.  I haven't really thought about it.  For judges more than DA's, I think it might work. 

fb

[Nym90]

DAs should, and usually are. Yes, there are negatives to this to be sure, but overall I trust the people to make the decision about how they want the DA to do his job. To the extent that people elect bad DAs, I think the solution is to educate the voters and make the case in the next election for why they should be voted out rather than to take the power away from the people.

As for judges, it depends. I think that electing local judges is a good idea; higher level positions should probably be appointed. In other words, basically the system we have now, though some tweaks may well be appropriate.

[Nym90]

Hell no.  The point of the judiciary is that it is supposed to be set above the changing winds of the populace.  Not only that, judges are also supposed to be non-ideological (in the political philosophical sense, not the legal one o/c), and certainly non-partisan.

True, but what is supposed to happen, or what the point of the judiciary is, in this case has (or would have, as the case may be) little relation to reality unfortunately. Judges are idelogical and partisan, and will be regardless of whether they are elected or not, and trying to pretend they're not won't make it so, sadly.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I was unaware that DAs are elected.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

DAs should, and usually are. Yes, there are negatives to this to be sure, but overall I trust the people to make the decision about how they want the DA to do his job. To the extent that people elect bad DAs, I think the solution is to educate the voters and make the case in the next election for why they should be voted out rather than to take the power away from the people.

What about the Duke case? The guy kept pursuing the case despite all the massive holes in it because it was a high profile one that made him look tough and he was up for reelection in November. It worked, he won, and now people are calling for his head. If he didn't have an election upcoming, that probably wouldn't have happened.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I was unaware that DAs are elected.

In some states they are.

I don't believe they are in MI then.

[Nym90]

DAs should, and usually are. Yes, there are negatives to this to be sure, but overall I trust the people to make the decision about how they want the DA to do his job. To the extent that people elect bad DAs, I think the solution is to educate the voters and make the case in the next election for why they should be voted out rather than to take the power away from the people.

What about the Duke case? The guy kept pursuing the case despite all the massive holes in it because it was a high profile one that made him look tough and he was up for reelection in November. It worked, he won, and now people are calling for his head. If he didn't have an election upcoming, that probably wouldn't have happened.

Good example.  Nifong pursued the case for racial and class reasons -- his constituents wanted him to go after rich white boys, and guilt or innocence was pretty much beside the point.

Very true, and I offer no defense for him, but I would point out (as you often do) that people largely get the government they deserve on a local level, and I don't think that DAs would focus less on political concerns necessarily if they weren't elected. They'd simply have to answer to their superiors instead, who would probably put similar (or even sometimes worse) demands and pressure on them.

[GMantis]

Yes, because this encourages them to work for the interests of the people and it also works against corruption.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, because this encourages them to work for the interests of the people and it also works against corruption.

That didn't work in the Duke rape case.

[Emsworth]

I personally do not feel that whether judges are elected or appointed makes too much difference. The length of the judge's term is much more important. Of course, it would be extremely difficult for an elected judge to be impartial and independent if he had to run for re-election every so often. But the same applies to an appointed judge, if he were forced to regularly seek reappointment from the governor.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I generally don't trust the people with anything. I'd go one step farther and make it so that public opinion/votes don't really count for anything.

[MasterJedi]

No

[GMantis]

Yes, because this encourages them to work for the interests of the people and it also works against corruption.

That didn't work in the Duke rape case.

Well, it is even worse if they're appointed.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Yes, absolutely.  I am somewhat biased though, as my uncle is an elected DA in Michigan   I know him to be completely fair and impartial and he was elected as a Republican in a county that went for Kerry in '04.

Of course it is a terrible thing for a DA to decide to prosecute (or not prosecute) someone due solely to public opinion.  That being said, is it not also a terrible thing for a DA to decide to prosecute (or not prosecute) someone due solely to the will of the body or individual who appointed them?

You cannot legislate impartiality.  This is why that, when we have the choice to elect, we must take these offices very seriously and look beyond partisanship or ideology.

Here in Shelby County, a county that went 57% for Kerry, we have a Republican DA.  Yes, he is a known partisan.  He chaired the local Bush/Cheney '04 campaign, helped Bob Corker, and is very active in local Republican activities.  He was re-elected with 62% of the vote, winning even staunchly Democratic precincts, because he is known to be completely fair and just in his job and leaves his politics at the door.

The moral of the story:  If you live in a Democratic county, elect a Republican DA

[Tetro Kornbluth]

They should be elected by members of their own profession, but not by the general public.

[Joe Republic]

I was unaware that DAs are elected.

In some states they are.

I don't believe they are in MI then.

...my uncle is an elected DA in Michigan

I guess that clears things up.

[J. J.]

I'm going to say, yes, at some level.

If we don't elect them, who does?  Do we let the bar association become self perpetuating?