Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 121 posts

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#61

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

lisper wrote: post #50
pbourke wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This conversation is a perfect illustration of the difference between a significant part of US culture and that of many other western nations. As a Canadian, even after living in the US for over a decade, I find your comment baffling. For better or worse, the law is a complex subject both in jurisprudence and process. If judges can be significantly less knowledgeable than the attorneys that appear before them then ho…

Look, I don't disagree with you. I agree that electing judges is stupid. Nonetheless, for better or worse, this is the result of democracy. Note that you could apply the exact same principle to argue that legislators should be lawyers. After all, if you're not trained in the law, how can you possibly write a law? Or understand the many subtle ramifications of the law that someone else wrote that you're voting on? And…

How are you jumping from judges not having legal training, to Jim Crow literacy tests?

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#63

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

pbourke wrote: post #42
lisper wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law Yes, that's what democracy is, for better or worse: the power of the state is ultimately vested in the people, regardless of training, background, gender, skin color, etc. etc. Restricting power to those who are trained in law, or any other narrowly defined group, is called oligarchy. It generally has good…

This conversation is a perfect illustration of the difference between a significant part of US culture and that of many other western nations. As a Canadian, even after living in the US for over a decade, I find your comment baffling. For better or worse, the law is a complex subject both in jurisprudence and process. If judges can be significantly less knowledgeable than the attorneys that appear before them then ho…

This is South Carolina, which has never really been a fan of the equal protection that's supposed to be provided by the US Constitution.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#64

Post by Retric »

gizmo686 wrote: post #54
VLM wrote: post #29

Democracy is only supported until it gives the "wrong" results, then deafening outcry for bureaucrats and oligarchs and dictators. As if they give better results than democracy on average, LOL.

All modern democracies are run by bureaucrats and unelected civil servants. At the very top levels, you have elected officials and their political appointees. Those people provide high level leadership and set priorities. However, almost all of the actual work of governance is done by the people below them: the career civil servents.

That’s the expectation, but outsourcing means modern democracy is in large part run by for profit companies. Law enforcement traffic cameras are a great example of this with layers of separation between voting and implementation. More insidious is border agents depending on outsourced software to screen people. In theory government agents are in charge, in practice it’s more nuanced.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#65

Post by sonthonax »

alkonaut wrote: post #47

Are there many places that have elected judges? Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require qualifications”?

Britain’s lower courts are presided by magistrates. There isn’t even an election. It’s a simple interview and a application form.

https://www.gov.uk/become-magistrate/apply-to-be-a-magistrat...

While there are supposedly checks on their powers, abuses though sheer incompetence happen.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#66

Post by Balgair »

erentz wrote: post #56
alkonaut wrote: post #47

Are there many places that have elected judges? Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require qualifications”?

It’s one of the stranger things about the US. Electing not just judges but also coroners and sheriffs and prosecutors.

To be fair, with coroners it's more out of necessity than anything. One of the counties next to mine has few coroners and it's something of a problem, as you can imagine. We recently had a friend die and the coroner's report is still not complete, three weeks later. We still don't know what the cause of death is, and as it's suspected to to be a suicide, it's not been a fun time waiting for the results to come out. An elected coroner could relieve the burden by preforming reports on 'mundane' deaths and leave the more complicated cases to more experienced people. Again, it's not a good solution by any means, but it's a better solution than the one they have currently.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#67

Post by beagle3 »

Balgair wrote: post #66
erentz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s one of the stranger things about the US. Electing not just judges but also coroners and sheriffs and prosecutors.

To be fair, with coroners it's more out of necessity than anything. One of the counties next to mine has few coroners and it's something of a problem, as you can imagine. We recently had a friend die and the coroner's report is still not complete, three weeks later. We still don't know what the cause of death is, and as it's suspected to to be a suicide, it's not been a fun time waiting for the results to come out. A…

But why elected rather than hired? It’s supposed to be a mostly scientific job with no agenda.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#68

Post by chrismeller »

alkonaut wrote: post #47

Are there many places that have elected judges? Why not require law degrees? It’s not like “elected” must mean “can’t require qualifications”?

This also applies to law enforcement. Many small towns have elected sheriff’s (or police captains or whatever they call them locally). How is that right? Sure, maybe they have to convince a county DA that there was a crime for actual prosecution, but the number of areas they could abuse their power before (or completely without) charges is insane.

Look at it from the viewpoint of the Andy Griffith show... the circuit judge only shows up every few months. Do you really want to sit in jail until then, or do you want to take the deal/admit your fault/rat someone else out... whether he’s got enough evidence against you or not, you’re still in jail, losing your job, getting your kids taken from you...

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#69

Post by 01100011 »

This is common in CA too, apparently.

When I was getting a divorce, a lawyer I consulted with gave me the background on the judge handling my case. Apparently she was appointed by the governor to appease a particular voting block and as thanks for her activism work for that group. She knew nothing about family law but was given the job regardless. That situation is apparently quite common in family court since there is a high turnover rate. Judges often have to spend months being taught by the lawyers on the cases they're overseeing.

Having your fate in the hands of these folks is absolutely terrifying.

Re: South Carolina judges often lack formal training in the law

#70

Post by lisper »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #61
lisper wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I don't disagree with you. I agree that electing judges is stupid. Nonetheless, for better or worse, this is the result of democracy. Note that you could apply the exact same principle to argue that legislators should be lawyers. After all, if you're not trained in the law, how can you possibly write a law? Or understand the many subtle ramifications of the law that someone else wrote that you're voting on? And…

How are you jumping from judges not having legal training, to Jim Crow literacy tests?

Jumping? I'm not jumping, I'm applying the principle that people who have influence over the application of the law should have some training. If judges need special training, why not legislators? And if both judges and legislators need special training, why not citizens? Note that we already do apply this principle to naturalized citizens! It is only people who acquired their citizenship by birth who never need to show any competence at anything in order to vote.

And note well: I am not advocating literacy tests. I am only pointing out the logical consequences of adopting the principle that judges should have special training.

Post reply on HN